Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker.
The same cannot yet be said about "self-driving" cars.
> Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker.
That assumes the pacemaker works more often than it doesn't. (Which is the case now.) It's an unstated assumption that doesn't always apply when generalizing your example.
You're assuming "fails" only accounts for false negatives. False positives are a thing. If there was a 90% chance of a pacemaker going off when it wasn't needed, they wouldn't be used as it'd cause nearly as meany deaths as it prevents, assuming no false negatives.
The same cannot yet be said about "self-driving" cars.