Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BlueMark" data-source="post: 1179217" data-attributes="member: 13298">Leonard, you're giving the average person too much credit. I think it's highly unlikely that most of people in society will be able to turn off their emotionally-driven side and take the same stance of statistical apathy that the corporations have.I don't know if there is a globalist plan to ban private car ownership. But car culture is not our friend. Cars are inefficient and unfortunately most of the US/Canada/Australia have built their cities around cars instead of people. It's not the middle class that benefits, it's the oil, auto, insurance, and financial corporations.The proper solution was to build dense, walkable cities with the primary mode of transportation for private individuals being subways, plus commuter trains that go into the suburbs. Europe and Asia have done a better job with that. In US/CA/AU, it's too late to fix the problem directly. Our cities developed around car culture and are now too expensive and spread out to properly implement rail transportation. Autonomous cars are just a solution to this problem. I'm not an AI fanboy but in this particular case it is the lesser evil compared to car culture.As for this particular incident, look at it another way. As unethical as Uber has been in the past, it is in their interest to make sure their AI can avoid damage to the cars. That means pedestrians, other cars, walls, curbs, etc. In this particular case, it seems like the pedestrian came out of nowhere. Would it have been the same if it'd been a human driver?<a href="http://archive.is/Ip3BW" target="_blank">http://archive.is/Ip3BW</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="BlueMark, post: 1179217, member: 13298"] Leonard, you're giving the average person too much credit. I think it's highly unlikely that most of people in society will be able to turn off their emotionally-driven side and take the same stance of statistical apathy that the corporations have. I don't know if there is a globalist plan to ban private car ownership. But car culture is not our friend. Cars are inefficient and unfortunately most of the US/Canada/Australia have built their cities around cars instead of people. It's not the middle class that benefits, it's the oil, auto, insurance, and financial corporations. The proper solution was to build dense, walkable cities with the primary mode of transportation for private individuals being subways, plus commuter trains that go into the suburbs. Europe and Asia have done a better job with that. In US/CA/AU, it's too late to fix the problem directly. Our cities developed around car culture and are now too expensive and spread out to properly implement rail transportation. Autonomous cars are just a solution to this problem. I'm not an AI fanboy but in this particular case it is the lesser evil compared to car culture. As for this particular incident, look at it another way. As unethical as Uber has been in the past, it is in their interest to make sure their AI can avoid damage to the cars. That means pedestrians, other cars, walls, curbs, etc. In this particular case, it seems like the pedestrian came out of nowhere. Would it have been the same if it'd been a human driver? [URL]http://archive.is/Ip3BW[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification