Based

nice argument

youtube.com/watch?v=ocLK9hKyVU4

The only reason Google and co are developing self driving cars is because people can't click on ads and read sponsored news while driving.

Doesn't Arizona have a Stand Your Ground law that would allow the emergency operators to just shoot the attackers?
Pretty sure that would be legal in Florida.

>One woman screamed at one of the vans, telling it to get out of her suburban neighborhood.
Is she aware of the concept of being "driverless"?

I think they're required to have people in them to take control just in case

>He likened driverless cars to robotic incarnations of scabs — workers who refuse to join strikes or who take the place of those on strike.
Aka, workers who want to work and not take part in union politics that mostly benefits the union organizers.
>“Just think about the humans inside these vehicles, who are essentially training the artificial intelligence that will replace them.”
In the case of Uber, sure, but then Uber ITSELF is basically your definition of a scab, so likely you're just being biased towards human workers.

Maybe if everyone had a self-driving car, we wouldn't have problems like this and traffic would never exist any more.

Desiring utopia is unhealthy perfectionism as humans cannot be nearly perfect enough to fulfill the goal of a peaceful, uncomplicated technocratic future

OOGA BOOGA

BURN THE WITCH

What's the ratio now?
Pre-release beta crashes: 100

I trust the computers.

>Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars

Was it attacked by apes?

Speaking of imperfect, you can't predict the future.
Telling people not to strive for perfection seems unnecessary.

It's just as unnecessary as doing it

There less than 100 self driving cars in operation on normal roads.
There are millions of humans driving cars.

Comparing them is pointless right now, but I think self driving is the right thing to do it because 99% of people can't drive.

based

fuck google

>tfw it was probably my poisoned recaptcha submissions that did this

>we need to stop automating things for the majority so that I can keep my own job :)
All throughout history these people have been the worst. How shortsighted and selfish.

In this specific case I can't even see any argument other than "I don't want to lose my job".
Does anyone place value in having a human driver? Even if you want to say "I like the company" then let the Taxi drivers become some bastardization of an escort then. Pay them to sit in the car and chat with you while the car drives itself.
I want less humans on the road.

Modern cars ship with always-on realtime telemetry. You're not a luddite for being against this trend. If you want people to accept your technology, stop stuffing it with anti-user, anti-privacy garbage.

Incremental steps

Should have called the eX-drivers.

>The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac.
I particularly like this argument.
It's not that the car hit the child, it's that the car "nearly" hit the child. Therefore autonomous vehicles are bad.
Considering there is zero context to this situation we can't determine fault, or if the autonomous vehicle actually performed properly in the situation and avoided an accident.
Waymo probably even have video evidence of the incident if they wanted to release it, but they seem to be releasing as little as possible, even when they're not at fault.

People should be banned from driving cars, they are so bad at it.

Being against telemetry makes no sense in any context to me.
Why waste millions upon millions of human hours / experience instead of pooling it for the benefit of everyone.
Why would you NOT want the people who make your car to know more about how you use the product? They're literally trying to cater to you.
What is wrong with people.

I posted this in the Firefox thread recently, people against telemetry are why our wants and needs are ignored. And for what reason? Paranoia? At what cost? A worse product for you personally next iteration?

people don't like being observed
there's no logic or reason behind it

Because most of the value of telemetry isn't for making the product better, it's for selling the customer data to line the pockets of executives and investors. It doesn't have to be that way and it didn't used to be so bad but it is just so damn effective. Ad companies are just throwing money at it.

Optimism
Strawman

>Strawman
unless you're doing something unscrupulous you don't stand to lose anything by being spied on, it's just creepy

Because you pay thousands of dollars for a vehicle/product you supposedly own but have no control over. Because "telemetry" is a catchall for invasive non-anonymous data collection. Because you should be allowed to opt out, it's basic software and hardware freedom. If you support this, it's only going to get worse and worse as technology, especially consumer technology, moves forward and becomes even more pervasive.

Interrupting here.
Frankly, I'm not against telemetry, but I want to know what telemetry is being sent.
Sure, performance of the vehicle and so on is fine. What station I am listening to is unnecessary, where exactly I am at any given time is unnecessary.
Configuration is desirable. Could I set it up to just transmit when it is in range of a configured network at certain times of day rather than being always online?
Especially with most car systems there seems to be no options, and that's terrible.

