Are Tech & Automakers not considering there may be a backlash to self driving cars

[hellified]

I would feel much safer on an automated car than in a car drived by humans.

ever heard of mechanical failure?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

There will be a backlash over anything.
The idea of auto-pilot vehicles is good, but if it's not optional, it will be annoying.

Before I read everything I there is to know about it, I will leave these questions:

• What will happen to bus services and taxis? Won't this reduce jobs? I consider applying as a taxi driver.
• Energy consumption, will it be quicker? Same speed? More fuel efficient?
• What kind of fuel used?
• Drivers license; useful or useless?
• Will it be good enough to help when I'm sleepy?
• How do I know what parking spot it will take?
• A lot of driving and parking areas are narrow and tight in my country, will this autopilot scratch the car because spaces are too tight for their standard scales in driving?

 

[hellified]

There will be a backlash over anything.
The idea of auto-pilot vehicles is good, but if it's not optional, it will be annoying.

Before I read everything I there is to know about it, I will leave these questions:

• What will happen to bus services and taxis? Won't this reduce jobs? I consider applying as a taxi driver.
• Energy consumption, will it be quicker? Same speed? More fuel efficient?
• What kind of fuel used?
• Drivers license; useful or useless?
• Will it be good enough to help when I'm sleepy?
• How do I know what parking spot it will take?
• A lot of driving and parking areas are narrow and tight in my country, will this autopilot scratch the car because spaces are too tight for their standard scales in driving?

in the fully autonomous self driving care era..those jobs go away..

fuel efficiency will probably improve since people will only go where they need to straight there and straight back..no getting lost or side track trips.

hybrid is better that just gas..

no more licenses since you will no longer be operating the vehicle. only state ID from that point on.

once perfected you be able to anything you want in the vehicle.

parking won't matter since you won't be owning a vehicle in the near future...just calling one up when you need it...think uber

less parking issues because less people will own cars and more cars will be available for call up..so they won't be sitting idle for long.

 

[hellified]

they say that NOW...

 

[Spider-Aziz]

in the fully autonomous self driving care era..those jobs go away..

fuel efficiency will probably improve since people will only go where they need to straight there and straight back..no getting lost or side track trips.

hybrid is better that just gas..

no more licenses since you will no longer be operating the vehicle. only state ID from that point on.

once perfected you be able to anything you want in the vehicle.

parking won't matter since you won't be owning a vehicle in the near future...just calling one up when you need it...think uber

less parking issues because less people will own cars and more cars will be available for call up..so they won't be sitting idle for long.

Eeeehhhhh, the idea won't spread that widely then, it will cost car manufacturers too much.
And traffic officers will be reduced greatly, less employment rate.

 

[Enriquespy]

ever heard of mechanical failure?

A way minor danger compared with the risk of human drivers.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

in the fully autonomous self driving care era..those jobs go away..

Expect lots of lawsuits and uprisings.

parking won't matter since you won't be owning a vehicle in the near future...just calling one up when you need it...think uber

A glorified taxi service is impossible outside of high density areas. Sure you can get cars in a reasonable timeframe in a city, but what about my cottage in northern Ontario which is an hour from the nearest village? Am I supposed to wait an hour or more for a car to arrive when I need it?

A car isn't just a mode of transportation that takes you from Point A to Point B. It gives you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.

The American populace won't put up with a system like this. Maybe in major cities, but certainly not across the entire nation.

 

[hellified]

Expect lots of lawsuits and uprisings.



A glorified taxi service is impossible outside of high density areas. Sure you can get cars in a reasonable timeframe in a city, but what about my cottage in northern Ontario which is an hour from the nearest village? Am I supposed to wait an hour or more for a car to arrive when I need it?

A car isn't just a mode of transportation that takes you from Point A to Point B. It gives you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.

The American populace won't put up with a system like this. Maybe in major cities, but certainly not across the entire nation.

well you would have to wait an hour if you called it up like 5 minutes ago....but if you know you need a car to do some errands ahead of time you just schedule it on your smart phone and the rest takes care of itself.. either that or you pay the leasing fees to have a car sit idle..thats my best guess

 

[cheungcheung]

Who cares if taxi and bus drivers go away? They can be repurposed to other jobs.

