I think comparing this to human drug trials is an appeal to emotion.
I also think you're saying that bad tests are better than no tests, which I don't agree with. These would be bad tests because they wouldn't constitute the complicated reality of driving, they inherently only summarize the output of such a complex system.
You seem to have confused the concept of bad tests with incomplete tests. Asking to stop the car when pedestrian shaped obstacles appear seems like a bare minimum that we should expect from an AI before letting it drive on real roads. We can't test every driving situation in a lab, but that doesn't mean we can't test some of them.
It would be morally bankrupt to rely entirely on a quantitative test for something that is qualitative, I don't know how much clearer with the previous comment I can get?
You're missing the fact that any time someone takes a drug, they're essentially testing it against their unique body chemistry. The same as self-driving cars in unique situations.
The only difference is the car feedback loop is way better instrumented, and doesn't have to rely on mass statistics to inform recalls.
> Half of all humans who have ever lived, died from mosquito-borne illnes[s], about 5,000,000,000 human lives.
Your math doesn't work.
The current population of the world is between 7 and 8 billion.
If half of all humans who have ever lived were 5 billion, the total number of people who have ever lived would be 10 billion, of which at least 7 billion are still alive.
That leaves less than 5 billion who could possibly have ever died for any reason, much less mosquito-borne illnesses.
“Modern” Homo sapiens (that is, people who were roughly like we are now) first walked the Earth about 50,000 years ago. Since then, more than 108 billion members of our species have ever been born, according to estimates by Population Reference Bureau (PRB).
