My prediction: we will eventually be banned from driving cars without AI
Funny thing is, this idea has been in sci-fi for ages...like a lot of our current dystopic reality.
You're 100% correct though; they want to take any control they can from us. Social credit, electric cars, self driving cars...it all just rolls downhill. If we let them, they will totally take the right to drive our own cars from us.
I don't know, I don't think I'll put that intent on the writers. I think they genuinely see problems coming up, based on current problems of their day, and write the exaggerated society that spawns from that.
I don't think it's predictive programming. I just think the antihumanists are so fucking retarded they embrace such things as guiding principles instead of warnings.
You're not losing any rights, conspiracy therapist. Driving is a historically white privilege. This is just a $200 tax for each non-ai drive away from your 15 minute city. Blacks, trannys, recent college grads and other presumable democrat voters will be issued grants and forgivable loans to help them adjust.
Jk. I am all for the sit back and relax, 150 mph enabled ai car future. Just doubt it'll happen in our lifetime. The ai taxi cars in cali appear to suck ass. I think a future where pajeet is monitoring 3-4 ai cars is more likely. With current speed limits/rules in place for a while.
You're not losing any rights, conspiracy therapist. Driving is a historically white privilege. This is just a $200 tax for each non-ai drive away from your 15 minute city.
#2real4me.
Jk. I am all for the sit back and relax, 150 mph enabled ai car future. Just doubt it'll happen in our lifetime.
Yup. Again, it's not like I even hate the concept, if it were executed correctly. I just can't currently see a plausible future where the gains outweigh the risks.
It starts off as a tool that is useful for folks who want to opt in. Like cameras in car that warn if they detect driver drowsiness. But then sleepy joe and safety rinos mandate it for everyone.
Similiar to vintage cars getting a pass on most emissiom tests, I think the ai driver transition won't be so dystopian. Just a shame that most new cars will probably be extra costly.
Sidenote: The guy with neurochip is able to play mario kart with his mind (no controller).
If it were authors of books and like I can give some leeway and not place the blame squarely on them.
But I assume we're talking mainly about film, in which I tend to criticise the work as a whole. Because even if writers are innocent, they still have to answer to (((producers)))
I just assumed books, but yeah. Still, even in film, even in dystopias, the heroes usually buck against the trend. If you're in a world where you're not allowed/expected to drive, and you're the hero...God dammit, you'll drive anyway. Because you're human, and you value freedom. I can't think of a version of this trend where the protagonist just sits back and takes it.
But yeah, I get that point - the hero is the one to buck trend.
I just still think that the initial impact in films - of the setting, how it's presented, the default state of consciousness... That's all dystopian and I think that repeatedly shoving that in our faces does some rewiring in our brains to eventually accept those visions of the world.
Seen it happen so many times when Hollywood adapts such stories into their (producers') visions
I still think any actual appeal to the setting is because it would let you righteously kick back against tyranny, but I suppose you could be correct that it's all some psyop, where they then yell 'gotcha,' and laugh as they mock your for thinking you might be the main character. It's not even out of the question, with how controlled everything is, but I don't think the message of dystopias is inherently anything sinister, since it's always presented as a bad thing.
That's all dystopian and I think that repeatedly shoving that in our faces does some rewiring in our brains to eventually accept those visions of the world.
Again, I think the vision of the authors was a correct concern that we might be legitimately headed toward those worlds, but yeah, I get your point as well. How much is warning, how much is predictive programming? Who can say?
How much is warning, how much is predictive programming? Who can say?
A lot of the older writers were writing warnings, Bradbury's mechanical hounds in Fahrenheit 451 were a warning. The people who sell the Thermonator have no such excuse. You don't make the Terrorvortex from the classic sci-fi novel 'Don't make the terrorvortex' and get a pass.
The visionaries who see the future and warn us cannot save us from the midwits who read them and make their visions a reality.
Certainly in many areas eventually. Hot take: if the tech is good enough I can see legitimate reason to have some controlled highways where only self-driving cars are allowed. Assuming it's managed properly, max speeds could be much higher than today while still being safer if there's no unpredictable human drivers along the route.
