The primary problem for AI creators isn't convincing people to trust their product, but stopping them from trusting it too much in areas where it's not yet reliable. This "low trustworthiness, high trust" scenario is a danger zone that can lead to catastrophic failures. The strategic challenge is managing and containing trust, not just building it.

After proving its robo-taxis are 90% safer than human drivers, Waymo is now making them more "confidently assertive" to better navigate real-world traffic. This counter-intuitive shift from passive safety to calculated aggression is a necessary step to improve efficiency and reduce delays, highlighting the trade-offs required for autonomous vehicle integration.

Early self-driving cars were too cautious, becoming hazards on the road. By strictly adhering to the speed limit or being too polite at intersections, they disrupted traffic flow. Waymo learned its cars must drive assertively, even "aggressively," to safely integrate with human drivers.

AI leaders aren't ignoring risks because they're malicious, but because they are trapped in a high-stakes competitive race. This "code red" environment incentivizes patching safety issues case-by-case rather than fundamentally re-architecting AI systems to be safe by construction.

AI companies engage in "safety revisionism," shifting the definition from preventing tangible harm to abstract concepts like "alignment" or future "existential risks." This tactic allows their inherently inaccurate models to bypass the traditional, rigorous safety standards required for defense and other critical systems.

The classic "trolley problem" will become a product differentiator for autonomous vehicles. Car manufacturers will have to encode specific values—such as prioritizing passenger versus pedestrian safety—into their AI, creating a competitive market where consumers choose a vehicle based on its moral code.

Other scientific fields operate under a "precautionary principle," avoiding experiments with even a small chance of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., creating dangerous new lifeforms). The AI industry, however, proceeds with what Bengio calls "crazy risks," ignoring this fundamental safety doctrine.

An FDA-style regulatory model would force AI companies to make a quantitative safety case for their models before deployment. This shifts the burden of proof from regulators to creators, creating powerful financial incentives for labs to invest heavily in safety research, much like pharmaceutical companies invest in clinical trials.

With Waymo's data showing a dramatic potential to reduce traffic deaths, the primary barrier to adoption is shifting from technology to politics. A neurosurgeon argues that moneyed interests and city councils are creating regulatory capture, blocking a proven public health intervention and framing a safety story as a risk story.