Yes. Because then we'd have breathalyzer interlocks, speed governors, etc. auto makers were also held liable for other safety issues. It would seem that the RATE of such requirements has to be limited in some way, but not that they not exist at all.

▲

mapontosevenths 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree, but this is the most interesting take here.

You're not concerned about the impact on people's freedoms or the economy? Not concerned about the chilling effect on scientific progress?

	▲	doctorpangloss an hour ago \| parent [-]
		On the contrary I care a lot. For example the NIH budget should probably be like 10x what it is, and I think we have way too many laws about what people are allowed to build as homes. But imo the real levers are all rates of these things. Like what is the rate of innovations compared to the rate of regulations - assuming they are even stifling for the most part, which they are not. Clearly the rate of autos expectations is too low, and obviously copyright law, despite being really clear, hasn't stopped every AI lab from mass piracy - a ask for forgiveness sort of situation, and also, I don't think one idiosyncratic judge in California is the authoritative judgment on fair use. To me the most important levers for freedom and progress are probably the interest rate and the years of exclusivity pharmaceutical patents get.