However what the elites want to do for 2030 is ban them in the cities so that everyone is locked to a tiny walking-distance neighborhood and you're forced to use monitored methods of transit to go anywhere. (which they can cut off during "quarantine" and prevent you from using without a high enough Social Credit Score)
Hot take: if the tech is good enough I can see legitimate reason to have some controlled highways where only self-driving cars are allowed.
The thing is, and I know you know this, so I'll just go on to your next bit...
Assuming it's managed properly
Aye, but there's the rub. Yes, in a "perfect society," curbing freedom could absolutely be in the common good. But we're nowhere near a perfect society so, personally, I'll stand on the side of freedom. I don't care if AI can drive better than average, I'll do whatever I can to retain my own freedom. I don't care if the Experts say that letting humans drive results in many more deaths. Even if they're correct, that's still better than letting an imperfect government have complete authority in these matters.
I still lean strongly libertarian, but I also like to think things through. Like I said, I can see advantages to limiting freedom, or even outright tyranny. But where we currently are, the risks outweigh the rewards, so we should all fight for the imperfect freedom, because we'll currently never get the perfect tyranny.
The same arguments toward letting AI drive apply to eating ze bugs or living in ze pods, or any of ze other memes. It all relies on competent people ruling over us. We're far from that, so I'll fight for an imperfect freedom every time, until someone can convince me otherwise.
You go on to talk about social credits and quarantines, so I know you know, but our current Elites™ simply can't be trusted with anything. They hate us and want us dead.
seems to work out just fine in Germany. I think you run into other engineering limits like absolutely unreasonable fuel consumption or tire wear, way before human reaction time becomes an issue.
The one saving grace we have with the elites is it is simply physically impossible to implement what they want in every single area. They'll certainly attempt it in the cities but there are going to be so many problems with the practicalities and the logistics it's going to fall over.
It's more of an issue of technological stagnation imo. The whole AI craze has made people oblivious to the fact that hardware isn't improving at the rate it once was. Newer chips are more expensive and power hungry, yet they offer less and less improvement over the previous generation.
If Moore's law still applied, then the logistics would be trivial, as the cost would halve every 2 years or so.
On that note, I subscribe to Wirth's law saying software is getting worse faster than hardware is getting better. So much software is just bloated and wasteful these days. I think it will accelerate with AI calls to the cloud, and I hope the bottleneck will make it unmanageable for blanket deployment (though cities are probably fucked as others have noted)
Sure. But don't underestimate government looking for any excuse to push behavior.
I would expect:
Legacy highways' lower usage means more maintenance dollars per car. Even freeways become toll roads. Those who have a robot car, what the government wants me to have, will have their complaints heard about why they should pay to maintain roads they don't use. Of course people today complain about paying for "public" works they don't use, but this one is tied to behavior so it'll actually work.
More maintenance dollars but less will be actually spent because fuck the people. Degrading conventional roads with those old fashioned painted lines and signage will have speed limits lowered in the name of safety. Expect a single lane on these old roads to be in great condition, and those will be for "special" cars and drivers, like HOV/LEV lanes today: special meaning government and super wealthy who need speedy access to their private jet terminals. My state already has "dedicated transponder toll lanes and roads" with higher speed limits and even those limits are never ever enforced as people who can afford to use them treat it as a free-for-all.
If your car can go into manual mode, insurers will charge many times more in premiums. The automatic cars will have some anti-accident certification or warranty (that will likely be bullshit). Whether the actuaries agree or not, the government will reinsure companies against losses from self-driving accidents with no such luck for human drivers. Again, the very wealthy will shrug at a rounding error while you and I will be priced out.
Even if self-driving cars could be safer, they won't be, for the simple reason that responsibility for safety will be in the hands of large governments and corporations, rather the people at direct risk.
With self driving cars you're inevitably going to have people just fall asleep, also drunk, in the cockpit. You're creating new & worse problems to solve that one.
