Police probably shouldn't be sued for performing their duties. But the issue is that with a few choice words (I feared for my safety/life) their "duties" cover a wide array of actions that a lot of citizens would argue it shouldn't.
Example: There are many cases of Cops stepping in front of a moving vehicle when confronting a suspect, which then is used as a reason to shoot and kill the suspect because "their life was in danger". But it's very easy to argue that the Cop put their own life in danger by stepping in front of the vehicle. IMO, that should not be covered by qualified immunity, and yet it usually is.
"Historically there is no evidence of that happening with tech revolutions - or rather perhaps you could say to some extent - you can not say that we are an internet-first society, or cars-first society or mobile phone - first society despite these being profound technological revolutions."
I'm... not actually sure I agree. The US *has* become a more cars first society. Our cities are designed around cars: parking space requirements for business, lacking of biking infrastructure in favor of more lanes, even the introduction of jaywalking as a crime. We've become much more of an internet first society too, we don't use books for research, our banking is largely done online, even humans social circles have moved much more online (probably to the detriment of society).
None of those technologies are as powerful/disruptive as where it seems that AI and LLMs are headed, so it's possible that societies shift towards "AI-first" will be more profound that it was for any of the other technologies listed.
"Well adjusted people so not want that power over other people"
There are certainly well adjusted people that would like to fix things they feel are inefficiencies or issues in their government, especially when those issues are directly related to their areas of expertise. Thinking well adjusted people wouldn't want to be in a position of power is exactly how you ensure that only bad people end up with power.
As long as they don't sit in the passing lane, I don't see how a fleet of vehicles moving at a consistent speed and not driving erratically will have any more negative impact on traffic than a human driver. Like other's have mentioned, it might actually improve traffic as you don't have people speeding up to get close to a person and then quickly slowing down, causing "phantom" traffic jams.
Also, if the Waymos are following the laws, and that causes problems... then maybe those laws should be changed? Especially if most drivers already don't follow the laws.
"but I do think drone-based delivery will be rejected by consumers if it ever reaches significant scale in non-rural areas"
I'd wager it's the opposite: Rural areas would notice the one off noise of a drone flying overhead because humans notice novel sounds more. In an urban area you already have other significant sources of noise (traffic mainly) and if the drones are ubiquitous it might just be more of a background constant that people tune out.
Police probably shouldn't be sued for performing their duties. But the issue is that with a few choice words (I feared for my safety/life) their "duties" cover a wide array of actions that a lot of citizens would argue it shouldn't.
Example: There are many cases of Cops stepping in front of a moving vehicle when confronting a suspect, which then is used as a reason to shoot and kill the suspect because "their life was in danger". But it's very easy to argue that the Cop put their own life in danger by stepping in front of the vehicle. IMO, that should not be covered by qualified immunity, and yet it usually is.