Not intentionally programming them to run red lights, just intentionally or unintentionally not taking necessary precautions to prevent it from happening. They can get it right, or have it right now, and it's pretty clear which side they've chosen.

Nobody is suggesting they're doing that. They're saying Uber cuts corners to save a dime among other unethical practices (like stealing research from competitors).

They stand to gain by being quicker to market by failing to instantiate adequate safeguards.

Criminal negligence, not direct malicious criminality.

Not a bad business plan. The market rewards risk. I’ll use Uber as an example.

This is why unregulated growth makes cancer the perfect metaphor for corporations.

The art of being cheap and the virtue of being lazy oft end with someone getting hurt, and Uber embodies both of those quite well.

Not intentionally doing that, but, intentionally ignoring bugs.

"Sir, we have several bugs, one of them would cause the car to run a red in the following conditions... [fictional made-up condition: in case it sees a clown car with Brad Pitt wearing a pink dress in it]".

"What are the chances of that ever happening? Ship it!".

I somewhat doubt they even know or care that there might be bugs before they do something awful. It's like they're using the public highway as their simulator.

I don't know if this job ad for a self-driving simulation software engineer is still current, but it is somewhat worrying given the broad scope of the role they appear to be advertising for.

[0] https://www.uber.com/en-US/careers/list/27029/

I think it's more what Uber stands to gain from not ensuring that their cars are programmed to not run red lights. Which is first-to-market advantage.

No one said that this was their intention.

I don't think anyone thinks it's intentional, just that they're a poorly run company and have been less diligent in fixing bugs and ensuring safety.