Anyone rooting against self-driving cars is cheering for tens of thousands of deaths, year after year. We shouldn’t be burning self-driving cars in the streets. We should be celebrating them.
I live in San Francisco, where self-driving vehicles are deployed. Yes, I can always tell which car is self-driving because they suspiciously stop at stop signs and don’t drive over the speed limit. I have taken the challenge in my own car, I never blew through stop signs, like 50% of the folks in my neighborhood, but now I don’t go my former 5 mph over the speed limit, the limit is my limit. As a cyclist, I know who I can trust to keep me safe, bring ‘em on! We see these vehicles frequently every day, I still wave to the “driver”.
Biggest blind spot of this author: They view driving solely as a chore that can be eliminated and starts to outline all the supporting narratives to support that sentiment. Not only is driving an expression of American freedom and our personal agency to explore, it's another skill that will soon be done away with without realizing the value in its utility beyond getting from point A to B. For all of human existence we controlled and maneuvered our modes of transportation. We were connected to the senses and manual dexterity needed to control them and without expressing them we will lose yet another skill that we've been lead to believe is a burden, right up there with growing our own food, hunting, building shelter and handwriting. The daily tasks we've grow to resent are part of what gives our lives texture and meaning. I'll add reading books now replaced by audio books (guilty) cleaning and organizing our own homes, teaching our own children. Soon AI will write our stories for us too. Let's not disconnect ourselves from our means to navigate our adventures too
Yes, let's rid ourselves of the fallible humans. They are ruining everything! We don't want to see them. We don't want to talk to them. We don't want them to vote. We want everything quiet and peaceful. Everything will be beautiful when technology takes over the things humans disdain and destroy. Sorry, not for me. Let the humans be stupid and dangerous. It is part of the human condition. We are not perfect. As a matter of fact, we are imperfect and are inconsistent. We are unreliable. Yet, we can surprise people by turning our lives around. What happened to the wonder of it all? Let the humans make music that is derived from their spirit and soul. We need the connection to make our lives meaningful. Let God's creation have its way regardless of how safe, simple, and secure it sounds. The same people types who created the neutron bomb are the same people who are building our digital prison. Resist them all and let God's people have their way!
I will stipulate that autonomous cars will one day be safer than human-driven. But is wringing the last bit of physical risk from life really the best of all possible worlds? Is it just coincidence that the bubble-wrapped generation that grew up with car seats and bike helmets are also the generation of extreme sports? Humans crave physical risk and grow neurotic without it. For many people in the modern world driving a car is one of the few non-virtual things left; and, if safety is a concern, does it make sense to eliminate human drivers only for them to climb onto electric scooters or even bicycles, both of which are far more hazardous per mile of transportation?
Additionally, driverless cars are now still an anomaly and as such do not accurately reflect how the experience will manifest when pervasive and widely-used by the broad spectrum of the public. Will the robotaxi experience still be gratifying when the inside of the taxi looks and smells like the thousands of humans of varying degrees of hygiene that have eaten their onion burgers in it, spilled their Jagermeister, farted, vomited, pissed themselves and then left behind their graffiti tags? Do you think that roboatxi sex will not be a thing among drunk coeds? Yeah, it'll be a real treat sitting in that mess.
The defense of self-driving cars is that most people are bad drivers, just as the defense of autocracy is that most people are bad at self-governing. Matthew B. Crawford, whom I recently discovered on Andrew Sullivan's podcast, has covered the subject thoroughly in his book "Why We Drive", but a good primer is his article "The Rise of Antihumanism", which I highly recommend. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/08/the-rise-of-antihumanism. Here is a snippet:
"The premise behind the push for driverless cars is that human beings are terrible drivers. This is one instance of a wider pattern. There is a tacit picture of the human being that guides our institutions, and a shared intellectual DNA for the governing classes. It has various elements, but the common thread is a low regard for human beings, whether on the basis of their fragility, their cognitive limitations, their latent tendency to “hate,” or their imminent obsolescence with the arrival of imagined technological possibilities. Each of these premises carries an important but partial truth, and each provides the master supposition for some project of social control."
I'm one of those who saw the obvious benefits way back, and like the author, I was always perplexed by those who didn't seem to get it. But I get the luddite impulse now, because I feel it too.
Twenty years ago, like the author, I thought of the thousands of lives saved. Don't we drive past messy wrecks almost daily, 100% of them caused by gross human error? I knew that the energy spent on moving the humans inside is a tiny fraction of that expended to move around cars. Most of the fuel is burned to move the big steel cage and other weighty safety equipment that networked cars should make obsolete. On roads dedicated to self-driving cars, I thought of the lack of traffic tie ups, the millions of dollars saved by getting rid of costly infrastructure like signs and traffic lights. I thought of the efficiency of sending my car home on its own to serve other members of the family when I'm at work, and the ability to avoid parking downtown, both in terms of its costs and its crowding.
