there is something fundamentally different between a machine and human. how the brain operates is not well known, so to claim our brain is a neural network made of meat is just a guess.
the truth is, people have a lot of experience with other people. we can usually predict behavior of other drivers on the road, and can even predict pathological behavior or know how to handle it. that is a major point. when machines and software fail, they can fail in big, unpredictable ways. humans fail in fairly predictable ways. none of us have this experience with neural networks or machines.
i barely trust my computer to work on a daily basis, much less a vehicle.
and lastly, when a human is driving, fault is usually clearly and easily assignable. how fault is assigned in the case of machines driving is not clear at all.
The fault hardly matters, the issue is one of safety. Humans are not safe already. Yet you feel entirely fine on the road. Humans are clearly not the same as ANNs but they are a network of neurones and the cognitive ability of a driver is not verified anywhere near frequently enough globally. In the UK post driving test about the only time anyone will check you for ability to drive is when you are declared blind from an eye test. But its not like you need to mandatorily have an eye test regularly, or any other kind of test. Unless you want to dispute a 70 year old human brain is not on average in the same kind of cognitive shape as a 30 year old human brain https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04059.x Yet we have no policies saying over 70s cannot drive, or can only drive in good conditions etc. The verifiability of a driver is not something we have ever demanded before. Even when you could have done plenty for safety when the driver was a person.
i do not feel perfectly safe or fine with humans driving. i hate driving in the area i live because no matter how much i pay attention, it is simply an unsafe environment with the amount of cars, scooters, bicyclists, and pedestrians within the given infrastructure. however, my ability to predict both good and bad behavior in these environments helps a lot. there is no way i see automated vehicles handling city driving in dense urban areas any time soon.
of course safety is important. and i agree that verifying driving ability is well behind where it should be. elderly and inexperienced and inattentive and just plain bad drivers are major problems on the roads.
and fault certainly does matter. aside from legal responsibility, we are emotional beings. there is a difference between getting hit by a drunk driver versus a true accident. that affects people in real ways. as a motorcycle driver, i will be terrified of these automated vehicles. i am already terrified of human drivers, but i can often predict their idiocracy.
no one wants to be killed by a machine, especially one built by wide-eyed engineers.
the truth is, people have a lot of experience with other people. we can usually predict behavior of other drivers on the road, and can even predict pathological behavior or know how to handle it. that is a major point. when machines and software fail, they can fail in big, unpredictable ways. humans fail in fairly predictable ways. none of us have this experience with neural networks or machines.
i barely trust my computer to work on a daily basis, much less a vehicle.
and lastly, when a human is driving, fault is usually clearly and easily assignable. how fault is assigned in the case of machines driving is not clear at all.