Agreed. I'd go further though and say the semi-autonomous feature itself is fundamentally flawed. It's a mishmash of what the car will do and what the human is expected to do; the whole while making the human responsible even if the car fails in doing its part.
So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously.
That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it.
By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.
So, I don't buy into their disclaiming of responsibility if the car fails in what it is doing autonomously.
That is, it's one thing if a safety measure fails to engage (for instance, the car fails to brake to avoid an accident while still under the human's control). However, it's a different matter when the car offers to actively perform a function in lieu of the human, then fails in properly performing it.
By the mere existence and offer of the function, the company is essentially making a claim as to the vehicle's fitness for that function and asking the human to trust that claim by assigning control to the vehicle. No amount of verbiage that tries to assign responsibility back to the human can offset the fact that the vehicle was under its own control when it failed.