Who turned me into a doubter? The tech moguls. These guys were brazenly willing to wield their power over their networks to influence election outcomes. They would gladly punish and cancel those who disagree with their orthodoxy. Sadly, when I watched the scenes in Upload that showed billionnaires misusing the information and control they had over self-driving cars, it felt all too realistic. I just know now that if I sat in one of those cars, I would be the product.
I’ve long argued that they should be demo’ed in car heavy, lower traffic places (like small towns) for low income people, kids and seniors who can’t drive
I don’t get why they are starting with the hard spots like SF
“Anyone rooting against self-driving cars is cheering for tens of thousands of deaths, year after year.”
I have serious concerns about self driving cars and being told I’m cheering the deaths of thousand of people just reinforces my concerns. This author can piss off.
While this does sound great... in theory, what about those cases in which an accident is unavoidable, and the AI has to choose between two set of lives
What happens if between hiting the car or swerving and hitting pedestrians
What if the other driver is black and the innocent and the pedestrians are two white couple.
Driverless cars seem real attractive on a well lit, well marked roadway in good weather.
But what about a poorly marked wet road at night? Sometimes you have to travel when conditions are very poor. Or winter with icy conditions?
I suppose maybe we could give up the choice of driving ourselves. The downside to this is that the car may decide that conditions are too poor to drive at all.
And when we start letting the car decide, it might end up being some omnipotent moral busybody who starts writing the rules.
Next will be pilotless airliners. Great, until something occurs that isn't covered in the aircraft's operating system knowledge base. Read about Flight QF32 which, in 2010, suffered an explosive failure of its No. 2 engine shortly after leaving Singapore, causing severe damage to the left wing. Automation, in this case, would certainly have cost 469 lives. Self-driving automobiles are desirable because of the poor training and, in many cases, psychological unsuitability of a high percentage of drivers.
I generally agree with this, but I also worry about government going too far. We should probably implement a constitutional amendment now, guaranteeing people the right to drive. I could easily see future governments trying to stop this in the name of safety.
Side note, driverless cars will be great for the elderly and imparied.
Here's the thing: LIKE driving. I like driving a lot more than being a passenger; I like being self-directed; I like being in control. I also do like—and appreciate—the newer tech (some with AI) that helps me drive better by assisting me. But I like the AI as an ASSISTANT, not a replacement.
Amen.
I live in San Francisco, where self-driving vehicles are deployed. Yes, I can always tell which car is self-driving because they suspiciously stop at stop signs and don’t drive over the speed limit. I have taken the challenge in my own car, I never blew through stop signs, like 50% of the folks in my neighborhood, but now I don’t go my former 5 mph over the speed limit, the limit is my limit. As a cyclist, I know who I can trust to keep me safe, bring ‘em on! We see these vehicles frequently every day, I still wave to the “driver”.
Biggest blind spot of this author: They view driving solely as a chore that can be eliminated and starts to outline all the supporting narratives to support that sentiment. Not only is driving an expression of American freedom and our personal agency to explore, it's another skill that will soon be done away with without realizing the value in its utility beyond getting from point A to B. For all of human existence we controlled and maneuvered our modes of transportation. We were connected to the senses and manual dexterity needed to control them and without expressing them we will lose yet another skill that we've been lead to believe is a burden, right up there with growing our own food, hunting, building shelter and handwriting. The daily tasks we've grow to resent are part of what gives our lives texture and meaning. I'll add reading books now replaced by audio books (guilty) cleaning and organizing our own homes, teaching our own children. Soon AI will write our stories for us too. Let's not disconnect ourselves from our means to navigate our adventures too
Amen brother. This is why I still separate cotton by hand and get insulin from my cow. Technology has ruined us.
Spare us the melodrama, please. Your handwriting doesn't pose a threat to other people's lives; your driving just might.
Yes, let's rid ourselves of the fallible humans. They are ruining everything! We don't want to see them. We don't want to talk to them. We don't want them to vote. We want everything quiet and peaceful. Everything will be beautiful when technology takes over the things humans disdain and destroy. Sorry, not for me. Let the humans be stupid and dangerous. It is part of the human condition. We are not perfect. As a matter of fact, we are imperfect and are inconsistent. We are unreliable. Yet, we can surprise people by turning our lives around. What happened to the wonder of it all? Let the humans make music that is derived from their spirit and soul. We need the connection to make our lives meaningful. Let God's creation have its way regardless of how safe, simple, and secure it sounds. The same people types who created the neutron bomb are the same people who are building our digital prison. Resist them all and let God's people have their way!
I will stipulate that autonomous cars will one day be safer than human-driven. But is wringing the last bit of physical risk from life really the best of all possible worlds? Is it just coincidence that the bubble-wrapped generation that grew up with car seats and bike helmets are also the generation of extreme sports? Humans crave physical risk and grow neurotic without it. For many people in the modern world driving a car is one of the few non-virtual things left; and, if safety is a concern, does it make sense to eliminate human drivers only for them to climb onto electric scooters or even bicycles, both of which are far more hazardous per mile of transportation?
