Raw LLM Responses

SUPPLEMENTARY: How low would Uber go, to avert blame for this accident, is something that occurs? Is someone at Uber going to try and update the software, or 'manicure' it a little bit, around this exact scenario, to make themselves look better, make their system appear less to blame? The Watergate lesson is never learned: It's not what was done, it's the covering-up that is the worst of it. There are two episodes of popular TV series, where this exact trick is pulled. I think one was 'Law and order' and there is an airplane with software that gets changed AFTER the fact, by the company, to make it appear not to blame. There is a VERY close parallel, however, with NCIS Series 4, Episode 11. Here is the synopsis: 'While testing a robotic driverless SUV, a woman Navy lieutenant becomes trapped inside it, and she dies of carbon-monoxide poisoning; Gibbs and company investigate. McGee suggests murder, Abby has trouble, and the gang find the bad guy.' What actually occurs (spoiler sorry) is that somebody changes the software, to allow an unsafe situation to arise, the perpetrator then creates that self-same situation, killing the software engineer sat in the vehicle. Afterward, they update the software with a 'normal' version. If you think this is unlikely, remember the first thing the Police will see, is these 'logs' everyone is on about. The software running at the time of impact, the operating system, somebody somewhere must be poring over their copy back at Uber HQ now, even as the Volvo test vehicle is impounded, and trying to see what blame might be laid at their door and how to avert it. There is the other extremely common ploy, when it is man versus machine of course - blame human error. Make the lady victim the one at fault. Make the test driver/operator the one at fault. Anybody. Just not the software, OS, or any hardware glitch. Cynical? It's all been done. This is an airline accident, metamorphosed into an RTA. I bet everything can be changed remotely, even the date and time of the last software update. The police will have to keep this thing in a lead-lined box 3 storeys underground, to prevent such shenanigans occurring. It's impossible to conceive that somewhere in Uber or among their software contractors etc, there is not somebody sat right now asking if this could be done, without anyone knowing. They won't be able to help themselves. First one to pull this out of the fire, gets a hefty bonus, that sort of thing. Last, the people saying this woman had the temerity to cross without using a designated crossing. !!! Oh come on. We even had an advertising campaign run in this country (UK) where a football is seen to emerge from between two parked cars, and it was to condition people to expect a small child to follow it. In other words, please don't carry on driving, it is only a football, please realise a child will run out of reflex right into your path, hard on the heels of said football. If I run a child over, and they were not at a designated crossing, do I feel it is not my fault? I might try to say this, stress my low speed or any other factor, but do I really feel able to shake the responsibility? Is the woman any more at fault than that child? I bet that skinny bicycle wheel has almost no radar signature either, but any human knows, it's not pushing itself out from between the parked vehicles. Have Uber even programmed this single well-known ball-and-child scenario into their system? I suspect not. As I say elsewhere - primitive. My 9-year old children knew a ball is followed by a child, most times it bounces into the highway. If these Autonomous vehicles, cannot pass the ball-then-child test, they are not yet fit for purpose. . .