I never liked this argument. Partly because if you take it to its logical conclusion, any sufficiently successful individual would be paralized - which is an obviously wrong conclusion. The more successful you are, the freer you should be.
The solution is to also look at gains, not just losses. Billionaires can kill people with a tweet, but they can also inspire and, yes, save lives with a tweet.
You can be incredibly successful and not be famous. That's fine.
But if your success includes fame then... I like my social leaders to be nice to their own social group and not kill them very much.
If I save six lives, I can then kill six people?
Maybe. But it's hard not to see the parallel between massive risks taken and massive progress made.
It’s admirable that a company can reach a $200 billion valuation in the USA weeks after the CEO tells the SEC to suck his cock. The issue is with investors who aren’t questioning if that’s a sign of lack of ethics.
I would agree that it doesn’t look like good judgement- but shorts are literally betting against him and his company. It’s not obvious to me where that behavior (crowing against his adversaries) crosses a line into being wrong or evil.
There are roughly 3 billion autopilot miles driven [1] and we'll take your 5 deaths as a given [0]. That's 1.7 deaths per billion miles.
Overall US deaths is around 15 per billion miles driven (in 2000, before Tesla) [2] ... around 8x worse than autopilot. Is autopilot saving lives?
Expecting zero mishaps is not reasonable because all software has bugs and bugs can be reduced with effort while compute power improves with time. Humans on the other hand will not likely improve.
0. citation needed? 1. https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/tesla-autopilot-data-3-billio... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
Human miles include all conditions/situations. Autopilot disengages whenever it is convenient and human handles all harder situations.
How about comparing same type of miles?
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
There are 2 stats that could prove meaningful for this: some average of distance driven between human interventions, and percentage of driving conditions covered. Then compare this to human stats, I'd assume the average human driver might go 10000Km without incident while covering 90% of driving conditions (like everything except extreme weather or road conditions). A self driving car would have to match that.
In other words AP only has 5 deaths because those were the only drivers who left it unsupervised. I'd guess that if every car in the world today would suddenly be driven by a computer we'd see worse numbers than with human drivers one way or another (efficiency, deaths, etc.). Self driving today is great as an assist, with the human still fully in control.
Not only that, but how many times would autopilot have caused a fatal accident if the human driver hadn’t intervened? Tons of YouTube examples would suggest quite a few.