No the issue still remains on who's actually responsible? With human drivers we always have someone to take the blame but with robots? Who's at fault when a self driving car kills someone? The passenger? Tesla? Someone has to be sued and it'll be Tesla so even if its 1% of total accidents the legal instructions will be overwhelmed because the issue is 1000% harder to resolve.
Once Tesla starts losing multiple 300M lawsuits the flood gates will be open and the company is absolutely done.
Yeah but also how would this work at full driving scale. If 1,000 cases and 100 are settled for 0.3 billion that's already 30 billion a year, almost a quarter of Tesla's yearly revenue. Then in addition, consider the overhead of insurance fraud etc. It seems like it would be completely legally unsustainable unless we do "human life costs X number of money, next".
I genuinely think we'll be stuck with humans for a long time outside of highly controlled city rides like Wayno where the cars are limited to 40km hour which makes it very difficult to kill anyone either way.
Just in case you see her on a trolley track and mom said it's your turn to control the switch
This is exactly why ipv6 was never widely adopted. There's too much power in a limited IP pool.
Seems like jury verdicts don't set a legal precedent in the US but still often considered to have persuasive impact on future cases.
This kinda makes sense but the articles on this don't make it very clear how impactful this actually is - here crossing fingers for Tesla's down fall. I'd imagine launching robo taxis would be even harder now.
It's funny how this legal bottle neck was the first thing AI driving industry research ran into. Then, we kinda collectively forgot that and now it seems like it actually was as important as we thought it would be. Let's say once robo taxis scale up - there would be thousands of these every year just due sheer scale of driving. How could that ever work outside of places like China?
That's kinda sad, they legit look mentally retarded. Bet there's legitimate correlation between racism and mental disorder.
Nah man I maintain a few decently sized packages on github and refusing support etc is perfectly normal but generally you don't go on this toxic rant and just say "nah man I can't afford to maintain this" which is very well accepted.
Yeah but you also don't get to be upset if someone calls you unpleasant. Both things can be true.
Valid points but the maintainer comes off as deranged.
Mistral's Le Chat search is much better than what's listed here.
Nah 7 year olds should not be using any internet without parental controls either way so the protection is absolutely moot here. Also your "sex" example returns absolutely zero sexual content on google, Bing or duckduckgo images while boob does.
Also tbh I'm not particularly convinced that seeing porn is all that damaging. Doing quick research it seems that there are no proven damages or development impacts and real actual danger of porn is teaching teens and young adults distorted views of sex and gender roles. Seems like kids in your example aren't even capable of such frameworks to begin with.
So despite how nasty it sounds there's no convincing evidence that its even a real danger. In fact, it seems like exposure to violent images like gore and freak accidents thats having real damage.
If you have some oposing evidence I'd gladly take a look but I'm really unconvinced here that googling boob could be in any way detrimental.
One challenge here is that we generally value human life pretty high, well at least speaking from legal compensation pov. So you can't sue Joe the drunk driver for killing your husband for 300 million but you can do thay to Tesla.
In authoritarian states like china maybe society can be forced into accepting "for greater good" sort of mentality but it's not going to happen in the west imo.