this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
946 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
3767 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
946
Tesla loses Autopilot wrongful death case in $329 million verdict (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A representative for Tesla sent Ars the following statement: "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial. Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator—which overrode Autopilot—as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver—from day one—admitted and accepted responsibility."

So, you admit that the company’s marketing has continued to lie for the past six years?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world -5 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

I'm kinda torn on this - in principle, not this specific case. If your AI performs on paar with an average human and there is no known flaw at fault, I think you shouldn't be either.

[–] Eranziel@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think that's a bad idea, both legally and ethically. Vehicles cause tens of thousands of deaths - not to mention injuries - per year in North America. You're proposing that a company who can meet that standard is absolved of liability? Meet, not improve.

In that case, you've given these companies license to literally make money off of removing responsibility for those deaths. The driver's not responsible, and neither is the company. That seems pretty terrible to me, and I'm sure to the loved ones of anyone who has been killed in a vehicle collision.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, but you can just set targets and penalize companies for missing them. No. of accidents per year for example. Even assuming autonomous vehicles only ever become as good as the average driver, this already means a substantial improvement over where things are at. For me, that's the point where I'd start to phase out manually operated vehicles. I believe they will ge significantly better than that eventually.

load more comments (4 replies)