There are already deadly accidents with people on ''assisted driving'' who were doodling on their phone and the ''smart car'' didn't see the truck, or the kid crossing.
Heck, the example here features someone filming himself driving, a distraction while doing something where split-seconds matter.
The one that sticks out in my memory is Mercedes promising robotaxis by 2025. IDK if they've found a way to say that they did that, but i don't see any robo taxis. When Tesla doesn't deliver something you're like ok big thinkers. Mercedes is supposed to be more on the reliability end. I know that all cars suck now, but Mercedes makes trucks and shit. They are a company who can execute on their goals right? If they decide to make electric cars; they make electric cars. I think that they are probably failing at AI cars is telling.
It's hard to keep track of the versions, but I've heard people say and seen demonstrations of it running over children at some phase. But cameras are pretty good at detecting people. I think more likely it will run somebody into a wall in less-than-perfect lighting.
Automatic emergency braking is already a requirement for any car manufactured after 2029. All reports from the field are that the existing systems are dog shit and are constantly having false positives and false negatives. So look forward to that.
Getting the brakes clamped all the way at full speed is gonna hurt. That's not something I, like, do, on a regular basis. There is a reason that when you do plan on doing that a lot you wear a harness.
Nah. They'll be legal. But you'll still need insurance and no insurance company will insure you. So all you have to do is set aside a dedicated account to self-insure for $1M (in today's dollars).
You didn't think they'd stop the billionaires from driving their supercars, did you?
Disagree. They won't ban non-self driving cars because they won't need to. Owning your own car will become a luxury item.
AI fleet vehicles will become cheap. People in cities only need a car for <1hr a week, while those in the suburbs maybe <1hr a day, and that time can be shared with carpooling. Cars cost a lot if you count buying, maintenance, fuel, and storage. Using an AI car for the same amount will probably cost 1/10th that since they can be shared by 10-100x as many people. Well, probably 1/2 that much, and the rest goes as profit to the AI car service. AI cars don't need to park, so I think cities will generally push it silently with removal of parking, instead of loudly with fees to drive.
Being driven by AI is better than driving yourself, and most people don't want to worry about parking or maintenance. In general, you'll get a better experience for cheaper, especially as car prices keep going up until they're unaffordable for most people. In 50 years most places including suburbs will primarily be served by fleets of AI cars and only the rich or incredibly rural will own (and the price will start to make it harder to live rural). That's what our owners want anyways, so there's no need to force anything.
In the landscape of modern aviation, while the integration of advanced technologies such as Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) in airplanes and the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for remote drone operation have significantly revolutionized the field, a distinct division persists between the realms of controlled airspace under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and uncontrolled airspace governed by Visual Flight Rules (VFR). However, amidst this dichotomy, pioneering initiatives are underway, epitomized by the experimental implementation of a specialized roadway in Victoria tailored explicitly for autonomous trucking.
Envisioning the urban mobility of tomorrow, one can forecast the emergence of automated taxi services within central business districts (CBDs), emblematic of the progressive fusion of technology and transportation. Yet, beyond the confines of these urban hubs, the narrative of personal vehicular autonomy endures, albeit within a framework increasingly regulated by considerations of environmental sustainability. Indeed, access to such mobility privileges may hinge upon the acquisition of carbon credits, underscoring the evolving dynamics of transportation accessibility and environmental responsibility in the 21st century.
Funny thing is, this idea has been in sci-fi for ages...like a lot of our current dystopic reality.
You're 100% correct though; they want to take any control they can from us. Social credit, electric cars, self driving cars...it all just rolls downhill. If we let them, they will totally take the right to drive our own cars from us.
Predictive programming, normalising, etc.
There's a reason why in many sci fi dystopias, the world is already presented in such a bad state by default
I don't know, I don't think I'll put that intent on the writers. I think they genuinely see problems coming up, based on current problems of their day, and write the exaggerated society that spawns from that.
