[Royce-CMR]

I love your comment because it highlights another complexifier of FSD debates - what was the actual right action?

Yep, pausing signaled to the guy he could run across. However who’s to say he was going to be reasonable and wait? What if he wanted to get hit, or didn’t care? How much influence will those edge cases have on our (human or FSD) norms?

As a society we haven’t answered those questions; it further muddles the FSD debate.

As the tech improves it will be interesting to see how we humans define the rules of engagement.

[kaliqt]

It's very clear to me, let FSD stop the car, that puts all further blame on the guy if he dies or something happens. We should do everything in our power to reasonably and safely prevent it, and letting FSD stop does so, the rest is on everyone else.

[Royce-CMR]

Yep. The key words are: to you. When I have convos about this, a spectrum of views come out.

Other views I’ve heard:

- pausing encourages ad hoc crossing, increasing odds of hurting someone by volume even as odds decrease.

- if you stop you enable carjacking (walk into street, car stops, steal car / hurt the human, profit). I don’t want my car to set my loved ones up to be attacked.

- pausing significantly impacts traffic flow, compressing our already overcrowded roads

- I don’t want the car to stop unless it gets to my destination, there’s a red light, or I tell it to stop. I don’t want behavior I might not understand. I’ll decide if I stop for a human or puppy or cardboard box.

Everyone says human safety first but in practice there’s a spectrum of opinions in practice.

My hope is FSD will force a common viewpoint and setup a future generation with a more unified approach to road safety.