>We can’t cut corners just because we want to rush a life-saving product to market.
But there's a huge difference between a self-driving car and a novel drug. These cars are using statistical learning mechanisms -- it is impossible to prove that the car will always function correctly.
>Yes, it could be that autonomous cars will save many more lives than they take. But “the ends justify the means” is a dangerous approach in ethics, capable of justifying any evil as long as the math worked out.
I mean, yeah, "the ends justify the means" is a dangerous approach. This is a strawman: allowing less than perfect algorithms to transport us a little less than safely (though safer than currently) is not an instance of "the ends justify the means." It's an instance of pragmatic rationality in response to a very real and very common danger.
>If torturing innocent people or infringing on other rights can deliver some greater good, we would (or should) be deeply troubled by the choice.
The author is using an analogy between torture or general rights-violations as an argument against driverless technology! How does this seem reasonable?
There's one question I have for the author: what and who's rights are being violated by driverless technology that are not already being violated by human driving?