Self-driving car hype

>With no accidents?
Google it you lying fuck

>With no accidents?

Attached: 1511926984236.png (507x507, 271K)

>With no accidents?
archive.fo/k3erc

Attached: vO7lRZ7.png (621x702, 56K)

I'm talking about Waymo operating their public service, not Uber and their mouthbreathing testing program.

I said driving around public riders with no accidents, not driving around brain-dead test drivers with no accidents.

> As well as the average human driver.
Self driving cars are already leagues better than the average cellphone using soccermom or thot.

The problem I see isn't the technology, because while it isn't there yet I'm sure it will be within a decade or two. The problem people tend to ignore are the implications of cars on personal freedom and society overall. Where are the jobs going to go when half of this shit gets automated? What about Cia niggers remote crashing our cars? What potentially about not being able to go places when or how we want because of it all be consolidated to ride sharing? My dream car is an old truck that predates drive by wire and especially touch screen center consoles.
This is not true though.

Attached: 1488992888874.webm (780x439, 2.67M)

> Am I just out of touch with the field's progress lately?
Yes. Humans are shitty drivers. Computers with competent programmers will do better.

> a massive amount of unjustified hype in the field
There will be companies that won't be successful in entering this market, despite promoting their prototypes and positioning themselves as player in this field.
Some even because they just suck too much to write the required software.

Business as always, not nearly everyone who wanted to make their own engine or vehicle back when succeeded at creating something useful either.

>The problem people tend to ignore are the implications of cars on personal freedom and society overall.
Self-driving cars are vastly beneficial to society tho, they have massive potential to reduce required parking space and congestion and accidents.

Parents in places without public transport won't necessarily have to take a break from work to bring (old enough) kids home, kids can hail the nearest family car themselves, and it will even be relatively simple for jake and joe his friend to share the same ride. Stuff like that.

> Where are the jobs going to go
Car-driving jobs? Away. They're not productive as such.

Sure, the USA and other places will probably fuck its citizens massively again because people can't just get another education.

But on the other hand unless efficiency is gained, we can't raise average wealth. This basically always means eliminating jobs that are [now] useless with machines that do them better. [Asking people to work even more isn't going to have the desired effects, and the average or median isn't happy with what they have yet either.]

>people will have more money when it's harder to find work

Attached: 1512691123374.png (408x450, 34K)

>they have massive potential to reduce required parking space and congestion and accidents.
All superficial shit besides accidents, you didn't address any of my points which are about the actual societal implications of it regarding freedom of movement and avoiding dystopia tier things happening.
>unless efficiency is gained we can't raise average wealth
Then why has wealth gone down considerably and the rich-poor divide grown almost exponentially even though efficiency has also gone up? Raw production isn't an indicator of individual wealth.

Yup, there's more wealth even though weaving and farming machines "take jobs" of probably around 100 million burgers today. 1/3 would probably be farming and most of them would not have much to show on top of surviving every year.

The key is that the same people (or their kids) worked other jobs next, and that machines are even just better at what they do anyhow.

> the actual societal implications of it regarding freedom of movement
Yea, I didn't want to make a huge wall of text but since you insist:
Same situation as today. CIA can crash your car already, governments could decide that tracking devices and black boxes and voice recorders or ride sharing or enormously high taxes or whatever are mandatory and imprison everyone that does not comply.

But in most democratic places, that's not likely to happen. Yea, autonomously driving cars will probably stick to traffic laws better than human drivers and they might be on short range communication with other cars "obstacle spotted 100m ahead, going to slow down, advising all behind me in lane 2 to slow down, PRIORITY request to change lane", but they can be individual vehicles under control of their owner just fine.

It's doesn't need to be done directly through the ciA because corporations already do it, we're on track to brave new world where people do it willingly and not because of tyranny. Technology for the past two decades has been less and less about user control and more about catering to the masses who don't give a shit about security or privacy. Everything is on a constant downward slope and if you thibk self driving cars won't reduce personal freedom you're deluding yourself. They're already trying to push against internal combustion engines and once go so does user repairability and control.