It's so paradoxical to me.
I could sit here and say it's selfish to not donate your driving data to people who are trying to make products that people like the blind could legitimately utilize.
But like I said, it doesn't even benefit the individual either. Since they're going to intentionally ostracize themselves from the brands they chose to engage with if they opt out of telemetry.

It's a bit frustrating to witness but ultimately doesn't affect much since, and this is most ironic since the statistics would be inherently biased here, a minority opinion.

Even from this perspective though, selling the data is still making someones product better, if anything that's probably better than 1 company hoarding it all for themselves.
Even if you want to assume it goes directly to advertisers, what's the harm? The advertisers know that you prefer blue over red and will show you cars that you actually like? Or people will try to make cars with the exact dick sucking feature you talked about while in your own car that lacks it? Oh no!
The only argument I see against this is that this is somehow "predatory". But this is only applicable to people without self control which are not the majority of people and may as well be moot since they're going to impulsively buy ANYTHING. At least with targeted metrics they're getting something they statistically will enjoy.
Everyone is trying to share resources and appeal to you. I don't see the negative aspects of this.

>their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac
youtube.com/watch?v=Cuo8eq9C3Ec

>Because you should be allowed to opt out, it's basic software and hardware freedom.
>Frankly, I'm not against telemetry, but I want to know what telemetry is being sent.
Fair enough.
I'm of the bias that we must strive to be more open and honest. To me, this is a higher form of freedom and liberty.
To put it another way, what music I'm listening to being public knowledge SHOULDN'T bother me.
I understand this is idealistic/optimistic though.
But I mean it in multiple perspectives.
I shouldn't be afraid to share this knowledge, and I should give people the benefit of the doubt. That they will not use this maliciously or judge me unfairly. This is the society I wish to live in, regardless of if we are there today.

It may be painful in the interim, but I feel like long term, ruthless application of truth and openness is the way to go.
There's something ironically shackling about privacy as a concept. I mentioned paranoia before. I choose to not live with paranoia in my mind and wish others did the same. Even if it seems "naive".

"state of the art"
youtube.com/watch?v=o02H2xGIecc
"safer than human drivers"
youtube.com/watch?v=ijybZPWW0UI

You own video says that the roads not being marked properly is the fault and that the model is not the "state of the art", that they already have doubled the capabilities on their new models.

I have a better idea: it's called trains.

>roads not being marked properly
most roads in the world aren't marked properly

The point is that it's unfair to blame the vehicle when the city is at fault for not following country wide standards that have existed for a long time.

what is the point in a self-driving car that only works in perfect conditions when real life is never perfect?

There is nothing "open" about telemetry and data collection. It is all ultimately going to a private company or government agency (in reality both) to do what they please with the information. What you are saying is that they are somehow working in your and humanity's best interest, which is laughable. They are doing it for themselves and their own interests.

Second video is clickbait as fuck.
>jerks his hand
>woah oh my gosh
>car was just driving in a straight line

First video is fair enough.

The standards and legislature for those are still in flux. They're not even allowed everywhere until these problems are solved, either by the vehicle vendors of the governments responsible for maintenance of the roads.

Properly maintained roads and markers benefit human drivers as well.
To me, all this highlights is what everyone has complained about in most areas for years. Poorly maintained roads, which is a legitimate problem that should be solved regardless of self driving cars existence.

There is no point, which is why they're improving the performance in ambiguous situations so that humans will no longer have any excuse.

>What you are saying is that they are somehow working in your and humanity's best interest, which is laughable. They are doing it for themselves and their own interests.
If a company makes a better product to make more money you win aswell because you benefit from the better product
isn't that fucking obvious
At worst it does nothing to benefit you, at best you get a better product because of it

Good to know when normal wear and tear happens to roads the driverless cars will start going Twisted Metal.

>performance in ambiguous situations so that humans will no longer have any excuse.
there's situations when can never be resolved by a machine, like the "do I hit this old lady or this group of schoolchildren' type choices
The only way I see driving AI working is if you design a whole city around it from the ground up so the road network is a closed, clearly defined system with very limited possibility for ambiguity

>What you are saying is that they are somehow working in your and humanity's best interest, which is laughable.
Without cause, this shouldn't be the assumption. This is the paranoia with which I speak.

