> AI is not great right now, but it's already way better than humans in several situations.

Every stat that I've seen that comes out with the machines better than the people isn't a like-to-like comparison. Every like-to-like comparison I've seen has the machines still worse than people, so we don't even need to have that argument. Beware the propaganda.

Every stat? Wow. I'd be very interested in reading some of this material if you could link to some.

If you take a shitty driver and compare it to an AI, I doubt the AI will perform worse when it comes to preventing accidents.

Sure, a skilled human driver will likely perform better than this early stage AI, but if even 1% of the bad drivers out there switch to an AI, that's a net positive in my view. Not to mention all the other risky situations involving alcohol, sleep deprivation, etc. where an automated response can save lives.

You didn't address my main point though. Why is a driverless accident worse than a drunk driver?

I don't believe you can claim that humans kill more people than shitty AI since we haven't seen a world in which shitty AI is driving around unassisted. Given that Uber/Waymo/Cruise all have safety drivers working, it's hard to say how many fatalities would have been caused if those safety drivers weren't there since that would require predicting the future at the moment the safety driver disengages the AI.

By “cars kill people” do you mean car defects or human drivers? If former do you have a source for this claim?

I meant cars driven by humans. Edited right after I posted.