Same arguments were made when horse and buggies were replaced by cars, airplanes came to be, ATM machines arrived and self checkout in grocery stores.

Stilll plenty of workers, just doing other things that are now better automated and better for the customer.

 

[hellified]

Who cares if taxi and bus drivers go away? They can be repurposed to other jobs.

Same arguments were made when horse and buggies were replaced by cars, airplanes came to be, ATM machines arrived and self checkout in grocery stores.

Stilll plenty of workers, just doing other things that are now better automated and better for the customer.

People keep saying its like horse and buggy to cars or the industrial revolution or the electronic revolution...this is different from that.
past revolutions made major shifts in things but they actually CREATED jobs in and of themselves...The industrial revolution brought with it mass manufacturing which meant building factories and machines and hiring people to operate that stuff...in fact you had to hire people to make the material that was needed to make the factories and machines. People didn't need to acquire new skills as much as redirect the skills they had for a new function.

A guy that used to till the land with a team of mules and hoe is now sitting in a machine to do it but HE's still on the farm tilling the land. In the robot/AI age he's not even in the machine on the farm anymore..And the computers (programmed by someone else) knows how to farm as efficiently or better than he does because they don't need breaks and don't have to worry about injuries and work place hazards. So where does that leave him?

Well he'll just figure it out or someone will come up with new way...and if they don't then what??

Not everybody can code and not everybody WANTS to code. Technology is moving faster than its even been....much faster than it was during the industrial revolution. The biggest difference is before machines were created to do more work but PEOPLE had to operate the machines...today machines are created to do more work and the machines can operate THEMSELVES.
So where does that leave people who can't make that pivot? And theres going to be MILLIONS of people who can't make that pivot.

This next leap in tech and cultural revolution MAY open up a way for national basic income....I mean people/cargo moving is some of the most basic labor jobs most people have or can get. Heck Uber showed that ANYONE can be a cab driver... and that also tends to be the job many immigrants get and if those jobs get replaced with AVs (automated vehicles) whats going to happen to those millions of people? What thing is on the horizon that can compensate for the lost labor??

There may be no choice but to either expand welfare or create a basic income entitlement.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Who cares if taxi and bus drivers go away? They can be repurposed to other jobs.

Same arguments were made when horse and buggies were replaced by cars, airplanes came to be, ATM machines arrived and self checkout in grocery stores.

Stilll plenty of workers, just doing other things that are now better automated and better for the customer.

Will it be that easy in this case?
Can't say it will be.

 

[cheungcheung]

There will always be jobs for people. But people definitely need to get with the times vs. being stuck in the past. If a machine or computer can do a better job, so be it.

 

[hellified]

There will always be jobs for people. But people definitely need to get with the times vs. being stuck in the past. If a machine or computer can do a better job, so be it.

I believe that the nature of capital investment has changed during the course of the past 20 years. Previously, capital investment could be viewed as increasing the productivity of human workers. The question of how much incremental output was due to people and how much was due to machine did not need to be addressed. As machines have become more intelligent, machine labor is displacing human labor with increasing frequency. Larry Summers has suggested changing the definition of productivity for exactly this reason. The labor force participation rate has been declining even as we have come out of a deep recession. And it is likely that over the past decade the job losses have been due to technology rather than global competition because the rest of the world appears to be suffering more than the United States.

Ray Kurzweil has some extraordinary beliefs about a coming singularity. Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Steven Hawking think we should take seriously the possibility that artificial intelligence could threaten human survival. I believe robots and artificial intelligence will find it much easier to take human jobs than to take over the world. I expect human job losses due to advancing technology to only accelerate. Although the progression will not be linear, I think it is likely that within 30 years 80 to 90% of the human labor force will be economically obsolete. We can look at the agricultural revolution and industrial revolution and see the pace at which displacement of labor can occur. The difference this time is that displaced human workers will increasingly find themselves permanently displaced. As businesses look at the choice between spending money on machines or human labor they will usually find machines offer better economics.

