Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likely they will get a gigantic sea of trained deep learning weights that noone understands.
That really isn't going to play well with a judge or jury. I can see the poor programmer up on the stand not being able to say what it meant or how the car made its decisions.
They are amazing logical constructs, but there is a fundamental opaqueness to them that absent sufficient neural network mass to convincingly simulate a human, we can't apply the same methods of formal verification and behavioral inference we could for other more specific machine implementations.
No one can explain just why certain weights work at certain situations and not others. They just do.
Whether someone in the justice system is comfortable effectively legislating from the bench by creating precedent holding companies liable for NN based behavior that there are no hard and fast ways for them to proof test against in the first place is another question however.