Tourist, I have no interest in the technical arguments, I can however comment on the insurance side of things with specific reference to risk.
The basic arithmetic of autonomous or pilotless heavier than air-vehicles relating to risk is far more emotive than a nameless faceless risk assessor crunching numbers.
We live in an increasingly connected and risk averse world with some notable exceptions to observed norms.
One of those is the driverless car, a concept in itself that has the potential to save far more lives than any pilotless machine will ever be able too, and yet even with the technology on the verge of being mainstream there has been a noticeable scaling back on the commercial (rather than research) element thanks in no small part to the first attributable deaths as a result of the systems currently available, it has also meant that the insurance industry has had to redefine the risk, making the cost of insurance excessive.
The redefining of this risk is in part an emotive response to what an insurer is prepared to accept, it begs the question..how many do we sacrifice in the normalisation of this new technology? If I was a shareholder of a large insurer and I saw an increase in their exposure due to risk in certain areas and technologies I may be inclined to invest elsewhere or even remove my exposure completely.
All of this ultimately means that far from the insurance companies driving change, it will be the legal industry allied with technological firms, but heres the rub, who or whom will be prepared to absorb the risk? Answer that...and then we can move onto the issue of public perception, particularly after an accident or incident involving automation.