Getting rid of low-skill labor doesn't magically make everybody richer, it just makes access to staple goods cheaper, and we've been watching a downward trend of the average persons ability to afford even that cheap bullshit for a decade.
Do you understand the effects of macroeconomics or are you just talking out your ass?

Combustion engines are already locked down to shit.
Wanted to get at your VW? Sorry, you need a specialized toolset to do that. Please bring in your VW to your nearest dealership to remove the protective housing and have them use their licensed tooling!

Doesn't mean it needs to get even worse which is my point. German cars are shit about that anyway Apple of car world but either way I'll stick to old cars desu.

> Technology for the past two decades has been less and less about user control and more about catering to the masses who don't give a shit about security or privacy.
That's not really entirely true though. Android won, not IOS. GDPR was passed, as were many other laws. And so on.

People do still want control and privacy. Well, the USA maybe prefer to give their companies and government a free pass to do as they please, but Europe does not.

> Everything is on a constant downward slope and if you thibk self driving cars won't reduce personal freedom you're deluding yourself.
I think it changes nothing, yes. If your government and people want cameras everywhere, they'll get them - self-driving cars or not, you'll be tracked by $10 cameras all over the place.

If not, they won't.

> They're already trying to push against internal combustion engines and once go so does user repairability and control.
But it's not any harder to repair / replace electrical motors, for example?

Never mind I see no push against internal combustion engines "as such" here, although of course they banned the trash models and made using fossil fuels more expensive to encourage an earlier adoption of renewables. It's pretty clear that we can't all just waste as we please if we want the urban air to be clean and the environment and climate to not get much worse.

Never said it "magically makes everybody richer".

I said that efficiency gains are still necessary if you want to move the average up enough that it even just theoretically becomes possible to satisfy everyone (be it your country -unless maybe you're one of the richest- or the world's population).

And yes, optimizing transportation with self-driving cars that can do it 24/7 365 with less accidents, a more varied fuel mix, less "unnecessary" staffing and mass (drivers that don't actually want to get from a to b themselves) and more is going to result in efficiency gains.

> Do you understand the effects of macroeconomics
Please teach us, senpai,

Android doesn't make a difference because even it's become more restricted by hardware level limitations and manufacturer limitations and gdpr is one thing out of a million and it doesn't solve the fundamental problems behind consumer whore based tech. My laptop from ten years ago has easily replaceable everything yet newer laptops have the ram soldered in, same goes for phones cars appliances etc.
>if not they won't
People are indifferent is the problem. Notice how people didn't give a single shit about privacy until the Facebook shit and even with that most people didn't take an active role to protect their policy. People are consumer lemmings and just do what's easiest and most readily available.
>it's not harder to repair/replace electrical motors
When things are fully or even just partially automated its going to be substantially harder to repair anything just as it got harder when they added drive by wire stuff in the early 2000s for most cars. I'm pro environment but doing some bandaid fixes which only address the more superficial side of things is retarded.

That efficiency gain will not benefit society, it will benefit the rich 1% who own the few corporations which will capitalize in that industry. Your average person will just get a lower paying job or no job and continue the debt slavery cycle we've been living in for thirty years of not more.

>Based on what I know of it, I simply do not believe that the technology is anywhere close to giving us self-driving cars that can handle real road conditions as well as the average human driver.
Then you simply don't know anything about it. The technology is already there, the legal and ethical framework just needs to catch up.

>I simply do not believe that the technology is anywhere close to giving us self-driving cars that can handle real road conditions as well as the average human driver
The biggest problem is interaction between human drivers and self-driving cars. If there were no cars in country X, it would have been easier to introduce self-driving cars there because you'd build the whole infrastructure for them.

That said, I doubt the tech is more than a decade away from being able to cope with human drivers and pedestrians.

Ethics is a big fucking part of it not to mention most of these cars haven't been tested in proper traffic environments outside of highways and "easy" things like that. They haven't shown off being able to react to other drivers, pick up on social cues, and ethics is a good 50% of the equation l

Well shit

Attached: kim_pine_by_juliocarlo-d6ad5bp.jpg (1024x683, 65K)

> Android doesn't make a difference because even it's become more restricted by hardware level limitations
I call BS with regards to things becoming worse.

