Item — HN Reader

I think the legal consequences would by far surpass any of the more practical aspects mentioned here ? Something of value NOT owned (ultimately) by a person of a government ?

What if there is a flaw in the decision software and something goes horribly wrong ? Would not be the first time... The software is written by someone, the decision to use the software was done by someone, etc. Still if really no one else is to blame, then the government is responsible ? So if nobody else then they 'own' it ?

It also means abandoning the risk taking and therefore profit potential / earning power for people.

Challenging.

And once solved why not use the same concept for rental apartments, clothes ?

3 comments

From what I read almost none of the dynamics mentioned require self-ownership... Except for the self ownership part. Most of the dynamics at play could still be in play with a corporate owner. And after laying out the R&D funds, what incentive would a corporation have to layer in the extra self-ownership code instead of just skimming profits and playing a more centralized coordination role?

Although the article talks down the use of AI at face value, my gut reaction to this is; Right, that would be the vehicle's responsibility.

In regards to risk specifically, I would like to believe risk/route evaluation at the least is considered as part of a profit algo for the vehicle itself. Yes, this is a assuming a more abundance of data points available to the vehicles itself — but I'd like to assume infrastructure to streets and safety are being enhanced along side of the vehicle(s) themselves.

And I think for the sake of the thought exercise you have to consider what happens to related markets — specifically in this scenario, risk. If vehicles are no longer being sold to people, neither is auto insurance (at least in today's form).

Car insurance is sold to companies today, which are not natural persons regardless of bizarre laws.

Ultimately companies (the shares) are owned by persons and managed by persons. This is very fundamental to our (Western ?) system. Its nearly impossible to start a company or have a bank account without identifying the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO). Only possible in a very few (questionable) places.

>What if there is a flaw in the decision software and something goes horribly wrong ?

This argument applies to people too and we have ways to deal with it other than people being owned.

Yes we have ways to deal with that: taking their money and/or freedom. Don't forget that revenge is an important element. Taking the 'freedom' of a car (scraping it ?) probably feels less satisfying then putting a man in jail. Especially if, for example, a family member is unnecessary and severely harmed. 'Bad luck' and 'it could happen to anyone' might be sufficient in the past, but nowadays we like to make someone (and not something) responsible. A person to take away his freedom or a big company to get a lot of money. A car has neither.