Moral Crumple Zones discusses how humans are used to absorb liability from automated systems.
With Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths getting traction, it’s time to remind everyone that Tesla’s design choice to disengage self-driving in the instant before impact is intentional to ensure the driver is in control during the moment of impact, even though self-driving disengaged way too late for the human to react.
In my opinion, they’re sacrificing both bystanders and customers to preserve immunity from liability.
I’m too lazy to read this, but the title fits my preconceptions. 👍
I like your comment, it’s honest and accurately describes how a lot of my views are formed.
Low effort but honest Lemmy users unite!
“Analyzing several high-profile accidents involving complex and automated socio-technical systems and the media coverage that surrounded them, I introduce the concept of a moral crumple zone to describe how responsibility for an action may be misattributed to a human actor who had limited control over the behavior of an automated or autonomous system. Just as the crumple zone in a car is designed to absorb the force of impact in a crash, the human in a highly complex and automated system may become simply a component—accidentally or intentionally—that bears the brunt of the moral and legal responsibilities when the overall system malfunctions. While the crumple zone in a car is meant to protect the human driver, the moral crumple zone protects the integrity of the technological system, at the expense of the nearest human operator.”<
Great. Humans taking the fall for technology.
it’s time to remind everyone that Tesla’s design choice to disengage self-driving in the instant before impact is intentional to ensure the driver is in control during the moment of impact
That sounds like not only an admission of fault for the collision on Tesla’s part but also deliberate fraud to me. That shouldn’t protect Tesla from liability; it should increase it.