While the situation is not absolutely perfect yet, it was never better.

> gdpr is one thing out of a million
Control over your data, including the right of insight, erasure and getting a copy of it?

That's a lot more than one in a million with regards to retaining control. I'd fix a handful of other things, but I'm certainly not sure even in the past people would have agreed with my ideas [they'd be related to fixing copyrights and patents and such].

> Notice how people didn't give a single shit about privacy
Look, burgers may not give a shit, but GDPR was in the making long before this newest Facebook scandal. Europe was thinking this is getting out of hand well before. And so are other places.

> People are consumer lemmings and just do what's easiest and most readily available.
Yes. And this is why laws need to be passed that vendor lock-in data kraken shit is illegal even if it's easy? That sales are sales and not licenses with strings attached? And so on.

There is no viable work-around to this in being a luddite about cars or any other such thing

> When things are fully or even just partially automated its going to be substantially harder to repair anything.
You can't really repair defects in a CPU, but that doesn't mean you can't repair a PC by replacing that CPU.

Sure, that comes with technological complexity, but you can't keep everything dead simple AND be efficient and safe and all the other requirements. You can however make it so that you MUST be able to replace CPUs individually when they fail...

>there is no viable work around to this in being a luddite
I'm not being a luddite, I'm just saying we need to stop for a minute and look at the implications of things before we go in blindly, this isn't just going to make traffic better its also going to end tens of millions of jobs and that's just car based jobs.
The problem is all of these dumbass requirements are implemented after the fact and not thought of before so people get hurt over it in the mean tine.

>kids can hail the nearest family car themselves
The interesting part about that is this: Since owning a car is mostly fixed costs and privately owned cars are not being used for most of the time, there is a pretty decent chance car ownership is going to go way down once self driving cars are a thing. It's going to be cheaper to just book a ride from some car sharing company when you need one.
Probably the single thing I'm looking forward to the most. Owning and maintaining a car is honestly kind of a pain.

> That efficiency gain will not benefit society,
It will not automatically benefit all of society [and it's unrealistic that it will EVENLY benefit all, given human behaviour], but it can very much.

Grandma didn't have a fridge or washing machine or car yet, that's not a common problem anymore. And so on.

On the other hand, if you don't have the efficiency gains, you will never have an acceptable average in theory.
Saying "things are good enough for me, I'm making good money from driving, don't change anything!" - that's just not going to work with everyone else.

You know what else isn't going to work for everyone else? Blindly accepting change which will most likely result in 90% of everyone suffering. This isn't a fridge, this isn't a car, it's a technology which will increase efficiency for corporations and make the rest of the population obsolete in our use as workers. Justifying it with "we need to be more efficient" is narrow minded and doesn't address any of the points anyibe has brought up here. We've been more and more efficient every decade yet every decade people's living conditions decrease because of debt and wage stagnation. I'm not fine and most people aren't like you said, yet nothing you propose makes things better for "everyone" because they increase the real problems and only solve superficial ones like parking for fucks sake.

I think there are many instances where self driving algorithms can handle real world road conditions much better than an actual driver. I've seen a few videos where the self driving cars noticed a biker riding quickly, perpendicular to the direction of the car, and then fly through an intersection right in front of the car. In instances like these, where the focus would need to be away from the road and away from the direction of travel to see the oncoming biker, sensors and algorithms work much better than humans.

If you think our technology isn't anywhere close, you are out of touch. we sent a self driving car to Mars six years ago and its still driving around.