Corporations are not entities in themselves as much as we treat them as such. They are built and made up of people. To assume that the majority of people are acting with malicious intent against the rest of people, is just as absurd to me as the opposite assumption is to you.

You yourself, probably work a job and contribute something to someone other than yourself for payment.
Some of the things you do are likely misunderstood by your peers.
The same is true at every level.
I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be this cynical, I'm saying I reject this notion based on my own understanding of the modern world.

I can't live with the baseless assumption that everyone is out to exploit me and everyone else, even if some do some of the time.
I have seen nothing but the opposite in the majority case.
People lambast Google, Tesla, et al. endlessly here, but they are trying to improve the situation for all of us with products like this.
I can't see it any other way.
To fault people for the necessity of profit makes no sense to me either. We all must eat and someone must build the roads. Nobody seems to be doing anything unfair.

That's true in any case.
If a lane marker is missing, who is at fault for mistakes in court? The city of the driver? Typically the city.
Same for signs and other markers.
Same with holes in the roads.

I don't consider putting tracking and data collection in literally everything, calling it "smart", and saying it's better than its "dumb" counterpart because of it actually being smart or helpful for anyone.

At best they give you a gimmick or two for your information, at worst they become your private big brother who've more power over you than some governments.

I make programs with optional telemetry and my ability to serve my users has increased because I have much more detailed information about what works and what doesn't
You're using the worst case scenario and saying that is the only scenario

What about the all consuming majority leads you to believe that
1: It is necessary.
2: Deserves to exist.

>there's situations when can never be resolved by a machine, like the "do I hit this old lady or this group of schoolchildren' type choices
Humans can't resolve that situation, either.

>at worst they become your private big brother who've more power over you than some governments.
>worst
As an American, I think this is a good thing.
I'd rather see various sects/tribes rise and fall on their own merits than a single unified government lasting forever. It's reminiscent of colonial America more than what we have today. It's different only in label.
Who cares if something is a "private company" or a "government".
If a corporation can rise to that power, the people obviously allowed them to do so by fueling them. Why would they do this if they didn't think it benefited them? This is basically capitalism in motion. As long as consumers remain diligent and responsible, there shouldn't be any problem with such a thing.
Again the only outliers here are those that are irresponsible, impulsive consumers. Which is not the majority.

>At best they give you a gimmick or two for your information
Everything could be reduced to this manner of thinking. This is literally just incremental improvement and experimentation. It's necessary for progress. We have to find out what people want, implement it, and see if it's actually what they wanted and if it's actually useful.

>Which is not the majority.
At least insofar as funds, maybe not actual populous.

Attached: file.png (850x400, 209K)

>like the "do I hit this old lady or this group of schoolchildren' type choices
This will be solved via botnet, with every human indexed, having a societal value assigned to them. The vehicle will access this data and then kill the lesser ranked consumer. This might mean the passenger in the car!

The best solution I have heard is putting the onus on the vehicle owner.
That is to say, when you purchase the car. YOU set those priorities and they become your responsibility.

Basically at the dealership you sit down and do this for an hour
moralmachine.mit.edu/

>implying
The botnet will prioritize the life of the owner.
A group of school children have more mass than a single old lady and thus will result in less damage to the vehicle and the driver.

that's ridiculous

>People lambast Google, Tesla, et al. endlessly here, but they are trying to improve the situation for all of us with products like this.
>I can't see it any other way.
You can see things however you please.
I don't see how allowing small group of people to have control over extensive amounts of data from a majority of the world population who never agreed to them having it, just because they promise they'll do good with it is a tenable position to take.

>I'd rather see various sects/tribes rise and fall on their own merits
>merits
Pro tip: meritocracy doesn't exist, the term is only used to justify the status quo by those in power.
>It's reminiscent of colonial America more than what we have today.
It's actually closer to ancap neofuedalism, which ranks somewhere around the worst turns humanity could take.
>As long as consumers remain diligent and responsible, there shouldn't be any problem with such a thing.
So we're fucked. And even if they were, they don't have the power to stop it. So still fucked.

>Pro tip: meritocracy doesn't exist, the term is only used to justify the status quo by those in power.
things neets and janitors say

>Without cause, this shouldn't be the assumption. This is the paranoia with which I speak.
Where do you live? And don't tell me it's planet earth, because I know for a fact you're lying.

