> The Garmin Autoland is not equivalent to full self driving?
This has nothing to do with your argument criteria of:
> Do you have an example of something humans did that could kill them that was automated completely that still can kill them, but generally does not anymore?
> Try not to be so condescending, sheesh.
I didn't mean that to be condescending out of turn, but if you are going to engage in an argument by posting a strong disagreement and an opinion:
> I strongly disagree. Most machines are not capable of killing you because it makes a mistake.
You cannot change the criteria for an example that you asked for simply because you don't feel like arguing that the example did or did not meet your criteria, nor can you do so simply because you didn't bother to read it carefully.
So no, I'm not being condescending out of turn, you really needed some correction on that. Sheesh.
My understanding from looking at research is that airplanes by experienced pilots rarely killed people... and they... still don't even when (partially) automated? There doesn't appear to be definitive evidence that autopilot is safer [2] as many of the innovations in safety have been conflated with procedural improvements.
In fact there are studies [1] that suggest autopilot is actually making flights unsafe as pilots are becoming complacent and airplanes do not flight themselves completely from point to point including taxiing.
In other words, no, plane automation is not an example as it does not satisfy the criteria of "generally does not" compared to the baseline of no automation.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872088502700...
[2]https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/...
Try not to be so condescending, sheesh.