Anyone who thinks they might be safe in a driverless car has never owned a printer
-
-
-
I agree, it's like when did we lose the ability to just manually copy vast literary bodies by hand
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Even if we realized 5% of this potential a year it would be criminal to not start progress on this. The more we use them the better they get
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Is freedom not a moral imperative too? And how do we decide which moral imperatives exceed others?
-
Freedom usually ends where the prospect of serious harm to other individuals begins, no?
-
especially on publicly funded assets like roads. Public safety will trump people who just "like driving" once automation is proven safer
-
Should we have machines dictating what the outcome of the trolly problem should be based on all involved? Pedestrian, passengers, other cars
-
If it leads to fewer casualties overall, I would say so. Difficult to implement. But I see no added value in dying by the error of a human.
-
agreed-trolley problem is a fun moral puzzle, but humans in crash scenarios are usually reacting too quickly to weigh much morality
-
drivers do real life trolley problems every day.
-
and how do they fair? Do they get it right, or do they not even notice swerving for the dog that they'll hit the child?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Probably because they are going to wipe out millions of jobs, and funnel that part of the economy into the pockets of a few wealthy people.
-
2/ Any progress eliminates some number of jobs, by definition makes it progress - being able to do same job better and with less people.
-
question we need to ask is not "how can we keep jobs", but rather "how can we create a functional society that works less, or not at all"
-
... kind of like Star Trek. Except with a realistic view of human nature.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because they might visibly kill a few dozen while invisibly saving millions. Humans suck at discounting like that.
-
Driverless cars just don't benefit from the same lobbying tailwinds that opioids, defense industry, abstinence-only policy, gun sales do...
-
You can already see the lawyers salivating at the prospect of suing Google or Tesla for manslaughter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.