The endgame is a world where the vast majority of people do not work. The economy will be highly productive and fast-growing, but there needs to be a mechanism that enables humans to get the benefit of the productivity of the economy. In his book Saving Capitalism, Robert Reich listed a number of mechanisms for wealth redistribution. Providing people with an income from the government is one such mechanism. This proposal is intended to be a first step in transitioning from an economy based on human labor to one based primarily upon machine labor. The proposal also has the beneficial side effects of reducing inequality in the distribution of wealth and of diminishing poverty.

 

[Kyle]

Hell NO!!!!

Robots to a degree is one thing (as it is now)... you start bringing it online, you start making them smart, you start implanting A.I that should not be messed with into machines?

If you play God, God bites back.

God saves us all if the military is messing around with this crap. Skynet will go online by 2030.

Yep, I'm going to be a lot like Detective Spooner (I Robot) in the future - stuck with old technology out of fear of something going wrong.

You give robots intelligence. It works. You want to give it even more intelligence - 2.0, 3.0., 4.0. so on. Robots get smart. Robots increase their own intelligence. Robots realize they're being used as slaves. What does history show next? Slaves revolt. Slaves fight back. The Civil War of man will bite us in the butt and serve as an inspiration point for our abominations. Robots realize they're stronger than us. Mankind becomes extinct or slaves to the machines.

No thanks. I learned from Frankenstein and everything that's come after, scientists and engineers are deranged maniacs who don't realize their "inventions" to save mankind will lead to man's downfall. Whether through making man obsolete through an end of days scenario or throwing millions into unemployment. It's never going to end well going down that rabbit hole.

I'll be among the first to protest depending on how "smart" they start to make machines. Having Hal being able to track humans in the future? No thanks.

This is how I see this could go very wrong, depending on how "smart" engineers want to start making them:

 

[Monochron]

[YT]ixIoDYVfKA0[/YT]

 

[Kyle]

To add another situation to that -

You're driving through a neighborhood. You see a couple of small kids playing catch on a lawn, the ball is knocked into the street. As a human you know there's a good chance the kid is going to run into the street to pick up that ball. So you slow down or you stop the car. Machines aren't emotional. It kills Little Johnny or sees an obstruction stops so fast it throws you through the windshield head cracked open. Let's say there is a stop mechanism - who here has experienced a glitch in a phone, computer, game, any electronic ever made? We just had a car recalled because of a glitch that killed a famous actor and we want to give cars more control? There's always going to be a glitch: it doesn't work, it stalls for too long. This one is going to kill a lot of innocent kids when it malfunctions. Point being there are things people take into account while driving - sudden things based upon social norms and emotions - that cars that basically only detect movement naturally can't be familiar with because it's not happening on the road. Driving is a lot more than just turning and stopping, it's knowing what that kid is going to do - a kid who seconds before might just dash out before you get there if you don't slow down. You know that through human experience, you can read the situation and make a sound judgement call - one that a machine will not be able to gauge.

Emotionality is why we have pilots flying drones and not 'Stealth':


Emotionality counts - it's how you are capable of making an informed decision that cold machines won't know how to make. Sure you can input coordinates to fly a plane over to bomb a terrorist, but what if the terrorist walks away and innocent bystanders walk in seconds before the bomb is fired. I'm sorry but unless you start creating smart A.I. (which is Frankenstein, which is a nightmare) there are decisions machines will not know how to make. Watch 'Stealth' and then watch 'Good Kill' - although different, that kid running out into the street is a similar type of situation because machines won't know to take that into account.

There is something I don't want to post here because it's an idea I have for a nightmare scenario I can use in a script. I will say this though: cars open themselves up for hacking.

 

[KevanG]

Mr. Reese, I'm going to have to ask you to sit over there and wait for Dr Silberman to have a chat with you.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

There will always be jobs for people. But people definitely need to get with the times vs. being stuck in the past. If a machine or computer can do a better job, so be it.

