Driver-less Cars: Impending Reality or Sci-Fi Nerd Fantasy?

[ripskater]

Hmmm interesting. Particular since there are no examples of human driven cars getting into accidents this point is particularly relevant.

I'm not making that point.

I'm just saying people will get hurt or die from driverless cars. It's already happened.

 

[sub_thug]

I really don't want my vehicles connected to the "Hive Mind." That actually sucks. I want to be able to drive my own truck. The Hive mind isn't gonna let drive my truck off the road, or across my yard to pick up logs or limbs and haul it to the other end of my property for a bonfire. That's just one example. It'll probably read "error" if I want to do something that the "HIve mind" doesn't want me to do.

Well, it's not a zero sum game either. Just because the car is autonomous doesn't mean it won't have a manual mode as well. For your everyday things like going to the office or grocery store, you can let the car do the work for you. For removing stumps and hauling logs, you can do that job yourself. It may just mean that we have higher driving standards for someone to get a license, a requirement for using manual mode. Imagine this though: a parent could put their kids in their car, have the car drive them to school, and then come home on its own. It's certainly a safer alternative than letting kids stand out on a bus stop where a child predator or abductor could be waiting for them, no?

 

[sub_thug]

And if you disagree with the state, don't be surprised if your self driving car malfunctions and gets in a fatal accident.

Why would the government own a private company? This AI would likely be owned by an auto company, not a federal agency. I don't think Congress will have that much influence over Ford or GM.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm not making that point.

I'm just saying people will get hurt or die from driverless cars. It's already happened.

Whats the point of saying that then when millions times more are dying from 'driver driven' cars every year.

 

[ripskater]

Well, it's not a zero sum game either. Just because the car is autonomous doesn't mean it won't have a manual mode as well. For your everyday things like going to the office or grocery store, you can let the car do the work for you. For removing stumps and hauling logs, you can do that job yourself. It may just mean that we have higher driving standards for someone to get a license, a requirement for using manual mode. Imagine this though: a parent could put their kids in their car, have the car drive them to school, and then come home on its own. It's certainly a safer alternative than letting kids stand out on a bus stop where a child predator or abductor could be waiting for them, no?

There would be some benefits to it.

 

[ripskater]

Whats the point of saying that then when millions times more are dying from 'driver driven' cars every year.

Someone else said it would be safer. I dont think it would be safer for everyone. It would be safer for some.

For me, the whole thing just wouldn't work.

 

[ripskater]

Why would the government own a private company? This AI would likely be owned by an auto company, not a federal agency. I don't think Congress will have that much influence over Ford or GM.

Eventually there will be a global govt (New International Order) and private business will be very connected to govt.

 

[sub_thug]

Eventually there will be a global govt (New International Order) and private business will be very connected to govt.

Why do you think that? I just can't envision a scenario where a world government would control all business. In fact, I see a future where companies are more likely to have greater power than governments. The people who own these different AI's (like Google) will have control of the world's information, and there will be a massive dependency on those companies by governments and people alike.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Someone else said it would be safer. I dont think it would be safer for everyone. It would be safer for some.

For me, the whole thing just wouldn't work.

Nothing you say above addresses the millions upon millions of deaths each year by driver driven cars.

Do you not believe they happen? Do I need to post pictures like you did?

No one is saying there would never be accidents nor deaths from driverless cars. That simply is not the standard this should be held to. The question is will it reduce accidents and death and everyone who studies it says yes. By a massive magnitude.

 

[nixkid]

I don't see how anyone could question the reality of this. They're already on the roads. uber is already looking order an autonomous fleet.

Fake news. I don't want to believe its real so its not.

 

[nixkid]

I hope that's where it goes. Some kind of standard that all the map and autonomous apps apply so that everyone is on the same page and then, boom, no more traffic.

Wow, just imagine a world where every random idiot doesn't stamp on the brakes so they can rubberneck some random event on the side of the road creating miles of traffic delays for no reason at all!

There are a lot of interesting possibilities but most of them aren't possible until all cars on the road are self-driving.

Things we take for granted like stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, etc aren't necessary when every car is autonomous. It will literally reshape cities.



Nice ted talk on the subject.

 

[ripskater]

Nothing you say above addresses the millions upon millions of deaths each year by driver driven cars.

Do you not believe they happen? Do I need to post pictures like you did?

No one is saying there would never be accidents nor deaths from driverless cars. That simply is not the standard this should be held to. The question is will it reduce accidents and death and everyone who studies it says yes. By a massive magnitude.

It won't be safer for everyone.

And it will be accompanied by govt not allowing you and I to drive. So there will be less freedom.

 

[ripskater]

Why do you think that?

In the end, there will be a one world govt. Probably like what Biden and Obama talk about the "new International Order" all the time. The Bible says you will have to swear allegience to the govt and to receive the mark. You can't buy or sell anything without the mark. It will be on your forehead or right hand.
So govt will control everything basically.

 

[ripskater]

There are a lot of interesting possibilities but most of them aren't possible until all cars on the road are self-driving.

Things we take for granted like stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, etc aren't necessary when every car is autonomous. It will literally reshape cities.



Nice ted talk on the subject.

They'd have to take away our driving freedoms in order to make all cars self driving.

I'm not down with them taking away more freedoms.

 

[sub_thug]

In the end, there will be a one world govt. Probably like what Biden and Obama talk about the "new International Order" all the time. The Bible says you will have to swear allegience to the govt and to receive the mark. You can't buy or sell anything without the mark. It will be on your forehead or right hand.
So govt will control everything basically.

This is one interpretation of things. When I hear things about a "new international order," I hear something less sinister. I hear about a belief that there will be a shift in the world's balance of power. And that happens. Spain used to be a major power, and now, they're kind of a footnote in Europe, much less one of the world's leaders. What would you think about nanobots that circulated throughout your body? Would that qualify as a mark? I'm not trying to be condescending, btw. This is a serious question, and it seems that nanobots could be in humanity's future.

 

[MikeMcMann]

It won't be safer for everyone.

And it will be accompanied by govt not allowing you and I to drive. So there will be less freedom.

It will be much safer overall. That is all we can ask.

And to your theorizing about gov't control extending with autonomous cars, none of that is fact. Right now it is simply your guess. And no one cares about your guess.

 

[nixkid]

They'd have to take away our driving freedoms in order to make all cars self driving.

I'm not down with them taking away more freedoms.

Driving isn't a right and never has been. Its a privilege.

If you didn't know already..the Government makes the rules when it comes to operating a vehicle on public roads. The government mandating self-driving cars on public roads is no different than them mandating speed limits.

In the future, driving a car will be like riding a horse. Some shit that mostly rich people do as a hobby. There will be enclosed tracks/courses for human driven cars.

 

[7437]

Someone else said it would be safer. I dont think it would be safer for everyone. It would be safer for some.

For me, the whole thing just wouldn't work.

It would be safer for everyone. No amoubt of good driving will keep a drunk driver from running a light. Or crushing pedestrians. Or being rear ended. Or hitting your parked car. Or any other number of fuckups by other people that cant be avoided by you driving better.

 

[ripskater]

It would be safer for everyone. No amoubt of good driving will keep a drunk driver from running a light. Or crushing pedestrians. Or being rear ended. Or hitting your parked car. Or any other number of fuckups by other people that cant be avoided by you driving better.

I don't drink and drive.

 

[no fat chicks]

It's actually a moral imperative because the sooner we adopt self driving cars the sooner we reduce the 30000 deaths from car crashes a year we have.