I think the algorithms aren't perfect yet, and pretty soon they'll be able to improve themselves. I think we'll see some seriously impressive purpose built vehicle AI's for things like industrial trucking and race car driving

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. cars have been self driving for years and years through systems like cruise control. and thats the dumbest self driving there is. cruise control will happily plow you into a tree and not ever think twice about it. I could set cruise control and hop in the back seat for a nap, car won't stop just because i'm not there

If society is employing tens of millions of people to do a job that computers and sensors can do better, I think we really should consider the change.

massive waste of effort every single day we don't pursue self driving technology

if self driving cars means I can have access to one when I need it, but I don't need to own one and sit it in my driveway for 95% of its useful life, than I'm all for it.

think about all the perfectly good cars that are sitting still right now with nobody driving them. such a fucking waste. my own car is sitting outside under its own special covered parking structure just so it will still be there when I need it next time. I know I won't need it for three full days, but still it will sit and wait for me. it could be doing so much useful work

> this isn't just going to make traffic better its also going to end tens of millions of jobs and that's just car based jobs
Yes. Both.

As opposed to blindly continuing doing the worse thing [in terms of overall productivity / efficiency / accident risks and probably even pollution].

> so people get hurt over it in the mean tine
People have to do unpaid driving. People have to pay others to do useless driving. People suffer more accidents [all ways to train humans will never be as successful as we can be with computers, unless maybe we start driving 20km/h only to account for human reaction times and what kind of impacts are "safe enough" to be probably healed in hospitals].

Well, I'm sure you can find points for the morality of preserving these actually soon useless jobs for the benefit of the people having them, but it does not fly, because it has impact on the other side. People do not agree to subsidize everyone who still farms with hand-tools, people do not agree to pay extra for manual driving and 80kg or whatever extra weight. They had to not be a hand tool using farmer themselves.

Human drivers kill 40,000 people every year. Self Driving cars kill like

> You know what else isn't going to work for everyone else? Blindly accepting change which will most likely result in 90% of everyone suffering.
Yea. we'll switch away from driving cars rather soon so nearly 100% of us don't have to suffer spending time driving and risking [as much] accidents anymore.

You sound like you're talking about getting rid of income inequality though? Or inflation. Or whatever else? Uh, good luck.

> Justifying it with "we need to be more efficient" is narrow minded
No.Again, "I'm in a good place, fuck everyone else" won't fly for the rest of mankind. It's simply obvious.

We need to be more efficient to even get the average up to where theoretically people could be safe and enough well-off. And then more because equal incomes aren't a thing and we need to cover the lower end, too.

Surely we'll also need to do something about the lower incomes - but you can't even theoretically do that for shit if everyone farms inefficiently or [waits to] drive a car all day long.

>Human drivers kill 40,000 people every year. Self Driving cars kill like

I think I'd rather get killed by an algorithm that made the wrong call than a driver who just wasn't smart to begin with. at least the algorithm can justify its logic, all a drunk driver can do is cry about it and regret the choices they made.
How many accidents every single day are caused by "oops, i didnt even see you there". At least if you get killed by a computer that didn't see you, they can go back and prove that it didn't see you. And you can believe that it wasn't because it was too busy eating one handed or texting

The Cars don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans,and they already are. It sounds like you dont want to feel emasculated you fragile cuck.

using that logic you could argue that self driving cars are a boon for individual employment, since every single self driving car has a paid employee behind the wheel, where only a small percentage of traditional drivers are being paid to drive.

>at least the algorithm can justify its logic
And not only that, we can immediately and even permanently fix the flaw, until only astronomically low chances remain that the wrong choices are made to minimize damage in any given situation.

Meanwhile, humans will continue making driving accidents (or hitting their toes against something, falling down stairs and other things that should be normal bipedal walking as was done for millions of years but never got even this perfect) for a long, long time now.

>at least the algorithm can justify its logic
It's going to be the same shit, the car didn't see you, it didn't see you in time...

>I simply do not believe that the technology is anywhere close to giving us self-driving cars that can handle real road conditions as well as the average human driver

even humans can't deal with "real road conditions" why do you think a computer would do it worse?

>Defeatist assumptions

Attached: nou.png (583x550, 538K)

ah yes because AI gets distracted and fatigued too, totally forgot about that

I did release automation for the gpu-cluster simulations run by a big group of smaller companies up here in the midwest owned by a japanese automotive company. There are a lot of things keeping the pace of this slow:

* internal bickering post-acquisition. aka people are fighting over who is in charge even though they are all now owned by a larger corporation that borged them all into one.

