|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2026 02:25 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
I don't know, to me, the method of my dying would very much be irrelevant since I'd be dead.
Thats one way of looking at it, as for me I would rather be in charge of my fate myself as much as possible. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
I don't know, to me, the method of my dying would very much be irrelevant since I'd be dead.
I'm a big believer in statistics and as a driver with 20+ years of experience very little faith in my fellow human drivers, given how amazing just the "basic" tools that come with fairly budget cars (I drive a Mazda 2) like the adaptive cruise control with lane tracking is, my general inclination is to trust the technology, when the above mentioned network effects kick in, I'm fairly certain I'd have no issue giving up driving.
Of course, I'll never give up my tractor so I'll always have that, ain't no clanker gonna spray my vineyards. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:
The rayzda mentality is very common, which is why I think it’s going to be a long time until we get full autonomous cars as the common. It seems like being significantly better than people is not enough. It needs to be perfect.
I look at it a different way. My big concern driving is not me, it’s the others on a road. And I trust computers more than texting, drunk, distracted by kids, dumb, sleepy people.
And how nice would it be to be able to do something other than drive in the car! And the efficiency in cities is going to change traffic so dramatically. Sooner the better, as long as properly tested. Precisely, do you think any autonomous car will be able to account for idiocy which is happening on the roads?
Because the idiots won’t be driving.
Well they still are, the computer will react way faster than we can. It will also be much at estimating how close, fast and so it needs to be, to account for mistakes and various road conditions.
|
On May 08 2026 02:25 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
I don't know, to me, the method of my dying would very much be irrelevant since I'd be dead.
Thats one way of looking at it, as for me I would rather be in charge of my fate myself as much as possible. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
I don't know, to me, the method of my dying would very much be irrelevant since I'd be dead.
I'm a big believer in statistics and as a driver with 20+ years of experience very little faith in my fellow human drivers, given how amazing just the "basic" tools that come with fairly budget cars (I drive a Mazda 2) like the adaptive cruise control with lane tracking is, my general inclination is to trust the technology, when the above mentioned network effects kick in, I'm fairly certain I'd have no issue giving up driving.
Of course, I'll never give up my tractor so I'll always have that, ain't no clanker gonna spray my vineyards. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:
The rayzda mentality is very common, which is why I think it’s going to be a long time until we get full autonomous cars as the common. It seems like being significantly better than people is not enough. It needs to be perfect.
I look at it a different way. My big concern driving is not me, it’s the others on a road. And I trust computers more than texting, drunk, distracted by kids, dumb, sleepy people.
And how nice would it be to be able to do something other than drive in the car! And the efficiency in cities is going to change traffic so dramatically. Sooner the better, as long as properly tested. Precisely, do you think any autonomous car will be able to account for idiocy which is happening on the roads? Which is why for autonomous driving to really take of, manual driving will get banned. Or if not outright banned it will be fake, as in you can chose to 'drive' but only in far as the cars software allows it. The moment the driver makes a mistake, like getting to close to the car in front or braking to aggressively with a car behind you the software takes control away and corrects.
A road full of autonomous cars all connected and talking to each other is probably as safe as driving is going to get.
|
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
On May 08 2026 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:
A road full of autonomous cars all connected and talking to each other is probably as safe as driving is going to get.
What you describing is cyberterrorist wet dream, so dunno about safe.
|
On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:
A road full of autonomous cars all connected and talking to each other is probably as safe as driving is going to get.
What you describing is cyberterrorist wet dream, so dunno about safe.
ROLF! Do you think you don’t get to pick where the car goes?
Also funny how fast your argument moves from safety to “freedom”. It’s not freedom to get to do what you want in the car instead of being shackled to the wheel and pedals?
|
On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream. Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:
A road full of autonomous cars all connected and talking to each other is probably as safe as driving is going to get.
What you describing is cyberterrorist wet dream, so dunno about safe.