>Google breaking the law (knowingly)
bgr.com/2014/01/15/google-breaks-privacy-law-canada/

breitbart.com/tech/2018/11/27/european-consumer-groups-google-breaks-privacy-laws-by-covertly-tracking-users/

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/google-said-to-have-11th-hour-call-with-eu-ahead-of-android-fine

ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented

There are many more examples of corporations breaking the law and getting away with it. They have more rights than you and I can honestly say you're either a paid shill or the most pathetic person who has ever visited this website, which is saying something. You have refused to acknowledge how big corporations exploit citizens and I don't even consider you to be a human being.

we will not go quietly into the night

>He likened driverless cars to robotic incarnations of scabs — workers who refuse to join strikes or who take the place of those on strike.

if you want or need money, disagree with the cause of the strike, and/or can't afford to care about some leftist political bullshit you're dehumanized by the leftists by being called a "scab"

It's what we do today in our heads at the time of incident. What's so ridiculous about doing it in advance?
Outside of a closed loop, do you have proposal?

You know how we have this extensive network of roads that connects to everyone's front door, right?
You take that, and turn it into a more accessible, more flexible "railway" system by filling it with self-driving cars. All the convenience of being able to just hop in and get carried to your destination, but you don't have to get to a station on the other side of town first and you won't even have to wait in line!

you make a decision in the heat of the moment based on intution
if you ask a machine to do it, or you fill out a form beforehand, it's an intellectual decision, which is the problem

Considering the worst case scenario is life-imprisonment or death and the best case is you can pay even more money for a product that is slightly better anyone who has a useful amount of fear will detest telemetry.

>but it's unlikely to result in that
And we have already been in a state of tracking being the norm for years now and not a single change in any market relevant to me has been to my liking. As "something good happens" is clearly off the table what we're left with is "nothing happens" or "something bad happens." There is no winning position left so I choose not to play.
Fuck all data collection.

Typical fearmongering NPC who lives in fear of corporations who aren't doing anything to him except selling his online browsing habits

>first question is should a self-driving car with failing brakes crash into a barrier or killing people crossing the road
How about activating the emergency brakes? I'm sure engineers know what redundancy is. Either way, the company who made the car should get their ass sued for all of their worth if this scenario should ever come to pass.

Attached: 1530877403621.gif (316x200, 955K)

Arguing over how to fix self driving cars is a pointless exercise because they will always require a "driver" to monitor them thus eliminating any benefit from being self driving. They'll at best be used as "driverless" parking lot trolleys

data collection doesn't result in imprisonment. Spying on your activity results in imprisionment, and that has been done since before the internet has even existed. The worst thing that happens from data collection is people know a creepy amount about you and can target advertisments towards you

Or, get this, have a layered public transportation connecting metropolitan and residential areas that isn't shit.

>Being against telemetry makes no sense in any context to me.
>Why would you NOT want the people who make your car to know more about how you use the product? They're literally trying to cater to you.
Telemetry for collision detection learning for a car? Fine. Nothing wrong while they work the wrinkles out.

>I posted this in the Firefox thread recently, people against telemetry are why our wants and needs are ignored. And for what reason? Paranoia? At what cost? A worse product for you personally next iteration?
What's the point for this telemetry? Firefox was FINE before mozilla started bloating it with useless things like pocket, logins, feeds and other useless things. I don't mind if they give you a choice, an opt-in plugin or extension.

As for our needs being ignored, you're RIGHT. Mozilla has for the longest time ignored the power users that, in great number, have spoken out against these additions.

We have seen to what extent companies will go when you give them permission. Companies like google and facebook will turn around and sell your private data. Microsoft will embed a keylogger and system that periodically takes snapshot of the users active screen, and will analyze users' images and send the hash back to Microsoft. We have seen how telemetry can be abused, so I can say with confidence that you have your head far up your ass that you obviously don't understand the issue.

Shill more.

Self driving cars is like GMO's, they're based and redpilled on their own but you have jews ruining them

I'm not sure if you have ever driven a car but it's not like those thought problems you see online.
If you find yourself in a situation where an accident is unavoidable you're not going to go "gee, who am I morally obliged to kill in this situation".
If you have enough time to determine which person deserves to die you probably have enough time to stop, but what's most likely going to happen is you will swerve to avoid whatever is directly in front of you, whether it's the old woman or the group of children.
And you won't get crucified for that, assuming it's somehow not your fault you ended up in that situation, but a self driving car will.