* a diaspora of varying development lifecycles and code bases from companies that once had nothing to do with each other now trying to merge without major rewrites (aka cludging)

* special interests that have imposed certain unreasonable constraints and requirements on developement.

* simple lack of understanding in certain situations about how to codify behavior, we really aren't there yet in a lot of regards you are right. example: how should the car react of it senses no danger, yet the facial expression of the passenger is complete horror and their heart rate is skyrocketing and they are perspiring?

before I left for another project, the project leads were still *literally* eye-balling (as in making guestimates visually) on completed simulations.

Attached: 5d6g5h39hu7xu7.jpg (1000x1545, 259K)

and yet not a single source

I'm not going to provide anything to you, sorry. Jow Forums points aren't worth breaking an NDA over. I gave you a huge clue as to who the company is, figure it out dullard.

>Ha ha looks like you'll just have to GUESS if I'm telling the truth or not :)
>Take my word for it, goy, I use big words and industry terms while making bold assumptions
>Do yer own research! My claims are true until proven false :)

Attached: 1527276659654.jpg (640x640, 36K)

Self driving cars don't have to be perfect, just better than humans. And that's easy. Sure, throw an unavoidable obstacle like a human crossing the street out of nowhere and probably both AI and human driver would hit it. But the AI has better reflects and is on high alert 24/7, so in 99% of cases in which there's a chance to avoid the crash or at least slow down, the self driving car will outperform humans.
Even if autonomous cars are barely 10% better at driving than humans, that's 10% less road fatalities.

do you have fetal alcohol syndrome?

Attached: mr_wea.jpg (640x620, 39K)

In the US alone there are over 30,000 vehicle related deaths each year. Cars are freaking dangerous. I am not hyped on self-driving cars, I fear that very soon, human drivers will be ostracised like gun owners are today.

Stop posting, disinfo shill.
Humans are the most dangerous thing to humans. You can still go to the VAPE Shop in your self driving car, troglodyte.

sounds like you came straight out of a Jow Forums roleplay thread

I have the distinct feeling that it's nowhere near as close to being consumer ready as we're lead to believe - fully autonomous is probably still decades away.

We will probably see limited autonomous capabilities available within the next 5 years - automated parking, for instance, but I really think the companies pushing this stuff just saying whatever will make investors give them money.

I dunno mate, I'd rate meth as a touch more dangerous than anyone outside of the middle east.

>technology is anywhere close
this is whole Jow Forums we will never achieve anything and everything is a ponzi scheme and jewish scam

>Yea. we'll switch away from driving cars rather soon so nearly 100% of us don't have to suffer spending time driving and risking [as much] accidents anymore.
Once against superficial shit in the grand scheme of things
>You sound like you're talking about getting rid of income inequality though? Or inflation. Or whatever else? Uh, good luck.
I'm not claiming to solve it, i'm trying to tell you how to not make those problems more severe which ALL OF THIS WILL.
We could change that, but introducing the technology so rapidly will cause more harm than good which is my entire point, the regulations need to be set down before the problems even exist.
>As opposed to blindly continuing doing the worse thing
And your solution is to blindly do a different thing and hope it works?
>People have to do unpaid driving. People have to pay others to do useless driving. People suffer more accidents
Still not as bad as 90% of the labor force becoming unemployed and being destitute as a result.
>They had to not be a hand tool using farmer themselves.
Hand tool using farmers were replaced by machinery which had to be produced in a massive scale, everything you're promoting is going be using less resources and creating less jobs.

My entire point here is saying rushing into shit is fucking retarded and will only cause more harm than good, not to flat out not implement any new technological changes. There are some significant considerations that need to be made before we allow any of these new innovations to continue to the point of being in popular use.

>We will probably see limited autonomous capabilities available within the next 5 years
We're ALREADY seeing limited autonomous capabilities in a lot of cars.

>You can still go to the VAPE Shop in your self driving car
I can also do it without having self driving meme that requires constant internet connection and CIA botnet installed in order to track every breath (vape) I take.