Additionally, driverless cars are now still an anomaly and as such do not accurately reflect how the experience will manifest when pervasive and widely-used by the broad spectrum of the public. Will the robotaxi experience still be gratifying when the inside of the taxi looks and smells like the thousands of humans of varying degrees of hygiene that have eaten their onion burgers in it, spilled their Jagermeister, farted, vomited, pissed themselves and then left behind their graffiti tags? Do you think that roboatxi sex will not be a thing among drunk coeds? Yeah, it'll be a real treat sitting in that mess.
The defense of self-driving cars is that most people are bad drivers, just as the defense of autocracy is that most people are bad at self-governing. Matthew B. Crawford, whom I recently discovered on Andrew Sullivan's podcast, has covered the subject thoroughly in his book "Why We Drive", but a good primer is his article "The Rise of Antihumanism", which I highly recommend. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/08/the-rise-of-antihumanism. Here is a snippet:
"The premise behind the push for driverless cars is that human beings are terrible drivers. This is one instance of a wider pattern. There is a tacit picture of the human being that guides our institutions, and a shared intellectual DNA for the governing classes. It has various elements, but the common thread is a low regard for human beings, whether on the basis of their fragility, their cognitive limitations, their latent tendency to “hate,” or their imminent obsolescence with the arrival of imagined technological possibilities. Each of these premises carries an important but partial truth, and each provides the master supposition for some project of social control."
I'm one of those who saw the obvious benefits way back, and like the author, I was always perplexed by those who didn't seem to get it. But I get the luddite impulse now, because I feel it too.
Twenty years ago, like the author, I thought of the thousands of lives saved. Don't we drive past messy wrecks almost daily, 100% of them caused by gross human error? I knew that the energy spent on moving the humans inside is a tiny fraction of that expended to move around cars. Most of the fuel is burned to move the big steel cage and other weighty safety equipment that networked cars should make obsolete. On roads dedicated to self-driving cars, I thought of the lack of traffic tie ups, the millions of dollars saved by getting rid of costly infrastructure like signs and traffic lights. I thought of the efficiency of sending my car home on its own to serve other members of the family when I'm at work, and the ability to avoid parking downtown, both in terms of its costs and its crowding.
Who turned me into a doubter? The tech moguls. These guys were brazenly willing to wield their power over their networks to influence election outcomes. They would gladly punish and cancel those who disagree with their orthodoxy. Sadly, when I watched the scenes in Upload that showed billionnaires misusing the information and control they had over self-driving cars, it felt all too realistic. I just know now that if I sat in one of those cars, I would be the product.
Eric, you HAVE TO REMEMBER to take your pills EVERYDAY. Don't forget, ok?
This take is correct
I’ve long argued that they should be demo’ed in car heavy, lower traffic places (like small towns) for low income people, kids and seniors who can’t drive
I don’t get why they are starting with the hard spots like SF
“Anyone rooting against self-driving cars is cheering for tens of thousands of deaths, year after year.”
I have serious concerns about self driving cars and being told I’m cheering the deaths of thousand of people just reinforces my concerns. This author can piss off.
While this does sound great... in theory, what about those cases in which an accident is unavoidable, and the AI has to choose between two set of lives
What happens if between hiting the car or swerving and hitting pedestrians
What if the other driver is black and the innocent and the pedestrians are two white couple.
What happens then?
Driverless cars seem real attractive on a well lit, well marked roadway in good weather.
But what about a poorly marked wet road at night? Sometimes you have to travel when conditions are very poor. Or winter with icy conditions?
I suppose maybe we could give up the choice of driving ourselves. The downside to this is that the car may decide that conditions are too poor to drive at all.
And when we start letting the car decide, it might end up being some omnipotent moral busybody who starts writing the rules.
Technically, planes can fly themselves. Would you fly one without a qualified pilot in the cockpit?
Next will be pilotless airliners. Great, until something occurs that isn't covered in the aircraft's operating system knowledge base. Read about Flight QF32 which, in 2010, suffered an explosive failure of its No. 2 engine shortly after leaving Singapore, causing severe damage to the left wing. Automation, in this case, would certainly have cost 469 lives. Self-driving automobiles are desirable because of the poor training and, in many cases, psychological unsuitability of a high percentage of drivers.
I generally agree with this, but I also worry about government going too far. We should probably implement a constitutional amendment now, guaranteeing people the right to drive. I could easily see future governments trying to stop this in the name of safety.
Side note, driverless cars will be great for the elderly and imparied.
Here's the thing: LIKE driving. I like driving a lot more than being a passenger; I like being self-directed; I like being in control. I also do like—and appreciate—the newer tech (some with AI) that helps me drive better by assisting me. But I like the AI as an ASSISTANT, not a replacement.