[questor70]

(03-20-2018 10:00 AM)RichieP Wrote:  

AI drivers are safer than human drivers. They pattern-match at least as well (very likely much better), and don't get drunk, high or road-rage.
What point are you making here? A few thousand people were also killed by human drivers that same day.
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-r...statistics

This.

Two girls who go to my daughter's school were killed crossing the street near me. There was no explanation for why the driver plowed over them and yet no charges were filed. Hey, shit happens, right? This is the status quo. We tolerate it because it's what we're used to, and yet there's no way in hell human error wasn't the root cause.

Even if there were no autonomous cars, if cars were simply mandated to feature emergency braking then these girls might still be alive.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(03-20-2018 08:19 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

TBH, if you've ever lived in an area where people routinely wander into the middle of the street in front of moving traffic, you can sympathize with the AI.

Snark aside, my guess is that since she was walking with her bicycle at night in the shadows, she had a funny-looking visual profile and the AI made the same mistake a human driver would make and not understand that she was something to brake for.

Identifying cars with LIDAR is easy. Identifying people with stereoscopic cameras is probably always a little bit YOLO. Since she was crossing illegally and had a duty to yield, my prediction is a polite settlement and some technical adjustments, then nothing else happens.

Ironically, You Only Look Once (YOLO) is the name of a neural net algorithm used for computer vision object recognition in self driving cars.

YOLO!

[Captain Gh]

Self Driveless Car... Well here's what I think about it

   

[Mercenary]

(03-20-2018 07:57 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

It is my opinion, that there are folk out there hoping beyond hope that AI will manifest itself.
Why?
Cause they foolishly think that a computer will be the salvation of mankind. Almost akin to a quasi-religion.

Worship of AI will be THE new religion.
The religion of the beast and the antichrist.

[Aurini]

Remember that unethical experiment Facebook pulled on it's customers a few years back, manipulating their feed to see if they could affect the users' emotions at the end of the day?

How much subtle control could you exert over a population by adjusting their driving routes to see different neighbourhoods?

I don't trust these bugmen farther than I can throw them. They're the LAST people who should be entrusted with this sort of power.

[Mercenary]

It is very likely that terror attacks like those in Nice, France, Berlin and London, using vans and/or trucks will continue to force the introduction of driverless cars.

[Mercenary]

Also, in your driverless car permanently jacked into wifi/AI all your spoken conversations in the car will be recorded & filmed, and all your destinations logged.



My only method of transport once driverless cars become obbligatory:





Roadblocks and dead bodies on the street no problem:

[Buck Wild]

The gov't will request--and receive--backdoor access to the software of every single autonomous car on the road (if you don't think so, I've got some swampland in NYC to sell you). If you don't find the implications of that completely chilling, then you are beyond saving.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-20-2018 09:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

This is one of my major concerns.

Eliminating private vehicle ownership is part of the globalist plan, and it seems their strategy for that is to push driverless cars and bizarrely tout them as the solution to road congestion, as if they occupy less space than a normal car.

I foresee normal drivers being blamed for every autonomous vehicle crash (you twitched toward the right lane without indicating and ran the MekkaUber into a truck) before governments simply push to ban the sale of non-autonomous vehicles entirely. After that they just make the life of normal drivers a regulatory hell and and wait for the few hold-outs to die off.

The change can even be implemented on a purely corporate level. A few closed-door meetings between auto-industry CEOs and before you know it all autonomous vehicles are being sold at below-cost while non-autonomous vehicles have their price jacked up to cover the difference. Before long the non-autonomous range fades away "for lack of interest" while the prices on the autonomous range creep back up to profitability.

That sounds about right.

There was a great SF TV series from New Zealand named - This is not my life:

What was more interesting than the mind-altering tech shown was the lifestyle of the people. The folk had only access to electric cars of very limited range and they were mostly self-driving - of course under full surveillance with only a given carbon-quota.

Self-driving cars will come sooner or later - and it will be simply much more expensive to drive your car on your own. Some people will probably still want to do it, but would have to pay extra for insurance.

Also many have missed the fact that some European countries like Netherlands will only sell electric cars within 2030. California will follow suit in 2040. Combustion cars will be a thing that will be taxed through the roof - and so will be the range you can possible live away from the city unless you are very wealthy.

[CynicalContrarian]

(03-20-2018 06:33 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  

The gov't will request--and receive--backdoor access to the software of every single autonomous car on the road (if you don't think so, I've got some swampland in NYC to sell you). If you don't find the implications of that completely chilling, then you are beyond saving.

They'll probably find a way to force the selling of Farcebook adverts inside the car at the same time...

[Mage]

I suspect globalists will attempt to take away people's cars just like they want to take away guns.

