There was an engineer of sensors for autonomous cars on the radio the other day - very interesting discussion about this accident . Here is the link if anyone wants to listen to it .
https://www.wpr.org/shows/effects-and-ethics-driverless-vehicles
Wow, I stopped listening after a minute. I couldn't stand the improper attitude I thought this guy had, who sort of implies that one would normally think that this death is "devastating" to the industry. But, you guys go ahead.
"Q: (...) What are you thinking about it?"
"Well first of all.. the loss of life is.. a.. it is a.. devastating thing.. and not just to the autonomous vehicle industry, but to everybody.. and ah.. we really need to scrutinize why something like this has happened.. (...)"
This opening statement has elements which is the reverse of what I would expect as a sensible reaction in the aftermath of a traffic death, regardless of it being about new technology. The victim's family would have to come first (unless you don't care about human life), then secondly anyone else having been directly impacted by this traffic death, then well after that would be the autonomous vehicle industry; however this guy seemed to imply that one would be thinking about the car industry by mentioning it first, which I found very odd because doing so is also suggestive, as if being an authority on reacting to things. Also, the very idea of this traffic related death being a 'devastating thing' to "everybody" is another red flag in my brain, which to me seem to be what one would hear from someone being insincere, as if making exaggerations and avoiding responding in a sensible manner. It is ofc entirely possible that the guy is not used to talking, nor, writing, which I find difficult to believe given how this podcast is supposed to be discussing the ethics of driverless vehicles, with someone that is apparently involved professionally with working with things to some degree, and I would have expected more precise statements in this regard. And there are other flags for me: the phrase "we really need to scrutinize" is another type of exaggeration, that doesn't lend well to sensible arguments, which rely on an emotional reaction, but not logic, as the point about this "need"is not explained at all. And then, the phrase "why something like this has happened" seems yet again to be this aversion to making sensible arguments. This might ofc just another dumb north american thing, like when they say "you need to do this" in movies, or variations of such expressions. Such points are not only illogical, because of how the meaning of 'need' seems suspect, when needs tend to be a very personal thing, especially when referred to as a specific thing as such (someone having a need), they would in real life be potentially insulting or intimidating/commanding, because of how such expressions can only be understood as an abbreviation of some longer argument, but which is never made if not made explicitly clear in the same sentence, or immediately after, or specifically referred back to later on. Another contention to the use of "need" in language, is that whenever a point is made about anyone's "need", then if the meaning of a "need" imply there being the very same need for everybody, then that is something imo deeply insincere and offensive in a way, as it dehumanizes people in making the notion of such needs non-personal, as if you had no say in it perhaps, or that a particular 'need' is imparted onto you by others, which again would be unreasonable on the merit of it being non personal in the first place.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
