They chose to use a machine, ignoring personal responsibility to control it, killing someone because they bought into marketing hype.

But if you get into an uber and it kills someone that's fine? Why does putting an overworked and easily distracted human in control absolve you of consequences more than putting an occasionally broken ai?

Your assumption that 'AI' can replace a human in this context is wrong. I realize most people have grown up with a relentless anthropomorphization of computers, so I understand why one might make it.

Despite the hype, they don't work, and aren't going to any time soon.

The FPGA link here is an interesting window into why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37552365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33402603

If an auto maker is running a scam by selling features that don't work, doesn't it make more sense to go after the scammers for the deaths their scam lead to?