If cars had existed in times of founding fathers - they would without a doubt include cars in 2nd amendment or make an amendment for them specifically.

Every person who is pro gun should also be pro owning his own personal means of transportation and should defend these rights with the same passion.

The freedom to move freely, securely and privately outside other people's private property is on the same level as freedom to defend yourself and speak freely. It's just has never been significantly challenged so we have never thought about it that way.

If someone says that you are always free to move wherever you want with your feet or on a bicycle - it's the same as saying that 2nd amendment applies only to muskets.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The claim that AI is inherently safer than a human is so staggeringly stupid that it beggars belief. Would you seriously put your and other people's lives into the hands of this?











Computers have plenty of uses and can enrich our lives in many ways, but driving is not one of them. It's an inherently unsolvable, self-defeating problem because its end result must always be either:

A) there are too many variables to track and the system routinely fails at its task, malfunctioning and wreaking havoc
or
B) you successfully track all the variables and create a monstrous, psychopathic system that can cull anyone at any moment because of "muh public policy", "resource considerations", "weighted factor analysis of the situation" or whatever else.

This is not to even mention the problems that extend far, far beyond software considerations. Why do you think RAM, hard drives and CPUs all come with product warranties? Because they're not perfect, their manufacturing processes are not perfect, their materials are not perfect, and thus are expected to routinely malfunction, crash or cease functioning.

Why replace humans with something just as unreliable, only in more subtle ways? Thanks but no thanks.

[CynicalContrarian]

^
Calls the service / helpdesk.

"My self-driving car just crashed."

"Hello sir, have you turned it off & on again?"

"Fool, I mean a literal crash!"

[BlueMark]

This thread has really gone off the rails (hah) into straw man and conspiracy territory. People have raised valid concerns about surveillance, control, computer failure, etc.

I get that AI might not be the best solution. I agree that there's potential for abuse. So I'm not going to defend AI driving here.

But keep a few things in perspective.

(1) Urban areas in the US, where most of the job opportunities are, have shown their inability to handle population growth. This is due to poor planning.

Autonomous cars are offered as a solution to the problem. They are hardly the best.

IMO the proper solution is to transition toward more high-density developments along existing rail transit lines. But there is no political will to do that.

(2) Road traffic causes so many fatalities and injuries. Let's take a look at Singapore (subway-oriented) vs Arizona (car-oriented).
Population: 5.6 million vs 6.9 million (4.6 in Phoenix metro)
Number of traffic deaths: 197 (2013) vs 962 (2016)

In Arizona, there were 196 pedestrian deaths alone, almost as many as the total road deaths in Singapore. So many people have died in Arizona because the state's major city is completely car-oriented. People have no choice but to drive.

Hell, there were 10 pedestrian deaths in Arizona in a week shortly before this incident. Where's the outrage over that?

Let me say this again if it's not clear: The real root cause behind road traffic deaths is the orientation of our transportation system in favor of road transit.

(03-20-2018 11:14 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Dude do you realize how domesticated you are to write this - you just assume everyone will be living in a city, like proper pet for corporate masters.

As both a car owner and a gun owner, I am hardly the domesticated city dweller that you have in mind. I don't like a lot of things about my current city; in fact I hate those things. But the city is where it's at for access to job opportunities and women.

I used to live in the suburbs. I experienced firsthand how dehumanizing the commute was, especially after taking subways in Europe and Asia and realizing that it didn't have to be that way. I felt a lot more like a corporate pet back then, compared to being able to take the subway to work today.

Quote:

Human driven cars will not disappear until the last person will be forced to abandon his countryside home and move to a big city and I hope it won't happen for a long long time.

You can't use your phone to call a public car in due time if you are not in a city.
You cannot make AI to find the best parking spot in a non - artificial environment. Without a straight sidewalk border your car will have no clue how to park best in a forest or in an open field or at lake shore, because it will have no clue what you as a human being want to do in this place. How do you unload a boat in water with a public automatic car?
You cannot make AI to select the best path if there is no path and no road or if all there is is some small dirt road not even on a map.

All the autonomous car enthusiasts assume a city life by default and an off-road situation is not even crossing their minds. They are all living in a matrix.

Nobody is trying to force autonomous cars into rural places. I don't have a problem with dense cities or rural places. It's the low-density, high-sprawl, high-traffic cities/suburbs like Los Angeles that I can't stand.

Quote:

Also - you want all people to drive a metro - full if "vibrants" and junkie syringes and spray writings. You want to make all cars rentable and public for them to turn into same type of shitty places? No thanks I prefer my own car, where I alone control the dirt and comfort level. I try to avoid public transportation as much as I can even while living in a big city, because I believe in walls. My car is my Castle!