Wait, like in video games where someone hacks the car and drives it thru the front door of a bank as part of a heist, or some shit?
The biggest act of terrorism in our lifetimes was people with boxcutters. I don't know what a 'cyberterrorist' is but I haven't heard of many people's phones getting hacked and bursting into flame, or smart fridges being hacked to spoil all the food. Who are these cyberterrorists, where did they come from, and what is their agenda?
|
On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level.
|
On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level.
I always found it very interesting how rightwingers equate cars with freedom. It is a connection i have never had. A car is a thing that gets me places. It is annoying to use, but it gets me there. I don't have that massive emotional connection to it that some people have.
There are other things which get me places, too.
I guess this might be a US thing, where the whole of society is designed in a way that you can do basically nothing without a car. Here in Germany i can just walk places. Or go by bike. Or take a train.
|
Roads with only fully automated cars sound like public transit with extra steps. Why are we reinventing the wheel?
|
On May 08 2026 15:26 PoulsenB wrote:
Roads with only fully automated cars sound like public transit with extra steps. Why are we reinventing the wheel?
Because they aren't public transit? I mean they could be, if we also get rid of car ownership and when you need to go somewhere you call a car and it takes you there, but mass robotaxis aren't the only model (although they're probably the best model). You could own an autonomous car, park it in your driveway and have it take you where you want to go whenever you want to go somewhere.
Replacing human drivers in taxis is probably the first step and the one that is already being tested. Taxis are already unusual public transport because they allow you to go from wherever you want directly to wherever you want, without any stops or with as many stops as you please. It's definitely not mass transit, which despite its economic and environmental benefits, has some serious disadvantages too.
|
On May 08 2026 15:26 PoulsenB wrote:
Roads with only fully automated cars sound like public transit with extra steps. Why are we reinventing the wheel? public transit goes from a to b at set times. A car goes where you want when you want and can carry your weekly groceries.
Public transit will work fine for most of the time in plenty of european countries but there is no denying the convenience of a car.
|
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties".
|
On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level.
Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use"
Edit: coma
|
It's already a hassle anyway with insurance companies fighting tooth and nail to not pay out and sometimes requiring absurd amounts of documentation or procedure before doing so.
|
On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties". oh there are much worse scenarios. Does your car crash into another vehicle in front of you or does it drive itself into a wall to the side to minimize casualties?
I don't claim to have the answers but if roads of entirely self driving cars can radically reduce accidents? like 60-90% less accidents. Which imo is not unreasonable as the technology matures, most accidents are after all the result of human error, then yes I think it will be considered "acceptable casualties".
Edit: And yes to be clear I am talking about the future, I would not trust my life to the current generation of autonomous cars. But they will improve over time until they are safer then actual people driving.
|
On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties".
It’s not a left right thing. Rayzda just made it that because that is what MAGA brained people do these days.
There are acceptable casualties now, if those go way down that is a win for society. There are going to be lots of issues to work through and since humans will be involved in making all the rules, there will be lots of problems as the goal will be maximizing the profit and not making it best for society. But the possible end game of it would be pretty amazing.
It is totally reasonable to be cautious as it all gets figured out.
|
On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma
I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak.
|
As someone who works for the automotive industry (in car software development, to be specific), I must say I do not share your optimism regarding fully automated cars. Nor does anybody I work with or have worked with. It is a very common sentiment in the industry to own old cars with as little software in them as possible.
Some level of "acceptable casualties" will always be there. The only way to limit traffic deaths to 0 is to remove traffic. There always will be traffic accidents; even if we assume that all cars are automated with perfect programming (lol!), there will still be problems caused by hardware defects, external causes, and indeterministic behavior (especially if you want LLMs to be involved).
