Absolutely not. Having two sets of sensors on the car is a good thing because it provides redundancy. If one set of sensors fails to detect say, a person in the middle of the road, the other one will step in and say "hey, brain, there's a person in the middle of the road".

If Uber intentionally disabled the second set of sensors, they were acting recklessly, and they're a danger to the development of the self-driving car industry. This one incident may have set us back years.

Mobileye isn't a "self-driving" system, it's a collision prevention/mitigation system, like airbags or ABS. Leaving it on while a human controls the car hasn't been seen as a disaster.

first of all Mobileye does have a self driving system (their EyeQ4 chips is for Level 3-4 self driving). However Amon was referring to their EyeQ3 chip from 2014 which is installed in 24 million cars and have billions of miles

Tesla’s autopilot runs on MobilEye only AP 2 runs on NVIDIA.

All kinds of technology that’s less half-baked than Uber’s self-driving cars has redundant, decoupled safety systems.

Might be better for Uber’s data collection to turn this off, but you really can’t argue it was safer. I don’t think we should be killing people because that works better for their business needs.

This is a system designed to respond when a human driver has failed to identify the threat, so we've already established that having two systems (one dumb system and one intelligent system) doesn't compromise safety.

Which one, human or automated, is the "dumb" system?

They certainly averted disaster, didn't they.

> Dunno about you, but for me giving two self-driving systems control over the car at same time seems like a recipe for disaster.

When I drive a car, I am a 'self-driving system'. It is intended that I am used in conjunction with the car's existing driving-assist functionality.

Aircraft use multiple flight systems developed by separate teams in separate languages/technologies -- and then compare their answers to get redundant consensus.