You seem to have confused the concept of bad tests with incomplete tests. Asking to stop the car when pedestrian shaped obstacles appear seems like a bare minimum that we should expect from an AI before letting it drive on real roads. We can't test every driving situation in a lab, but that doesn't mean we can't test some of them.

If you think it’s an appeal to emotion, make a real argument in that direction, don’t bluntly state the contents of your head and move on. As it stands, you just appear morally bankrupt. I’m strongly inclined to believe that’s the case, and your inability to make a cogent argument makes me wonder about what else you’re lacking.

By the way, you may be misunderstanding “appeal to emotion” as “having emotions” and that’s worrying. I can only hope your attitude is literally pathological, and not just your personality. Either way, please never work near people, or I’m a critical system effecting people.

It would be morally bankrupt to rely entirely on a quantitative test for something that is qualitative, I don't know how much clearer with the previous comment I can get?

We've banned you for repeatedly violating the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You're missing the fact that any time someone takes a drug, they're essentially testing it against their unique body chemistry. The same as self-driving cars in unique situations.

The only difference is the car feedback loop is way better instrumented, and doesn't have to rely on mass statistics to inform recalls.