I don't think it's predictive programming. I just think the antihumanists are so fucking retarded they embrace such things as guiding principles instead of warnings.
You're not losing any rights, conspiracy therapist. Driving is a historically white privilege. This is just a $200 tax for each non-ai drive away from your 15 minute city. Blacks, trannys, recent college grads and other presumable democrat voters will be issued grants and forgivable loans to help them adjust.
Jk. I am all for the sit back and relax, 150 mph enabled ai car future. Just doubt it'll happen in our lifetime. The ai taxi cars in cali appear to suck ass. I think a future where pajeet is monitoring 3-4 ai cars is more likely. With current speed limits/rules in place for a while.
#2real4me.
Yup. Again, it's not like I even hate the concept, if it were executed correctly. I just can't currently see a plausible future where the gains outweigh the risks.
i'd rather it be a tool to help, not a tool to control.
i'm sure those in wheelchairs would love a car that could automatically load and drive them around.
It starts off as a tool that is useful for folks who want to opt in. Like cameras in car that warn if they detect driver drowsiness. But then sleepy joe and safety rinos mandate it for everyone.
Similiar to vintage cars getting a pass on most emissiom tests, I think the ai driver transition won't be so dystopian. Just a shame that most new cars will probably be extra costly.
Sidenote: The guy with neurochip is able to play mario kart with his mind (no controller).
If it were authors of books and like I can give some leeway and not place the blame squarely on them.
But I assume we're talking mainly about film, in which I tend to criticise the work as a whole. Because even if writers are innocent, they still have to answer to (((producers)))
I just assumed books, but yeah. Still, even in film, even in dystopias, the heroes usually buck against the trend. If you're in a world where you're not allowed/expected to drive, and you're the hero...God dammit, you'll drive anyway. Because you're human, and you value freedom. I can't think of a version of this trend where the protagonist just sits back and takes it.
Ah OK good to have cleared that up.
But yeah, I get that point - the hero is the one to buck trend.
I just still think that the initial impact in films - of the setting, how it's presented, the default state of consciousness... That's all dystopian and I think that repeatedly shoving that in our faces does some rewiring in our brains to eventually accept those visions of the world.
Seen it happen so many times when Hollywood adapts such stories into their (producers') visions
I still think any actual appeal to the setting is because it would let you righteously kick back against tyranny, but I suppose you could be correct that it's all some psyop, where they then yell 'gotcha,' and laugh as they mock your for thinking you might be the main character. It's not even out of the question, with how controlled everything is, but I don't think the message of dystopias is inherently anything sinister, since it's always presented as a bad thing.
Again, I think the vision of the authors was a correct concern that we might be legitimately headed toward those worlds, but yeah, I get your point as well. How much is warning, how much is predictive programming? Who can say?
A lot of the older writers were writing warnings, Bradbury's mechanical hounds in Fahrenheit 451 were a warning. The people who sell the Thermonator have no such excuse. You don't make the Terrorvortex from the classic sci-fi novel 'Don't make the terrorvortex' and get a pass.
The visionaries who see the future and warn us cannot save us from the midwits who read them and make their visions a reality.
Johnny Cab 🤣
This was literally a plot point in I, Robot (the movie), no..?
The main character had one of those fancy cars with the option to actually drive it.
Which he in turn hated because it was “robotic”, and then it turned out he had the prosthetic robotic limb, right..?
Ah, Asimov. I liked that movie more than I expected to, from what I recall.
Certainly not perfect (fucking Shia LaBeouf), but still very memorable, with cool effects, if nothing else.
Yeah basically for OP you're right but you're not alone.
Certainly in many areas eventually. Hot take: if the tech is good enough I can see legitimate reason to have some controlled highways where only self-driving cars are allowed. Assuming it's managed properly, max speeds could be much higher than today while still being safer if there's no unpredictable human drivers along the route.
However what the elites want to do for 2030 is ban them in the cities so that everyone is locked to a tiny walking-distance neighborhood and you're forced to use monitored methods of transit to go anywhere. (which they can cut off during "quarantine" and prevent you from using without a high enough Social Credit Score)
The thing is, and I know you know this, so I'll just go on to your next bit...