KYS

Attached: 911[1].jpg (400x505, 50K)

stop samefagging. also what? tell me what a day in your life is like. do they change the bedpan three times a day?

Damn, it's retarded.
By simply being alive you are part of the botnet. You either opt out entirely and move into the forest or your fucked. Atleast at this rate the normies can kill eachother less. Personally I'll support anything to undermine the auto industry.

Attached: damn.png (1020x121, 19K)

>By simply being alive you are part of the botnet
and then he turns around and says this shit. kys neet

>Still not as bad as 90% of the labor force becoming unemployed and being destitute as a result.
100% autonomy is not happening anytime soon dumbass, truck drivers have to do a lot of paperwork and other administrative things apart from just driving, it is already a slow process it is not going to happen overnight retard
>Hand tool using farmers were replaced by machinery
false, farmers expanded their plots and increased their crop yield, they didn't fire or replace their laborers

Thats why 1% of America works on a farm and 99% of that workforce drives or operates a machine that does the work for them. Dumbass retard nigger.

>By simply being alive you are part of the botnet.

t. Retardstein

Autos industry are great and you're sour and obviously poor plebeian. Also probably virgin, because bitches get moist by pic related.

As I said eat shit and die. Autos are here and they will stay. There is not a damn thing that you can do against it, because you're a loser.

Just join the great infinite botnet and OFF yourself.

Attached: topstage-start[1].jpg (960x540, 122K)

>100% autonomy is not happening anytime soon dumbass
Thats irrelevant dumbass my whole point is we need to nip the billion problems this will cause down the line at the bud before we dive into it blindly.

>Even if autonomous cars are barely 10% better at driving than humans

the problem is no one has proven this yet, but these cars are already on the road killing people

Nice projection.

Attached: 71as3-v0akl._sl1500_1516134208.jpg (1500x1500, 151K)

Good riddance, can't stand driving anyways.

>this triggers the incel

its reflection you tard

Attached: mercedes-cls-01[1].jpg (1040x585, 132K)

>Once against superficial shit in the grand scheme of things
Wrong way around. The grand scheme of things is gaining efficiency so that we might even have enough to do everything we need to do.

Whether or not your nation or system helps its citizens to participate in efficiency gains is a matter of policies. If yours is fucked up to the extent that nobody else benefits I guess you want to fix that, but that's a thing that runs in parallel.

Inefficiency just because you currently have a cushy life and fuck everyone else won't work.

> And your solution is to blindly do a different thing and hope it works?
Methodically. Always pick the things that obviously work better when simulations and engineering tests and your best scientific predictions show so.

> Still not as bad as 90% of the labor force becoming unemployed and being destitute as a result.
We're at over 99% possible jobs that aren't currently farming or weaving clothes.
These got a lot more efficient, and food and clothes really cheap (overall efficiency gain).

So it will be for people not driving, but transportation getting cheaper than it was with all the drivers (overall efficiency gain).

> Hand tool using farmers were replaced by machinery which had to be produced in a massive scale
Oh, we avoided producing a lot of weaving equipment and high intensity manual farming might actually need more tools and machines [except we never could afford that one before machines, people would presumably have starved by expending more energy into each square cm of a field than they get out of it]. No difference again.

It will happen and your energy is better spent on finding other jobs for drivers if you want to do something, rather than trying to keep an obsolete waste of time intact.

I think the biggest problem with this technology is that its being developed by all the automakers independently. and its going to be sold as a luxury feature first. it will take a long time till self driving features trickle down to the cheapest 20% of new cars.
there are new cars being sold today that still dont have cruise control, or power windows and locks. unless its a legally mandated feature like airbags, self driving is going to be a luxery only the wealthy can afford. its going to be just another thing keeping the poor poor and the rich rich.

I can totally see poor people renting richer peoples cars out every day through self driving ride hailing apps.

>false, farmers expanded their plots and increased their crop yield
What kind of nonsense is this?

The fraction of the population working on farms decreased DRAMATICALLY as farmers replaced manual labor with machines.

Hand tool using farmers were definitely replaced by machinery. The area handled per agricultural worker and the intensity at which it's worked is extremely different.

