The regulators should only test for false negatives, where the car should have stopped, but did not detect the obstacle (false negative), because there, it is a clear threat to safety, and the car company's incentive, while definitely still present, is less pure, as the amount of false negatives is a direct trade off with the quantity of false positives (because it is a treshold: a minimum confidence level from which you decide that there is indeed something in front of the car and you need to break), which make driving more awkward for 99% of drivers
1. Regulators want aggressive breaking but carmakers want smoother driving
2. Manually tuning all the edge cases for cases where the software is uncertain what's happening will lead to fragile monolith black boxes
These kind of tradeoffs were things every self-driving car software developer KNEW they were going to have to deal with - the most extreme being the one where the software has to decide who to kill and who to save:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/technolo...
Please re-write this for clarity.