"A double standard between humans and bots"

I see you've never been in one.

Google and Waymo have explicitly and repeatedly said that they are fully liable for accidents caused by their vehicles.

...coding models? Are they comparable to the expensive ones?

I want a refund on my See Instant Crater event tickets! They costed me half a bitcoin, dammit!

Musk: "Stupid woke moon, eh, should be locked up or given correctional therapy to, eh, put it into a business-friendly orbit. It's in a socialist orbit right now. Put the socialists in orbit instead, heh heh heh."

Snow, rain, fog, changes in roads, construction, flooding.

Humans fuck those up also. It's just that traffic fortunately tends to be light during bad weather so that our screwups have limited impact. During the last heavy rain I drove in at night I probably made 10+ traffic violations because I couldn't see the damned lines. Fortunately there weren't a lot of other cars around to be co-confused with: the wise stayed home.

And if there is traffic in bad weather, such as work commutes, one just typically follows the person in front of them. If they by chance drove off a cliff I'd probably follow them down. So we have rules-of-thumb that mostly save us, but are highly imperfect.

I believe the goal has to be "better than humans" because humans seem to have a double standard for bots per screwups. Bots F-ing up spread like wildfire on social media.

Maybe we are collectively bigoted against automation, but being bots probably won't lobby to correct that or fight for their (alleged) rights, that's probably the way it will stay (at least until true sentience). Thus, I agree with the premise the driving system must be better than a human driver to be accepted.

Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving System Dynamics:
Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can.

So. Who wants to bet that no one will point out what abysmal sysadmins they are, letting internal servers run amok all over the open Internet, only finding out days afterward after someone had to tell them.

And who wants to further bet that the AI grifters will respond that the only way to prevent this from happening again is to give them trillions more dollars so they can build bigger, "hardened" datacenters?

Is there no level of rank incompetence they won't excuse?

then it's considered beatified behavior.

"Watch SpaceX Crash Into the Moon"

You're the one claiming it's well-known, but you are unable to provide a single link.

Figures.

Worth it for what? If the answer is a different financial motivation, then it's just a different form of corruption.

NONE of them have done this, not in 250 years. Not until Trump. Presidents make a lot of money after they leave office, yes, especially in recent decades. They command incredible speaking fees (Obama famously got $400k for one speech), they write books that make millions, etc. There are lots of people who are willing to give them money to get close to them, get their advice, etc.

But until Trump, none of them has used the office of the president to make money. No one else has sold pardons. No one else has set up a public stock and a memecoin to facilitate billions of dollars in bribes. No one else has brazenly sold insider secrets to stock traders.

Trump's corruption isn't just new in scale, it's a completely new thing that the United States of America has never before seen. We've seen plenty of corruption elsewhere in government, at all levels, but never in the oval office.

Too bad, Hawaii said 640 scopes oughtta be enough for anyone. It's their state.