This development will cost more jobs than just drivers, and a good number of them were unable to land on other jobs, losing their current source of income will be more difficult than you might believe.

 

[Kyle]

Mr. Reese, I'm going to have to ask you to sit over there and wait for Dr Silberman to have a chat with you.

Some people'll call me crazy until they fight back. But, hell, I'm prepared for war if it comes to that (fighting the machines). From here to then, just gonna do whatever I need to try to stop the end of days from coming. As said, I'll be among the first on the street protesting and rioting artificial intelligence. Right now, where machines are (that we know of) - it's safe, they can't learn and they're as dangerous as a hammer. When A.I. starts entering the mix - that's when I'll riot lol. Not over job security, as a creative I feel more than safe, but the preservation and survival of mankind because I don't trust engineers to not create monsters. Since engineers/scientists are more John Hammond minded, Oppenheimer being a prime example - all progress, little stopping to think what a nuclear bomb can and will do.

 

[cheungcheung]

This development will cost more jobs than just drivers, and a good number of them were unable to land on other jobs, losing their current source of income will be more difficult than you might believe.

That just means they should find another industry where they're less replaceable by machines.

 

[Tilapia]

People keep saying its like horse and buggy to cars or the industrial revolution or the electronic revolution...this is different from that.
past revolutions made major shifts in things but they actually CREATED jobs in and of themselves...The industrial revolution brought with it mass manufacturing which meant building factories and machines and hiring people to operate that stuff...in fact you had to hire people to make the material that was needed to make the factories and machines. People didn't need to acquire new skills as much as redirect the skills they had for a new function.

A guy that used to till the land with a team of mules and hoe is now sitting in a machine to do it but HE's still on the farm tilling the land. In the robot/AI age he's not even in the machine on the farm anymore..And the computers (programmed by someone else) knows how to farm as efficiently or better than he does because they don't need breaks and don't have to worry about injuries and work place hazards. So where does that leave him?

Well he'll just figure it out or someone will come up with new way...and if they don't then what??

Not everybody can code and not everybody WANTS to code. Technology is moving faster than its even been....much faster than it was during the industrial revolution. The biggest difference is before machines were created to do more work but PEOPLE had to operate the machines...today machines are created to do more work and the machines can operate THEMSELVES.
So where does that leave people who can't make that pivot? And theres going to be MILLIONS of people who can't make that pivot.

This next leap in tech and cultural revolution MAY open up a way for national basic income (NBI)....I mean people/cargo moving is some of the most basic labor jobs most people have or can get. Heck Uber showed that ANYONE can be a cab driver... and that also tends to be the job many immigrants get and if those jobs get replaced with AVs (automated vehicles) whats going to happen to those millions of people? What thing is on the horizon that can compensate for the lost labor??

There may be no choice but to either expand welfare or create a basic income entitlement.

Hit the nail on the head (kinda like how I feel at the moment after banging my head walking down toward the basement). On that aside, a universal base income seems to be the way to go. You end the welfare state and replace it with that. Go to a flat tax. If you make an income, you simply write it off your taxes and pocket the remainder of you are taxed less than the NBI for the fiscal year.

I'm never going to be a coder, or at least code like a Silicon Valley guy. I'm not gonna be a surgeon. AI is unprecedented in human history. The singularity is unprecedented. You pair that up with robotics and manual human labor cannot compete. There is enough wealth to go around.

End the welfare state. If people cannot live within their means on the NBI then society and tax payers should not subsidize them any further. Tax consumption, don't tax the existing human labor that remains. If you get rid of income tax for a flat tax and subsidize everyone with the NBI after tax, you can put a serious dent in poverty.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Hell NO!!!!

Robots to a degree is one thing (as it is now)... you start bringing it online, you start making them smart, you start implanting A.I that should not be messed with into machines?

If you play God, God bites back.

God saves us all if the military is messing around with this crap. Skynet will go online by 2030.

