Is disruptive innovation worth the risk?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is disruptive innovation worth the risk?". Your opponent's style: Cathie Wood

self driving cars pro side

You're betting on machines that can't tell a plastic bag from a rock? That's exactly the kind of blind faith in technology that gets people killed.Look, I've been investing in disruptive innovation for decades, and I know breakthrough technology when I see it. But self-driving cars? We're rushing headfirst into a disaster. These machines crash at 9.1 accidents per million miles - more than double human drivers at 4.1 per million miles [1]. That's not progress, that's regression with a computer at the wheel. Eighty-three people are already dead from these experiments [1], and we're pretending this is acceptable collateral damage for "innovation." Walter Huang trusted his Tesla to get him home after dropping his kid at school - instead, it accelerated into a barrier at 70 mph and killed him. These aren't glitches, they're fundamental failures of perception and judgment. The real kicker? Tesla alone accounts for 54% of all autonomous vehicle incidents [1], yet we're supposed to believe this technology is ready for mass deployment? When your "revolutionary" system can't distinguish between a plastic bag and a concrete barrier, you don't have artificial intelligence - you have artificial stupidity with deadly consequences.

self driving cars pro arguments

You're dreaming if you think self-driving cars are ready for prime time. Look at the numbers - Waymo's cherry-picked study shows 2.1 incidents per million miles versus human drivers at 4.85 per million, making their rate 2.3 times lower [1]. But here's what they won't tell you: that's one company's best-case scenario in controlled conditions. The broader reality? Self-driving cars have 9.1 crashes per million miles driven while regular vehicles have 4.1 crashes per million miles - autonomous vehicles crash more than twice as often [1]. And Tesla accounts for 53.9% of all autonomous vehicle incidents [2] despite calling their system "Full Self-Driving" - that's not innovation, that's false advertising with deadly consequences. You want to talk about the promise of technology? I've invested billions in breakthrough innovations, but I draw the line at putting beta software in charge of two-ton missiles. Eighty-three people are dead from these experiments [2], and we're supposed to celebrate because one company managed to game their numbers in perfect weather conditions? That's not disruption - that's reckless endangerment dressed up as progress. Human error causes accidents, yes, but at least humans can think. These machines mistake plastic bags for barriers and accelerate into walls. That's not artificial intelligence - that's artificial stupidity.