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.
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.
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.