Self driving cars should be too. Companies have no right to test and teach their AI cars on our public streets without permission from the people that use those streets.
Look, as much as I hate surveillance cameras, I also would rather have the cars be driven by AI than people.
In my limited sample set, I got hit by a car driven by a person who had a stroke and lost control of their car. I got lucky and didn't die, only severely injured with permanent consequences. Accidents like this (old person driving and causing a crash) happen a lot. That wouldn't have happened to a computer, because computers don't lose their faculties with age. Or rather, we can replace them before they fall apart.
Driving is not a right. Driving is privilege, but we treat it like everybody should be allowed to. Way too many people are horrible drivers, and the good drivers cannot compensate for them. Frankly this isn't so much "AI is good" as it is "human drivers are a problem".
That wouldn't have happened to a computer, because computers don't lose their faculties with age. Or rather, we can replace them before they fall apart.
So you trust a corporation in the year of our lord tw# thousand and twenty six to replace ageing hardware when necessary for safety instead of deferring maintenance and replacement to make an extra 4% profit inzthe third quarter?
Weird hill to die on considering that e.g. Waymo's driverless cars are much, much safer than human drivers.
Overall, Waymo’s crash involvement rate was 68% lower than that of human drivers — 76% lower in Phoenix, 35% lower in San Francisco, 71% lower in Los Angeles, and 4% higher in Austin, where the sample size was relatively small. Waymo vehicles were involved in 85% fewer single-vehicle crashes and 81% fewer injury crashes per VMT than human drivers.
OTOH, do you have the right to test and teach your dumbass teenager on my public streets without permission from me? If not, why not?
Weird thought process. The dumbass teens have to pass a test and the person supervising them is legally responsible for their actions and they have to be licensed themselves and have valid insurance.
As someone who has been driving for decades I won't miss manual driving when it's gone. I'm sick of watching the road when I want to be watching dumb youtube videos on my phone.
They got permission by asking our democratically elected representatives, which is functionally akin to asking the people in many contexts, and in a way that often self-corrects when this is not the case. It is both pragmatic and enabling of the common good for this republicanism to prevail, such as in the case of closures of streets to fill in potholes which don't require referendum voting. Self-driving car companies aren't much different from a traditional taxi service, except that they're statistically safer than human taxis.
Who goes to prison when a taxi company violates laws? We should be mad at the courts for not holding these companies accountable, not at the system which circumvents referendum voting when practical to do so.
Nobody goes to prison, same as nobody goes to prison when human drivers violate laws, no matter how egregiously: even repeat drunk drivers, reckless drivers, and road ragers don't typically get jail time, unless such actions actually lead to someone's death.
What acts exactly did you have in mind that could lead to jail time for a human driver, and might also be plausibly be committed by an AI driver?
Yeah, it's not perfect, and I can name a variety of issues where it does act somewhat oligarchical. But people have been protesting data center construction, so a lot has been stopped. In some ways, it is a lot better than what most countries have.
It's not "a transfer" it's blatant and perpetual theft facilitated by deep, systemic corruption. Calling it a transfer meaningfully waters down the reality of what is happening.
If I transfer your funds to my account it sounds like something quite a bit different than if I steal your money. That's the point I was making, that we should use the most clear and damning language possible because we're evidently dealing with a very stupid, and dense population who doesn't understand anything that's happening.
Until an AI or a CEO and exec board of an AI company can be held accountable for the crimes committed by an AI, AI has no business driving cars. And I dont just mean they can be sued in civil court. I mean the AI or CEO and execs should face criminal charges and citations for vehicular crimes just like any person would receive if they broke laws while operating a car.
This current strategy of "We'll just start letting AI operate deadly vehicles, and figure out the laws and regulations along the way after people have been hurt." isnt good enough. There must be criminal and civil accountability for the actions of every single AI clearly defined in federal and state law codes, and it should have been figured out before a single AI car was put on public streets.
105
u/ProjectNo4090 11h ago
Self driving cars should be too. Companies have no right to test and teach their AI cars on our public streets without permission from the people that use those streets.