Chill out. I am very well aware of these types. They are the result of left-wing policies and lax policing, but don't blame public transportation for it. You won't see much of that in Japan or Singapore.

Quote:

Every person who is pro gun should also be pro owning his own personal means of transportation and should defend these rights with the same passion.

The freedom to move freely, securely and privately outside other people's private property is on the same level as freedom to defend yourself and speak freely. It's just has never been significantly challenged so we have never thought about it that way.

Modern American car culture is a mid 20th century invention, where the costs are hidden from you -- taxes to pay for roads, laws that mandate parking spaces, etc. You don't get those things for free; of course it's different if you're living in a rural area with private roads (and more power to you if you do). Don't conflate it with freedom and the Second Amendment.

BTW the Swiss take their guns onto public transit. http://archive.is/6G4fY

[porscheguy]

High density housing is communism. While suburbia is a little odd, at least it can provide opportunities to commune with nature. I find endless expanses of concrete and asphalt to be soul crushing. You say commuting is dehumanizing. I say cutting yourself off from nature to work in cubicles and live in endless concrete boxes is dehumanizing.

[MidJack]

Operator of Self-Driving Uber Vehicle Is A Tranny With A Prior Felony Conviction For Armed Robbery

Quote:

Vasquez has felony convictions for attempted armed robbery after plot with Blockbuster video store co-worker to seize their own shop's taking's at gunpoint

Quote:

Vasquez was convicted under her original name Rafael but now identifies as a woman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...r-car.html

[Rush87]

One of the biggest joys I have in life is driving. In about 50 years time this forum will probably have datasheets like:

"How to drive a car for maximum pussy".

[king bast]

Its common in my city for drunk aborigines to stand in the middle of the road and challenge oncoming cars to a fight.

Everybody wants to just run them over but nobody ever does, our humanity stops us from doing so.

But the computer controlling driverless cars dont have this nagging humanity, and won't be loaded with the politically incorrect knowledge that warns us humans to be alert when they see abos loitering around the roadside, because theyre likely to do something stupid.

Because nobody else is stupid enough to pick fights with cars, abos will be disproportionately affected by the introduction of autonomous vehicles, so its almost a certainty that we will see autonomous vehicles being decried as "racist" in the not too distant future.

[fokker]

If Someone tells you that car Culture is evil,

they are Mainlining Soy.

Total Media Blackout on this.

(03-20-2018 11:02 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  

Leonard, you're giving the average person too much credit. I think it's highly unlikely that most of people in society will be able to turn off their emotionally-driven side and take the same stance of statistical apathy that the corporations have.

I don't know if there is a globalist plan to ban private car ownership. But car culture is not our friend. Cars are inefficient and unfortunately most of the US/Canada/Australia have built their cities around cars instead of people. It's not the middle class that benefits, it's the oil, auto, insurance, and financial corporations.

The proper solution was to build dense, walkable cities with the primary mode of transportation for private individuals being subways, plus commuter trains that go into the suburbs. Europe and Asia have done a better job with that. In US/CA/AU, it's too late to fix the problem directly. Our cities developed around car culture and are now too expensive and spread out to properly implement rail transportation. Autonomous cars are just a solution to this problem. I'm not an AI fanboy but in this particular case it is the lesser evil compared to car culture.

As for this particular incident, look at it another way. As unethical as Uber has been in the past, it is in their interest to make sure their AI can avoid damage to the cars. That means pedestrians, other cars, walls, curbs, etc. In this particular case, it seems like the pedestrian came out of nowhere. Would it have been the same if it'd been a human driver?

http://archive.is/Ip3BW

Quote:

“It’s very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode [autonomous or human-driven] based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway,” Moir told the paper, adding that the incident occurred roughly 100 yards from a crosswalk. “It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated managed crosswalks are available,” she said.

[churros]

(03-20-2018 09:35 AM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

I had really hoped I'd be long dead before the government ... forced me to use their wonderful self driving cars.

Remind me again how is the goverment involved in these private, entrepreneurial business ventures?

(03-20-2018 07:34 PM)Mage Wrote:  

I suspect globalists will attempt to take away people's cars just like they want to take away guns.

Oh wait now the goverment wants to take the cars away. Which one is it?

[kamoz]

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

Based on how this article was written, there will probably be attempts to shield manufacturers from liability. If it applies only to self-driving cars and not to other industries (quite likely) then that would be a dead giveaway to those of us that understand the existence of the deep state.

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

If self-driving car manufacturers are shielded from liability - and I don't see how their existence is possible without it - then the message is clear: freedom of transportation is on the way out. Affordable personal aircraft ownership is the pinnacle of this freedom. Personal car ownership is second. To you guys drinking the Kool-Aid, wake up.

