Ok you can give up your control because 40 people were driving too fast for conditions. I will continue to avoid such situations by manually driving at a safe speed. When you get in an accident with your AI, just remember you asked for it.
I can't WAIT to be in one on on a long empty highway except for a double-wide tractor driving 20 and having it unable to figure out how to pass in the oncoming lane.
For one thing, I'm not convinced this tech will ever benefit as many people as the steam boiler. Secondly, how can we learn to make a better steam boiler yet at the same time repeat the same kind of dangerous mistakes in testing? Humans really are devolving.
Not quite sure why you're so smug. You can't give a graduated license to a self driving car so it doesn't even make sense. Plus I know of no self driving care that can even pass a standard driving test yet, like a 16 year old can.
One of these cars went down a one way road the wrong way just a month ago, before that one ran into a trailer, before that into a bus. I sure hope that is untested. If that's tested already then we have more to worry about than I thought.
You're saying they sat steam boilers in the middle of a public place before they knew if they would explode or not? They didn't test them first in an area where they wouldn't injure anyone? That would be awful stupid. I'm glad people are smarter now.
People are dying every day from a lot of things. This has almost become a 'won't you think of the children' kind of comment. It doesn't really matter because as in my original comment, not enough people will be able to afford these, ever, for it to make a difference. Not unless we scrap capitalism and go to a more sharing economy. It's a lot cheaper and reasonable for people to start eating healthier than to ever be able to afford an automated car. Yet you aren't crusading for that.
So it's ok if we kill people now for us to gamble that enough people might one day be able to afford these cars for it to make a statistical difference?
We're in Trumpworld, why let a thing like human safety stand in the way of profits from a luxurymobile? Have they at least ensured that they will travel the speed limit or be in a special lane?
It has become far, far more efficient to make the goods. More than enough to make up for additional demand. So the cost of them *should* be going down, and far more than they are.
Then why is the quality of living going down? Sure we have lots of cheap gadgets, but that does dick all for quality of life. People work longer and commute longer, are in greater debt, spend less time with their families and can afford less nutritious food and housing than ever before. It's great that people in China are making more money, but why do we have to be the ones to sacrifice for it?
So if we don't want most people living on a dirty street and starving like in other countries we need to figure out how to make better stuff then them? That's bullshit, especially when that stuff was designed here in the first place and cheap labor adds nothing to the quality of the product.
It's easy to create 50,000 jobs if you don't have to pay them well or hire locally. When those 50,000 seats are all filled by domestic workers making at least market rate, then it is time to call it a good job.
Slashdot Mirror
He seemed to be insinuating the latter.
Why would anyone spend money on insurance covering liability for a car they have no control over? That's like having car insurance for riding the bus.
Ok you can give up your control because 40 people were driving too fast for conditions. I will continue to avoid such situations by manually driving at a safe speed. When you get in an accident with your AI, just remember you asked for it.
Cite your evidence that a self driving car is safer than the aggregate of all people who choose to text while driving?
I can't WAIT to be in one on on a long empty highway except for a double-wide tractor driving 20 and having it unable to figure out how to pass in the oncoming lane.
For one thing, I'm not convinced this tech will ever benefit as many people as the steam boiler. Secondly, how can we learn to make a better steam boiler yet at the same time repeat the same kind of dangerous mistakes in testing? Humans really are devolving.
Not quite sure why you're so smug. You can't give a graduated license to a self driving car so it doesn't even make sense. Plus I know of no self driving care that can even pass a standard driving test yet, like a 16 year old can.
In my area they have a solution for that, it's call graduated licensing.
Yes because it's a good thing that humans aren't doing things in a better way since the stone ages.
As long as it's capabilities move with the general flow of human drivers, which I can't see in the near future. Otherwise it is just more dangerous.
One of these cars went down a one way road the wrong way just a month ago, before that one ran into a trailer, before that into a bus. I sure hope that is untested. If that's tested already then we have more to worry about than I thought.
You're saying they sat steam boilers in the middle of a public place before they knew if they would explode or not? They didn't test them first in an area where they wouldn't injure anyone? That would be awful stupid. I'm glad people are smarter now.
Testing AI on a public road right now amounts to using coal from a nation sending children down with hand shovels, pickaxes and a candle.
People are dying every day from a lot of things. This has almost become a 'won't you think of the children' kind of comment. It doesn't really matter because as in my original comment, not enough people will be able to afford these, ever, for it to make a difference. Not unless we scrap capitalism and go to a more sharing economy. It's a lot cheaper and reasonable for people to start eating healthier than to ever be able to afford an automated car. Yet you aren't crusading for that.
If AI mistakes the gas pedal for the brake then it won't matter.
No it won't.. AI will make totally different mistakes, like driving into trailers crossing the road.
So it's ok if we kill people now for us to gamble that enough people might one day be able to afford these cars for it to make a statistical difference?
It's not a freak accident if the machine makes a mistake a human wouldn't have. This will not be hard to prove.
We're in Trumpworld, why let a thing like human safety stand in the way of profits from a luxurymobile? Have they at least ensured that they will travel the speed limit or be in a special lane?
My wife has had cancer twice. In the country I'm from she received wonderful treatment. In America she would be dying.
It has become far, far more efficient to make the goods. More than enough to make up for additional demand. So the cost of them *should* be going down, and far more than they are.
Anything that affects mate selection affects evolution... Mundane things such as wearing makup and shaving body hair are probably affecting evolution.
Then why is the quality of living going down? Sure we have lots of cheap gadgets, but that does dick all for quality of life. People work longer and commute longer, are in greater debt, spend less time with their families and can afford less nutritious food and housing than ever before. It's great that people in China are making more money, but why do we have to be the ones to sacrifice for it?
So if we don't want most people living on a dirty street and starving like in other countries we need to figure out how to make better stuff then them? That's bullshit, especially when that stuff was designed here in the first place and cheap labor adds nothing to the quality of the product.
It's easy to create 50,000 jobs if you don't have to pay them well or hire locally. When those 50,000 seats are all filled by domestic workers making at least market rate, then it is time to call it a good job.