This is the cost of progress. There will never (ever) be a a major new technological shift that does not kill people. No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you will never stop someone from dying because of some new major technology.

You might, however, kill far more people in the process of delaying progress that could have ultimately culminated in them having been saved.

I don't disagree, in general. Roundup also fed many people. But there are certainly poor choices evident in the above examples that weren't necessary for the progress to be made, but were just disregarded by an organization operating without guardrails. They deserve the pressure to course correct.

Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there.

Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

> Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

That might or might not be wrong, but is certainly a typically European perspective. The U.S. Bill of Rights is full of clauses specifying things like "Congress shall make no law regarding..." freedom of speech, establishments of religion, etc. because of the notion that the government's inability to reliably get it right is indeed a good reason to stop altogether.

The hard part about reality is the opposite is also true. Cancer patients have gatekept access to cutting edge drugs, etc.

I believe your worldview is correct and also incomplete. It’s really fucking hard to come up with general rules that cannot be gamed.

I wasn't attempting to express my entire worldview in a comment. Yes, technology often brings both risk and reward. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize/criticize/discuss those risks.

My perspective is that framing them as “unrecognized risks” is wrongs. We are mostly engineers - what happened to “tradeoffs”?

Most of the issues in my examples above, I think are primarily created by business/marketing, not by engineers making engineering tradeoffs.

e.g FSD is mostly fine as a technology but lives would likely be saved if it were marketed more responsibly