[SamuelBRoberts]

(03-21-2018 12:33 AM)kamoz Wrote:  

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

Based on how this article was written, there will probably be attempts to shield manufacturers from liability. If it applies only to self-driving cars and not to other industries (quite likely) then that would be a dead giveaway to those of us that understand the existence of the deep state.

An example of one industry that was devastated by changes to (loosening of) liability laws in the early 1980s was general aviation. Once general aviation companies were opened up to being sued by anyone and their dog, these companies shut down left and right. After some band-aid regulations were made over subsequent decades to make it look like the government cared about personal aircraft ownership, these companies started producing airplanes again, but at exorbitant costs. You're looking at half a million to a million dollars for a new typical 4-6 seat personal airplane.

If self-driving car manufacturers are shielded from liability - and I don't see how their existence is possible without it - then the message is clear: freedom of transportation is on the way out. Affordable personal aircraft ownership is the pinnacle of this freedom. Personal car ownership is second. To you guys drinking the Kool-Aid, wake up.

I think it's inevitable that it'll be handled the same way vaccines are handled: there'll be a fund and damages will be paid out of that fund. The companies making personal aircraft weren't buddy-buddy with the government, and they weren't doing hot fancy tech stuff for a nation that's crazy about hot fancy tech stuff.

Shame the deep state are such fags, because I'd love a self-driving car that would let me just get some stuff done on the way to work.

[Higgs Bosun]

(03-20-2018 11:57 PM)churros Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:35 AM)Once Was Not Wrote:  

I had really hoped I'd be long dead before the government ... forced me to use their wonderful self driving cars.

Remind me again how is the goverment involved in these private, entrepreneurial business ventures?

(03-20-2018 07:34 PM)Mage Wrote:  

I suspect globalists will attempt to take away people's cars just like they want to take away guns.

Oh wait now the goverment wants to take the cars away. Which one is it?

Your trolling is lame as fuck. You are quoting two separate individuals, making your attempt to create the illusion of a contradiction completely nonsensical by that fact alone. Not only that, but it's obvious that the first person was talking about forcing the use of autonomous cars while the second person was talking about the banning of non-autonomous cars, which are actions that are complementary to each other rather than contradictory. But by all means keep that soy flowing.

[kamoz]

(03-21-2018 12:45 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I think it's inevitable that it'll be handled the same way vaccines are handled: there'll be a fund and damages will be paid out of that fund. The companies making personal aircraft weren't buddy-buddy with the government, and they weren't doing hot fancy tech stuff for a nation that's crazy about hot fancy tech stuff.

Shame the deep state are such fags, because I'd love a self-driving car that would let me just get some stuff done on the way to work.

Good point with the comparison to vaccines.

As for personal aircraft being fancy tech, they absolutely were then and even now. General aviation started to boom in the 1950s on the heels of WWII - upper middle class and even middle class people had access to airplanes that were essentially mini versions of modern fighter planes (without the guns of course). It would be the equivalent today of someone making $75,000 salary being able to afford a 6-seat single engine jet. But that sort of freedom has no place in the deep state's plans.

It's become pretty clear that one of the deep state's methods to advance their agenda is by massaging various laws, especially liability laws. Bringing up vaccines makes you think about other things as well....like smartphones or other similar devices. There's been talk here and elsewhere of the possibility that they decrease sperm count, cause cancer, and can damage your eyes (early onset macular degeneration). With all the talk on the MSM about getting small kids off of these devices, it makes me wonder what's going on there as well.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-21-2018 12:33 AM)kamoz Wrote:  

There's a huge elephant in the room, and how it is addressed when self-driving cars attempt to be implemented will be very telling. One word: liability.

We don't have all the details, but this case looks fairly clear-cut. Uber is at fault and lawyers will be lining up begging to take the case.

Imagine when there are thousands of these cars driving around built by various manufacturers. A software or hardware issue causes a hard over of the steering wheel and a 10-car pileup or plowing of pedestrians results. What then? Car manufacturers still face lawsuits on a regular basis, but not from your average accident since it's almost always driver error (or not that of the manufacturer).

They can deal with liability the same way they dealt with vaccine case damages. Make damages incurred by vaccines exempt from normal rule of law and create a special fund that is much easier to control and does not run through the court system.

They will simply argue that self-driving cars are much safer than human driven ones, but that unfortunate accidents happen and endanger the viability of the future. Thus your average automated accident and mayhem will end up in a fake court just like the vaccine cases end up in theirs.

Just saw that others have the same idea, but the truth of the matter is that the vaccine damage fund is hard to tap into even if both your daughters get brain damage 2-3 weeks after a vaccine, they will still try to plead coincidence. This will not be a normal lawsuit, but more a modern university rape kangaroo court.