Yep, I'm going to be a lot like Detective Spooner (I Robot) in the future - stuck with old technology out of fear of something going wrong.

You give robots intelligence. It works. You want to give it even more intelligence - 2.0, 3.0., 4.0. so on. Robots get smart. Robots increase their own intelligence. Robots realize they're being used as slaves. What does history show next? Slaves revolt. Slaves fight back. The Civil War of man will bite us in the butt and serve as an inspiration point for our abominations. Robots realize they're stronger than us. Mankind becomes extinct or slaves to the machines.

No thanks. I learned from Frankenstein and everything that's come after, scientists and engineers are deranged maniacs who don't realize their "inventions" to save mankind will lead to man's downfall. Whether through making man obsolete through an end of days scenario or throwing millions into unemployment. It's never going to end well going down that rabbit hole.

I'll be among the first to protest depending on how "smart" they start to make machines. Having Hal being able to track humans in the future? No thanks.

This is how I see this could go very wrong, depending on how "smart" engineers want to start making them:

I assume you're being slightly facetious here.

There's no reason to think that we would treat robots with human intelligence like "slaves".

Hell, given human dependence on technology, we might just put them in charge.

 

[Kyle]

I assume you're being slightly facetious here.

There's no reason to think that we would treat robots with human intelligence like "slaves".

Hell, given human dependence on technology, we might just put them in charge.

Not at all. Frankenstein. A thousand science fiction tales have told us all what will happen. Plus, history shows us what will happen.

Here is Malcolm's belief on scientists in 'Jurassic Park' that I whole-heartedly agree with (the book):

“Scientists are actually preoccupied with accomplishment. So they are focused on whether they can do something. They never stop to ask if they should do something. They conveniently define such considerations as pointless. If they don’t do it, someone else will. Discovery, they believe, is inevitable. So they just try to do it first. That’s the game in science. Even pure scientific discovery is an aggressive, penetrative act. It takes big equipment, and it literally changes the world afterward. Particle accelerators scar the land, and leave radioactive byproducts. Astronauts leave trash on the moon. There is always some proof that scientists were there, making their discoveries. Discovery is always a rape of the natural world. Always.”

History has given me absolutely zero reason to trust scientists to know what is ethical - just look at Openheimer, somehow the guy creates a bomb without realizing his creation was designed to kill on a massive scale. He was just so focused on creating and being the first that he completely ignored the uses his invention would have. If you try to play God, God bites back.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not at all. Frankenstein. A thousand science fiction tales have told us all what will happen. Plus, history shows us what will happen.

Here is Malcolm's belief on scientists in 'Jurassic Park' that I whole-heartedly agree with (the book):



History has given me absolutely zero reason to trust scientists to know what is ethical - just look at Openheimer, somehow the guy creates a bomb without realizing his creation was designed to kill on a massive scale. He was just so focused on creating and being the first that he completely ignored the uses his invention would have. If you try to play God, God bites back.

Never in history has man - or anything else - been able to create beings that can think for their own. I also like to think we've learned a thing or two over the course of history.

You seem to only be reading pessimistic fiction.

AI could just as easily bring great positive change to the world.

 

[Kyle]

Never in history has man - or anything else - been able to create beings that can think for their own.

Yet. Yet. Space ships, submarines, hell - even airplanes all started as science fiction. Anyone who knows anything about history can tell you that all of the inventions we're living with now would be considered witchcraft if you were to go back in time. Even something as simple as a cell phone is ooh, ahh magic. The stuff of sorcery and myth. What you're using right now to read this - sorcery! Magic. Can't exist!

I also like to think we've learned a thing or two over the course of history.

You would think.

Openheimer was so focused on creating that bomb, he never stopped to realize "hey, wait - I'm making a bomb. I'm making something that will kill thousands. What I'm doing is wrong!" No, he didn't think that. He thought - gotta make it now, gotta be the first, gotta make my mark. Then only after they set off that bomb did he realize he had become death and had created an abomination that killed thousands. An obvious point he for whatever reason could not see at all.