Aye, but there's the rub. Yes, in a "perfect society," curbing freedom could absolutely be in the common good. But we're nowhere near a perfect society so, personally, I'll stand on the side of freedom. I don't care if AI can drive better than average, I'll do whatever I can to retain my own freedom. I don't care if the Experts say that letting humans drive results in many more deaths. Even if they're correct, that's still better than letting an imperfect government have complete authority in these matters.
I still lean strongly libertarian, but I also like to think things through. Like I said, I can see advantages to limiting freedom, or even outright tyranny. But where we currently are, the risks outweigh the rewards, so we should all fight for the imperfect freedom, because we'll currently never get the perfect tyranny.
The same arguments toward letting AI drive apply to eating ze bugs or living in ze pods, or any of ze other memes. It all relies on competent people ruling over us. We're far from that, so I'll fight for an imperfect freedom every time, until someone can convince me otherwise.
You go on to talk about social credits and quarantines, so I know you know, but our current Elites™ simply can't be trusted with anything. They hate us and want us dead.
i don't even see it in a freedom sense, but more like "the human brain cannot react fast enough at the speeds ai cars operate, so stay off this road"
My elderly neighbor tellimg stories of doing 100mph down the highway would disagree.
seems to work out just fine in Germany. I think you run into other engineering limits like absolutely unreasonable fuel consumption or tire wear, way before human reaction time becomes an issue.
Incoming 20mph highways
and have the welsh just laid down and taken it, or are they fighting back?
It's hard to fight back without vowels.
Still plenty of Irish that remember the ira, or had ties to em. Just waiting to hear about ieds being found the hard way at this rate.
It's more of an issue of technological stagnation imo. The whole AI craze has made people oblivious to the fact that hardware isn't improving at the rate it once was. Newer chips are more expensive and power hungry, yet they offer less and less improvement over the previous generation.
If Moore's law still applied, then the logistics would be trivial, as the cost would halve every 2 years or so.
On that note, I subscribe to Wirth's law saying software is getting worse faster than hardware is getting better. So much software is just bloated and wasteful these days. I think it will accelerate with AI calls to the cloud, and I hope the bottleneck will make it unmanageable for blanket deployment (though cities are probably fucked as others have noted)
Sure. But don't underestimate government looking for any excuse to push behavior.
I would expect:
Hot take:
Even if self-driving cars could be safer, they won't be, for the simple reason that responsibility for safety will be in the hands of large governments and corporations, rather the people at direct risk.
That's actually a very reasonable assumption.
the gay commies have been going after private cars since at least the late 60s
For your safety and “to save the kids”.
You will be banned from driving without assistance and then banned from driving altogether when the next Wakausha/Muslim Trucker happens.
except they don't care about Whites getting killed
it will be an Ultra activated to attack blacks that will get the law changed
michael hastings has entered the chat
You can already do that. The US government has killed several whistleblowers with remote takeover in the past 20 years.
You'll just be taxed per-block-traveled. And heavily.
All of these solar wifi roadside cameras are the framework.
Obviously. This is a thought that occurred to me back when I saw I-Robot and Minority Report.
With self driving cars you're inevitably going to have people just fall asleep, also drunk, in the cockpit. You're creating new & worse problems to solve that one.
There are already deadly accidents with people on ''assisted driving'' who were doodling on their phone and the ''smart car'' didn't see the truck, or the kid crossing.
Heck, the example here features someone filming himself driving, a distraction while doing something where split-seconds matter.
We were supposed to have fully autonomous vehicles years ago. We aren't anywhere near that:
https://rodneybrooks.com/autonomous-vehicles-2023-part-ii/
https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2024-january-01/
Most "AI" is either a fraud (Amazon's just walk out), prohibitively expensive (GPT-4) or a little bit of both (FSD).
The reality is that the competency crisis is going to make the tech dystopia the elites are salivating over unfeasible.
