> we need harsh penalties for people that intentionally block traffic
They were talking about people intentionally messing with SDVs and causing incidents
You tried to turn it on them by saying
> So for instance, the CEO of the self-driving car company should go to jail whenever one of their cars blocks a fire truck. Right?
Presumably equating a SDV having an issue with people intentionally blocking traffic.
I commented on that with a tongue-in-cheek statement about the CEO intentionally blocking firetrucks as a protest.
You replied with
> Not as a protest obviously, but that's irrelevant.
The other commenter said
> Intent matters.
You profess confusion about how their comment follows the thread, but that's the whole point. You said CEOs should be responsible for their vehicles blocking traffic in response to a message about people intentionally blocking traffic. That gives the appearance that you think a fault in a SDV is equivalent to intentionally blocking traffic. A SDV having a fault is like your car breaking down. Are you personally liable if your broken vehicle blocks a fire truck? You may be subject to the ire of the FD and they may destroy your vehicle in the execution of their duty, but you aren't treated like you intended to block traffic. You just happened to have a vehicle that decided to stop working.
A driverless car can't have intent, since "intent" is a human (or animal) concept.
A driverless car has bugs in its software that end up causing harm (e.g. by blocking a firetruck). A bug is not intent. But the consequences are real.