>Wrong way around. The grand scheme of things is gaining efficiency so that we might even have enough to do everything we need to do.
How fucking dense do you have to be to not even begin to comprehend the idea that efficiency isn't the be all end all? Without proper planning it will be efficient for corporate kikes at the top while your average joe will suffer far worse than any medieval peasant. I do not live a cushy life and i'm not defending my current societal position i'm saying that your ideas are retarded and will cause more harm than good for most people. Its almost like you haven't been reading my fucking posts.
>Always pick the things that obviously work better when simulations and engineering tests and your best scientific predictions show so.
Those predictions are irrelevant to my point which is about the societal effect not the effectiveness of the technology.
>So it will be for people not driving, but transportation getting cheaper than it was with all the driver
You stupid nigger the point is no jobs will be created by this unlike manufacturing and not having to pay as much for transit won't matter if people don't have money in the first place.
>except we never could afford that one before machines
Once again, no new jobs are being made here and the jobs pay less instead of more unlike manufacturing.

They should put a life-sized doll and attach it's hands to the steering wheel.That way there is always a driver present.

Even if the software was free, the sensors are too expensive to put on cheap cars.

Especially if they go with a laser range scanner, like all the serious self driving cars seem to do.

>How fucking dense do you have to be to not even begin to comprehend the idea that efficiency isn't the be all end all?
It's the most basic prequisite. Before that, you're just shuffling money around and making either group A or B perilously unhappy.

> Those predictions are irrelevant to my point which is about the societal effect not the effectiveness of the technology.
The effectiveness of the technology is entirely the point why it must and will get adapted.

> You stupid nigger the point is no jobs will be created by this unlike manufacturing
You stupid nigger, this is the same as mechanization of field work.

We are not going back to create these manual farm jobs because they're drains on efficiency even if they may drive up employment.

Unproductive employment that cannot beat automation / industrialization / mechanization is simply not viable.

> Once again, no new jobs are being made here and the jobs pay less instead of more unlike manufacturing.
Once again the weaving machines also did not create more jobs, nor did modern agriculture. They only produced more - the overwhelming majority of people could and had to get other jobs. The net result was still that we got cheap clothes, agricultural products AND more. Rather than almost starvation ration food and a signficant part of the remainder going into clothes and housing and fuel for warmth and cooking.

It's pointless to cry over the old unproductive weaving jobs, manual farming jobs, water carrying jobs, telegraphist jobs and so on. They were a drain on efficiency and they are gone. If you had to pay for all of this, you'd not be better off... or someone else wouldn't be, at least.

>Before that, you're just shuffling money around and making either group A or B perilously unhappy.
YOU'RE LITERALLY ADVOCATING TO TAKE ALL OF THAT MONEY AWAY FROM 90% OF PEOPLE.
>The effectiveness of the technology is entirely the point why it must and will get adapt
So you admit you don't care about people and just some idealistic concept and haven't pondered for a second the implications of it?
>this is the same as mechanization of field work.
But it isn't because it doesn't create any new industries, you still are not addressing my key point and only focus on numbers and not people.
>weaving machines also did not create more jobs, nor did modern agriculture
Those people unemployed didn't simply get deleted they moved to the other jobs which were created in factories and such, they moved from the farm to the factory.
>They were a drain on efficiency and they are gone
Those jobs went away because they were mechanized and the mechanization process made more jobs, automation doesn't create any jobs it only takes. Productivity isn't the focus of this discussion we're having, the implications for society are and you have yet to provide a way this benefits society besides "hurr durr efficiency gobba go up even doe in this case it wudnt benefit anyone like befo"

Will self-driving taxis take cash? Or will they be botnet?

stallman.org/uber.html

> So you admit you don't care about people and just some idealistic concept and haven't pondered for a second the implications of it?
That's obviously you.

It's probably just because you're somewhere slightly further up in the exploitation pyramid.

Makes it cushier to say we can remain inefficient as long as the redistribution to YOU works.

> Those people unemployed didn't simply get deleted they moved to the other jobs
No shit?

