It is an absolutely ridiculous view. I really don’t want a shitty company be able to freely test on the streets their shitty technology that can cause the death of innocents. Are you seriously saying that they are free to increase their profits over the lives of people? On what basis is that ethical or moral? Especially when we talk about a company that jumped into an arguably technically inferior solution by having an incentive to develop their “self-driving” based on visual input only. Their competitors at least take it seriously enough and realize that just because humans can manage with a vision-only system (though a goddamn moving one, not static), lidar and other sensors are required on cars, because ML is nowhere near the capacity of even a worm’s brain, let alone what a human has.
You don't buckle people in and yeet them against the wall that is your optimism! Half the bloody challenge of testing is setting up the conditions for actually getting meaningful data!
This won't be a problem when the regulation equates to: "get these death traps off the road, now". Or, "disable your not-intelligent pseudo-self driving now".
I'm not talking about working on the technology, I'm saying if it doesn't work get it off the market.
Its funny how people rightfully criticize the government and laugh at videos of senator grilling the CEOs of Facebook or Google with stupid questions, but then as soon as a company does something that they don't like, they somehow expect those people to get their shit together and sensibly regulate something as nuanced as autopilot?
For technology to get better, it needs to be stress tested - in this case that means accidents and people dying. Which is pretty much on par with development of car technology since its origin. The warnings on autopilot are there. If you don't want to take the risk, don't use it.