thanks for the long write up

I disagree with the fact that humans are, and will remain better drivers than AI. We are limited by this biological blob of flesh that constitutes our being, whereas AI is theoretically only limited by the laws of physics. So if well programmed, it can do everything we can do and more, it'll do it faster and more consistently, and it's judgement is never compromised by emotions (eg fear as it's spinning out from an accident).

I feel that there are competing economic forces here between traditional car manufacturers and driverless car manufacturers in terms of lobbying etc. I don't foresee human controlled cars banned anytime soon, although if a driverless car is 10x -100x safer, there are moral and economic incentives to internalize costs of wanting to drive a conventional car, as you are endangering the lives of others by a factor of 10x+.

It is not the novelty that's appealing, but the utility, which is indisputably far more efficient. I don't take the least charitable interpretation of every technological change that comes along, which in my opinion is something one has to do to view them as a genuine threat to one's freedoms. Even if certain technologies encroach on our freedoms, the rational question is whether the freedoms compromised is not offset by concomitant benefits. Here, I'd argue that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.