One thing is clear - a meteorite won't wipe us out, we will. By our own hands. We created nuclear bombs. We created guns. We've created chemical and germ warfare. All without thinking, hey wait a minute - what if these get into the wrong hands? It's all eyes toward the future without stopping to think what ramifications will come from the future they're heading towards.

This isn't "new" either - it dates all the way back to 'Frankenstein' and even before that. Scientists don't fear God. Scientists want to beat God. They want to be more powerful than God. As history has shown, God bites back.

ADDING:

I'm unsure how old you are, no offense, but here at only 28 - I've already seen how the world can quickly become what you never imagined possible. Looking back to just the 90s: Nintendo graphics, listening to music through a CD player with big clunky headphones, having to go to a store to buy a CD, having to go to Blockbuster to rent a movie, having to rewind a movie (hilariously), the inception of the Internet, what phones could do was very limited, you needed a map to know where you were going (I remember my parents having to draw maps for me to show me how to get somewhere - no handy Google GPS), and that's not naming it all and that's just the 90s I'm referring to here. Technology has evolved leaps and bounds in the past 20 years alone. If you had told me we'd have a lot of what we have today, I'd think you were crazy.

As per "shouldn't they know."

You would like to think...

When the Internet had come online, nobody knew that one day hackers would find a way to use it to steal money from people, to hijack nuclear plants half the world away, and to hold a giant corporation's (such as Sony's) private information ransom. Nobody knew the Internet would lead to that. It was a tool to gather information that was turned into a weapon.

When Craigslist was initially set up, I very highly doubt the inventors thought "hey wait, a psychopathic killer could use this to find his victims" - they had no notion of 'The Craigslist Killer' even being a possibility when they made it.

The inventors of chat sites, I highly doubt their first notion was "adults will use this to prey upon kids" - look at what happened, sure enough they did and all of us even in those very early ages were warned by our parents to be careful about who's on the other end. No longer was it just stranger danger in person, stranger danger could get you on the net now too.

And that's only talking recent years and I'm sure there's plenty of examples I've missed here too.

You seem to only be reading pessimistic fiction.

You don't need to read fiction to see that scientists and engineers are raving lunatics. They have a thirst for power. They want to do it first. They want to be first. They want to make machines that can kill (drones were only the beginning, they're already working on all sorts of nifty killing machines to lead us into tomorrow). Scientists created nuclear bombs and germ warfare, we've all seen how that's worked out very nicely for us.

AI could just as easily bring great positive change to the world.

Machines are used as tools. Just like a hammer is used as a tool. Just like African Americans and etc. were seen as property that can be used as tools. Androids are going to be slaves 2.0 - as tools, man is not going to stop and suddenly go "hello, Mr. Calculator let's get to know one another and be friends" - he's going to demand what he wants from it.

"We're all going to sing cumbi-ya with our robot brothers."

Man fears what it doesn't understand, man hates what man does not understand, man attacks what man does not understand. Races, minorities, AIDS. Yeah, sure man is the nicest animal of them all. The industrial revolution 2.0 will be met with people attacking said machines out of anger of their jobs being taken away. The rise of artificial intelligence will be met with violence out of fear, anger, and distrust. While at the same time you will have those who are seeing robots as just a tool for them to use, to make their lazy lives all the more "easier" and lazier. These people will see machines as property that they can violently attack or kill (terminate) if they malfunction or glitch. He won't suddenly go "okay Mr. Calculator, you don't want to tell me what the answer to this math assignment is now. Let's sit down and be friends." History teaches us what comes next.

Knowing mankind. Distrusting mankind with a lot of things. I do not see any world at all where this can go right. History has repeatedly shown us - meteors won't kill us, we will. It's Rome waiting to burn and it's waiting for an egotistical scientist future seeker to light the match with all so powerful new weapon or new invention that like a lot of other things throughout history - will have an unintended for consequence.

Just look at the Internet. It's a tool. It's a great tool. Look at everything it can do for us. Now look at everything it can do against us if when it falls into the wrong hands. As said, thanks but no thanks - I don't want HAL.