I hate banning technology and stifling innovation. Lets ban automobile self-driving technology, no one needs it and the inherent risks and ethical dilemmas are not worth it at all.
To be fair ‘no one needs it’ isn’t entirely true. There are many reasons someone who needs to get around might not be able to drive. For example, some people with epilepsy, senior citizens, teenagers going to work etc. I don’t need it but I’d love the convenience and stress relief of never having to drive again. Public transport could help some of this but some areas just aren’t populated enough for truly good public transport.
I think solutions like better public transportation, or government services so people could get free rides as some companies offer rides are better options. A computer driving a car has too many real world consequences that outweigh the convenience.
The solution is always better public transit but I’d be shocked if any of us saw it approach even passable levels in our lifetime here in the States. Timelines for small projects stretch on for a decade. Massive ones can’t even get off the ground. I wish it weren’t true but I’ve basically given up on it. Maybe I’ll move to Europe some day to have access to transit options.
Even in Europe though rural areas are a thing. I’ve lived in Australia and the UK, travelled extensively in Europe. Many European cities have excellent public transport, but if you need to get to a small town for whatever reason you can’t. In Australia it’s definitely better in the major cities than it is in US major cities but that are so few people and it’s such a large country that outside of those really big cities there’s very little.
The issue you’ve described though is not about self-driven technology. It’s that ‘driving’ is the only form of transport, and thus the only way that anybody can ever be independent.
It’s that too many areas design their infrastructure around the personal car, and make it impossible to get around without them. With them, it means sitting in traffic for hours at a time (because everybody else is in a car, too). Stretches of noisy rumbling multi-lane roads that don’t have walkways or crossings. Bike lanes are non-existent, or pressed up against fast-moving car traffic. And because walking/cycling isn’t an option, we have more people driving than ever - children being driven to and from school or sports, driving down to a store 100m a way to pick up eggs, etc.
Cars spend ~95% of the time parked somewhere, and 4% of the time moving a single person. They’re incredibly inefficient, and yet they’ve been painted as a symbol of ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ that seems massive amounts of land converted into parking spaces to accommodate something magnitudes larger than a person, one per person.
Cities that design around subway trains and bus lanes from the get-go have far smoother commutes. Smaller villages designed around trams and cycling are quiet, pleasant, and walkable. Both of them offer independence to a population that cannot drive - either practically or financially.
If self-driving car-sharing was available already now, then I’d be more likely to agree. Car-sharing (not ride-sharing, but hiring cars per minute via app) is the best way for car-based infrastructure to migrate towards lower traffic. Ripping up roads for trains is expensive, but knowing you can use a town car to visit your friend, then a van to help them move, and park neither of them in your driveway, will really help.
But right now self-driving cars are a passion project. They’re not actually practical, they’re just exciting and expensive. If accessibility for our blind, elderly, and impoverished population is the concern here, then billionaires funding the self-driving cars they can’t ever afford is not the answer.
One use case could be senior citizens who aren’t ready to give up driving entirely. I’m sure it’s not easy to admit that your vision and reaction time are deteriorating to the point that you’re a danger on the road. As long as we live in a car-centric society, I hope the tech has solidified by the time I reach that point.
For me, the problem is one of justice. If I, as a meat sack, kill someone I am liable and most likely criminally liable for it. When AI commits man slaughter, then what? A company has the financial incentive and very little of the legal exposure because it’s out sourced to the owner. Effectively the human operator trusting Evil Corp gets the raw end of the deal.
IMO, each version of the software should get a legal license.
I hate banning technology and stifling innovation. Lets ban automobile self-driving technology, no one needs it and the inherent risks and ethical dilemmas are not worth it at all.
To be fair ‘no one needs it’ isn’t entirely true. There are many reasons someone who needs to get around might not be able to drive. For example, some people with epilepsy, senior citizens, teenagers going to work etc. I don’t need it but I’d love the convenience and stress relief of never having to drive again. Public transport could help some of this but some areas just aren’t populated enough for truly good public transport.
I think solutions like better public transportation, or government services so people could get free rides as some companies offer rides are better options. A computer driving a car has too many real world consequences that outweigh the convenience.
The solution is always better public transit but I’d be shocked if any of us saw it approach even passable levels in our lifetime here in the States. Timelines for small projects stretch on for a decade. Massive ones can’t even get off the ground. I wish it weren’t true but I’ve basically given up on it. Maybe I’ll move to Europe some day to have access to transit options.
Even in Europe though rural areas are a thing. I’ve lived in Australia and the UK, travelled extensively in Europe. Many European cities have excellent public transport, but if you need to get to a small town for whatever reason you can’t. In Australia it’s definitely better in the major cities than it is in US major cities but that are so few people and it’s such a large country that outside of those really big cities there’s very little.
The issue you’ve described though is not about self-driven technology. It’s that ‘driving’ is the only form of transport, and thus the only way that anybody can ever be independent.
It’s that too many areas design their infrastructure around the personal car, and make it impossible to get around without them. With them, it means sitting in traffic for hours at a time (because everybody else is in a car, too). Stretches of noisy rumbling multi-lane roads that don’t have walkways or crossings. Bike lanes are non-existent, or pressed up against fast-moving car traffic. And because walking/cycling isn’t an option, we have more people driving than ever - children being driven to and from school or sports, driving down to a store 100m a way to pick up eggs, etc.
Cars spend ~95% of the time parked somewhere, and 4% of the time moving a single person. They’re incredibly inefficient, and yet they’ve been painted as a symbol of ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ that seems massive amounts of land converted into parking spaces to accommodate something magnitudes larger than a person, one per person.
Cities that design around subway trains and bus lanes from the get-go have far smoother commutes. Smaller villages designed around trams and cycling are quiet, pleasant, and walkable. Both of them offer independence to a population that cannot drive - either practically or financially.
If self-driving car-sharing was available already now, then I’d be more likely to agree. Car-sharing (not ride-sharing, but hiring cars per minute via app) is the best way for car-based infrastructure to migrate towards lower traffic. Ripping up roads for trains is expensive, but knowing you can use a town car to visit your friend, then a van to help them move, and park neither of them in your driveway, will really help.
But right now self-driving cars are a passion project. They’re not actually practical, they’re just exciting and expensive. If accessibility for our blind, elderly, and impoverished population is the concern here, then billionaires funding the self-driving cars they can’t ever afford is not the answer.
One use case could be senior citizens who aren’t ready to give up driving entirely. I’m sure it’s not easy to admit that your vision and reaction time are deteriorating to the point that you’re a danger on the road. As long as we live in a car-centric society, I hope the tech has solidified by the time I reach that point.
For me, the problem is one of justice. If I, as a meat sack, kill someone I am liable and most likely criminally liable for it. When AI commits man slaughter, then what? A company has the financial incentive and very little of the legal exposure because it’s out sourced to the owner. Effectively the human operator trusting Evil Corp gets the raw end of the deal.
IMO, each version of the software should get a legal license.
Exactly, lets just live with every driver being responsible for their own actions.