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't try to lower traffic accidents, but you should realize that 0 accidents is not a realistic goal. At least not if our society works as it works now.
|
On May 08 2026 13:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. I always found it very interesting how rightwingers equate cars with freedom. It is a connection i have never had. A car is a thing that gets me places. It is annoying to use, but it gets me there. I don't have that massive emotional connection to it that some people have. There are other things which get me places, too. I guess this might be a US thing, where the whole of society is designed in a way that you can do basically nothing without a car. Here in Germany i can just walk places. Or go by bike. Or take a train.
I live in a village in NL. Going to my work by Public transport takes 1.5 hours. By car it's 35 minutes. That's in the middle of a small densely populated country. In rural areas cars give a lot of freedom and that's not just a US thing.
|
On May 08 2026 21:31 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 17:20 Luolis wrote:
I gotta say as a quite left wing European i am not sold on automated cars. The idea is okay on paper, but i'm not comfortable with removing human responsibility when it comes to traffic. If there happens an accident with two automated cars for example, who takes responsibility? It can't just be "acceptable casualties". It’s not a left right thing. Rayzda just made it that because that is what MAGA brained people do these days. There are acceptable casualties now, if those go way down that is a win for society. There are going to be lots of issues to work through and since humans will be involved in making all the rules, there will be lots of problems as the goal will be maximizing the profit and not making it best for society. But the possible end game of it would be pretty amazing. It is totally reasonable to be cautious as it all gets figured out.
It was literally Nebuchad and Gorsameth... kinda last people I would suspect to be maga brained.
On May 08 2026 21:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2026 17:23 Razyda wrote:On May 08 2026 10:41 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2026 08:23 Razyda wrote:
It is quite terrifying how happy people are to sacrifice their, and whats worse others, freedom for some utopian dream.
We sacrifice our freedoms when we don't get to live in certain places because rightwingers have decided that we need to have borders, or when we don't get to love who we want or exist in the way that we desire because rightwingers have decided that there are correct and incorrect types of families. We do not sacrifice our freedoms when there's a new type of car and we get to use it. You misunderstand the concept at a very deep level. Dude, Gorsameth clearly stated that manual driving will be banned. So your argument sould be "we dont get to drive the car we want because leftwingers decided that there are correct cars to use" Edit: coma I'm sure you'll be able to go to circuits where you'll get to drive as much as you want. This is like arguing that the freeway took away your freedom to walk in the place where it was built. Even for your standards, it's weak.
Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" .
Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways
Edit:
On May 08 2026 22:04 Silvanel wrote:
As someone who works for the automotive industry (in car software development, to be specific), I must say I do not share your optimism regarding fully automated cars. Nor does anybody I work with or have worked with. It is a very common sentiment in the industry to own old cars with as little software in them as possible.
Some level of "acceptable casualties" will always be there. The only way to limit traffic deaths to 0 is to remove traffic. There always will be traffic accidents; even if we assume that all cars are automated with perfect programming (lol!), there will still be problems caused by hardware defects, external causes, and indeterministic behavior (especially if you want LLMs to be involved).
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't try to lower traffic accidents, but you should realize that 0 accidents is not a realistic goal. At least not if our society works as it works now.
I wouldn't say it is limited to people in the industry. It is more and more common among people who have to relay on cars daily, or hobbyist. From my observation (I do realise this is anecdotal) it is actually growing trend.
|
On May 08 2026 22:34 Razyda wrote:
Are you being serious? What kind of argument is that? You can justify any kind of invasion on freedom with that. It literally applies to every example you have in your previous post. The fact that you are not allowed to do certain things doesnt mean that you get to forbid you other certain things and then say "there was no freedom loss" .
Lets lock everyone in solitary cells then, that will reduce car accidents by 100% and on top of that homicides also by 100%. It is not like they loose any freedoms, because they couldnt walk on the motorway anyways
My justification, as already explained, was that it is not an invasion on freedom, because this is not what having freedom or what taking freedom away means. Locking everyone in solitary cells would, on the other end, be an invasion on freedom, which indicates to me that you instinctively understand the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