>opinion I disagree with
>must be a shill

>I don't see how allowing small group of people to have control over extensive amounts of data from a majority of the world population who never agreed to them having it, just because they promise they'll do good with it is a tenable position to take.
It's simply inherent. Even if the data was public, someone(s) must manage it. This is in fact the state today. It is the data selling that people talk about and obviously, gated in some cases, public in other.
What alternative is there? To prevent the collection of data, i.e. to prevent the pooling of our knowledge and experience?
What benefit is there in this? It seems way to selfish and shortsighted, influenced by unfair biases such as paranoia.
The desires of an individual should not stifle progress for the majority imo.

>meritocracy doesn't exist
You'll have to elaborate on this. I see nothing else in my country.

wew

You neglected to acknowledge this
>I can't live with the baseless assumption that everyone is out to exploit me and everyone else, even if some do some of the time.
You assert "Google" as a single entity when in reality, these decisions come back to someone individuals who worked at Google at that time.
From henceforth they're tarnished forever because of the actions of the few?
The entire rest of their organization is disregarded on this basis?
This is unironically the same level of thinking as racists.

The emergency brake isn't really an emergency brake. Most countries call it a parking brake, because that's what it really is.
It's the same system as your foot brakes. If your brakes fail, the "emergency" brake isn't another set of brakes that may still work. It's the same brakes.

wow mumma nicr digits on a nicer post

>fearmongering
>NPC
At least you get paid to browse Jow Forums and try to learn our memes, but you need to do better.

>except selling his online browsing habits
I never consented to this and I don't get paid either.

Anyways, I'm done here because the thread is being slided by paid shills. You can keep replying to me trying to get a response, I won't keep playing by your rules. Congratz though, you niggers got a lot of replies.

>I never consented to this
You didn't consent to alot of things in your life, they're still going to happen to you
Your browsing habits were never private in the first place, you're connecting to websites through a public network

>It's the same system as your foot brakes. If your brakes fail, the "emergency" brake isn't another set of brakes that may still work. It's the same brakes.
This dewpends on the car. Most modern ones do indeed use the same hydraulic lines and calipers as the "regular" brake system since they're electronic, but most older cars use a cable connection instead of hydraulic lines so they will still work if the hydraulics have failed.
Hell, there are even cars out there with separate parking brake calipers.

I'm not talking about the parking brake that's in cars now, I'm talking about a different, secondary system that should be implemented in a self-driving car if the main brakes ever fail.

>it's an intellectual decision, which is the problem
We are in disagreement then.
If I have to make a moral choice, I'd much rather make it in advanced with a rationale head on me than in the heat of the moment.
It only seems fair in my opinion.

My morals are my morals and I wish to be contractually obligated to follow them in this specific case.
If I say kill me over children, then so be it.

lel
The whole point of the test is to question morals, not technicals. Cats don't drive cars (usually) but they do in those examples.

This reduces things down to the worst possible scenario. Assume all redundancy has failed and the ship is sinking. What do?

>What's the point for this telemetry? Firefox was FINE before mozilla started bloating it with useless things like pocket, logins, feeds and other useless things
Consider the following. People who preffer to remove pocket from their installs already have telemetry disabled.
Can Mozilla know this is an undesirable feature?

>but most older cars use a cable connection instead of hydraulic lines so they will still work if the hydraulics have failed.
Yes. I was purposefully ignoring older cards because old cars are old and basically beside the point.
Ignoring exceptions from the norm is pretty much fine.

>follows traffic laws perfectly
>Its programed by humans

Attached: 1545755772523.png (944x720, 487K)

I'd argue there are probably more cars with cable-actuated handbrakes than electronic ones on the road today.

>tfw I live in arizona

no complex choice can ever be made without context, no real life decision is ever actually "kill this old woman or kill this cat instead", the complexities of the situation being presented are what allow you to make the decision, you can't pre-program something ahead of time because you'll never know all the variables

And almost every car launched in the past 5 years has an electric one. Cable-actuated handbrakes are being phased out.
Are you really this fucking dense?

>The botnet will prioritize the life of the owner.
In a just world, yes.
In the real world, it will probably decide based upon lawsuit risk analysis and insurance liability.

>California, 5th largest economy in the world can't even build a high speed train.
>Expecting them to get roads up to standard let alone the rest of the country.

Its going to be awhile.