I never said that, nor implied it. I certainly personally think it's worth pursuit. I was pointing out Waymo was being given a bit of a pass there, and want to remind folks that profit incidentive that ignores or downplays human risk is not at all appealing and shouldn't be given a free pass.

If Waymo can drive and "only" kills 1% of the equivalent per human miles driven, it's certainly better right? But given that it's a machine with a company that has a profit motive behind it, it's goals need to be lofty. Why not set the bar at zero human deaths as a goal post and work from there? As soon as you say a single death is acceptable, it changes how everyone approaches it and turns into "well, is a second death acceptable?" and that's going to quickly devolve into "what is an acceptable level of death for our profit margin." To be clear, I'm arguing the answer should always be NONE. The alternative is a slippery slope, so I don't want to give anyone a pass.