> the mechanization process made more jobs
Wrong. It overall cost a whole lot of jobs, but we then branched out into doing more.

We then had a lot of time for mining more resources [which also got mechanized soon] making airplanes and space rockets and cars and medicine and computers and internet infrastructure and so on. [Also better weapons and bigger armies and unpleasant shit, sure.]

All of which was done with people who weren't tied up in farming and the other basics anymore.

> automation doesn't create any jobs it only takes
Probably not. I think people will manage to branch out into more jobs for quite a while yet.

Even if it did, we still have overall more productivity. You however have to worry about whether you need to adjust the distribution of the fruits of said productivity. Lowered productivity will NOT be better.

Techwise it's actually probably pretty far along. Other than weird edge cases like "overflow parking in the field next to the church on the day of the bake sale" they can handle basically everything you do in a car now. That said, I will NEVER ride in a self driving car unless I can know with 100% certainty that it will put my life/the life of its inhabitants over everyone else, all the time. If there's even a small chance my car might think "I have one passenger and am about to hit two in the crosswalk, I should run off the road and risk injury to my passenger and damage to myself to avoid killing those humans" I will not get in it. If people ran out in front of me, I'd slam my breaks on and I want a car that will do the same but with better reaction times. I don't want a car that will inconveniences me for the greater good.

>It's probably just because you're somewhere slightly further up in the exploitation pyramid.
Nigger i'm the one advocating to make sure shit gets done while causing the least amount of inequality possible, you want to hop in blindly and hope for the best because muh efficiency.
>Wrong. It overall cost a whole lot of jobs, but we then branched out into doing more.
In the early stages it made a bunch and as it itself became more automated it created a surplus in production which allowed for the service economy to come about. Full on robotic automation will take over all fields of employment so it wont result in this job boom.
>Even if it did, we still have overall more productivity.
Still means nothing if it does LITERALLY NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 0 NIP NONE NADA NOTHING TO BENEFIT THE POOR. Besides reducing traffic fatalities, their income will be the lowest its been in history. Productivity is a measurement of the economy used by the rich you claim to not be apart of and try to flip on me. I think you're baiting at this point but saying le numbers go up means nothing if you dont look at the FUCKING IMPLICATIONS OF IT YOU STUPID NIGGER

My car is doing useful work; it's being available the exact second I need it without any sort of preparation or forethought. If a moment from now I cut my thumb down to the bone while cleaning a knife I could jump in my car and drive to a hospital. Being "on call" 24 hours a day in my garage is useful work. Storing board games I take to game night in the trunk so I don't have to constantly load and unload them is useful work. Remaining clean since the last time I vacuumed it (since no one else has ridden in it) is useful work in that it saves me the work of recleaning it.

Yeah, you kinda sound like a crazy old man, there are like 1.3 million accidents a year, virtually any computer can do better... It's already mostly built into new cars (lane assist, obstacle avoidance...) It will save tons of lives and no one talks about it (as opposed to gun deaths which people won't shut up about)

Just skimmed through that reply chain and I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. In any kind of functioning market economy there is an inherent incentive to increase productivity, it's literally an inevitability with the end goal of total automation where no one has to work anymore to make a living. Sure, it's gonna create issues, but the solution is not to prevent this from happening but to redistribute production such that everyone can benefit from it. It is a matter of governmental policy. The average unemployment benefits receiver in my socialist european hellhole already lives like a king compared to 99% of employed workers 100 years ago.

That's fine, but you'll be paying extra for that sort of convenience.

My point is to plan out these regulations beforehand so we don't go through a hundred years of poverty. His entire point is le improve efficiency without doing anything preventative which in the long run will benefit the rich exclusively.

good luck in the north

Attached: 20180201_191310.jpg (4128x2322, 2.59M)

This. Uber are already shilling for it to be illegal for individuals to own self-driving cars. Enjoy the police being able to push a button and have your car pull over and unlock itself.

cei.org/blog/uber-wants-make-it-illegal-operate-your-own-self-driving-car-cities

Just use a self driving sled dogs, duh.

Attached: 1509766286263.jpg (730x350, 70K)