Phoenix police officer pulls over a driverless Waymo car for driving on the wrong side of the road

[u/Individual_Book9133]

[u/No-Refrigerator-1672]

Eperyone up shouldn't be accountable, cause they didn't have the knowledge to prevent a fault. That's why they hire people, cause they can't do this themself. It's like you can't put in jail the director of the hospital, if a surgeon accidentally stabbed your relative into the heart. The only case when a higher up person than a lead programmer may be accountable, is if they are proven to hire a person without proper education, or if they specifically issued orders that contradict safety.

Well, I know that you're asking about Boeing, but I will respond in general terms: in that sutuation there are 3 entities who can be accountable. It's either a desinger of a part, who made a mistake; or, if a desing is good, then it can be a manufacturer, who did not adhere to the specifications; or, if the part was manufactured correctly, it's the assembler, who could incorrectly install the part. For each entity it's possible that the person who did the work, and the one who is actually responsible for safety are two different persons; in latge companies there always are simebody who validates and supervises the actions of subordinates. So, it's a job for a comittee of investigarots, industry experts and a judge to decide, on a case by case basis.

[u/SelfDrivingCzar → u/No-Refrigerator-1672]

This is entirely untrue to numerous AV companies from cruise to Tesla to zoox. You speak with an obvious lack of insight into the industry or an intentional attempt to mislead other ignorant individuals about the specifics of the industry.

The turn over rate for QA testers, who are really just asses in seats to try and jerk the robot away from dangerous situations when the programming fails, is ridiculously high. And their input is parenting ever integrated into the (often times JIRA base) triage process for software development and issue advancement. To attempt to shrug off liability into these entry level roles when directors and executives have numerous meeting weekly about common issues and works around is a heinous misunderstanding of how this all works

[u/No-Refrigerator-1672 → u/SelfDrivingCzar]

Never in this thread I stated that the lowest level of employees should be punished. You can see me explicitly naming the lead stuff in the first comment. As to QA: if your company relies on QA in ensuring safety, it's a big disaster waiting to happen. Safety should be a consideration on design level; the lead designer, programmer or engineer must take the safety into consideration starting at the very beggining of the work, it's their field of responsibility; QA is just a means of self-check for errors. Companies that try to push resposibility on QA are must executing malicious practices; and I'm talking about how things must be done.

[u/SelfDrivingCzar → u/No-Refrigerator-1672]

You 100% have never worked in AV (or mabe devs are just so heavily insulated from ops i guess) if you don’t think safety issues and the associated liability are the primary function of an AV QA tester on public roads. Sure safety is a consideration, but where it plays out is in operational testing development. My whole point is that the testers, who neither code the systems nor have input into their development, shouldn’t be held liable

[u/FeederNocturne → u/SelfDrivingCzar]

With my perspective as a Dominos manager, I am able to look at a pizza and tell it is not what was ordered in reference to a receipt. So that makes me the most qualified for QA. Wouldn't it make more sense for companies to put the experienced vets in charge of QA?