The one that sticks out in my memory is Mercedes promising robotaxis by 2025. IDK if they've found a way to say that they did that, but i don't see any robo taxis. When Tesla doesn't deliver something you're like ok big thinkers. Mercedes is supposed to be more on the reliability end. I know that all cars suck now, but Mercedes makes trucks and shit. They are a company who can execute on their goals right? If they decide to make electric cars; they make electric cars. I think that they are probably failing at AI cars is telling.
Tesla robotaxis are supposed to be coming 8/8.
Of this year? Dude I have seen FSD v12 and later, and I don't trust it.
Yes. We should get some entertaining headlines if nothing else.
It's hard to keep track of the versions, but I've heard people say and seen demonstrations of it running over children at some phase. But cameras are pretty good at detecting people. I think more likely it will run somebody into a wall in less-than-perfect lighting.
Yes, but because they'll not let us have our own cars at all.
Automatic emergency braking is already a requirement for any car manufactured after 2029. All reports from the field are that the existing systems are dog shit and are constantly having false positives and false negatives. So look forward to that.
Getting the brakes clamped all the way at full speed is gonna hurt. That's not something I, like, do, on a regular basis. There is a reason that when you do plan on doing that a lot you wear a harness.
Nah. They'll be legal. But you'll still need insurance and no insurance company will insure you. So all you have to do is set aside a dedicated account to self-insure for $1M (in today's dollars).
You didn't think they'd stop the billionaires from driving their supercars, did you?
what a fucking scam
Rules are made for the dumbest members of society. This will happen.
No chance, unless they give manufacturers immunity for accidents human input will always be required in the fine print.
They will require cars with computers though, so they can fence in your car to a specific area.
When I was young, the prospect of high technology and thinking machines excited me greatly.
Back then I thought these machines I would be able to own would answer to me and not a government or corporations.
No need. Just ban private ownership and have public ride shares as the only option. Why would they let you have your own car?
More or less, yes, though there will still be "hobby" drivers who race or off-road and so on in designated areas.
My prediction: AI is a ridiculous scam and everyone will laugh at it.
Disagree. They won't ban non-self driving cars because they won't need to. Owning your own car will become a luxury item.
AI fleet vehicles will become cheap. People in cities only need a car for <1hr a week, while those in the suburbs maybe <1hr a day, and that time can be shared with carpooling. Cars cost a lot if you count buying, maintenance, fuel, and storage. Using an AI car for the same amount will probably cost 1/10th that since they can be shared by 10-100x as many people. Well, probably 1/2 that much, and the rest goes as profit to the AI car service. AI cars don't need to park, so I think cities will generally push it silently with removal of parking, instead of loudly with fees to drive.
Being driven by AI is better than driving yourself, and most people don't want to worry about parking or maintenance. In general, you'll get a better experience for cheaper, especially as car prices keep going up until they're unaffordable for most people. In 50 years most places including suburbs will primarily be served by fleets of AI cars and only the rich or incredibly rural will own (and the price will start to make it harder to live rural). That's what our owners want anyways, so there's no need to force anything.
In the landscape of modern aviation, while the integration of advanced technologies such as Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) in airplanes and the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for remote drone operation have significantly revolutionized the field, a distinct division persists between the realms of controlled airspace under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and uncontrolled airspace governed by Visual Flight Rules (VFR). However, amidst this dichotomy, pioneering initiatives are underway, epitomized by the experimental implementation of a specialized roadway in Victoria tailored explicitly for autonomous trucking.
Envisioning the urban mobility of tomorrow, one can forecast the emergence of automated taxi services within central business districts (CBDs), emblematic of the progressive fusion of technology and transportation. Yet, beyond the confines of these urban hubs, the narrative of personal vehicular autonomy endures, albeit within a framework increasingly regulated by considerations of environmental sustainability. Indeed, access to such mobility privileges may hinge upon the acquisition of carbon credits, underscoring the evolving dynamics of transportation accessibility and environmental responsibility in the 21st century.