4 ms·

>One thing I am certain of is that we absolutely must succeed in developing, productizing, deploying, and ultimately mandating self-driving technology. On a pl

by yborg 8y ago

>One thing I am certain of is that we absolutely must succeed in developing, productizing, deploying, and ultimately mandating self-driving technology. On a planet where the primary killer of millions of people is unclean drinking water the argument that we "absolutely must" develop self-driving cars is not very compelling. Especially since what is really at stake here is your "trillions of dollars". People are primarily developing these technologies to make money, not prevent deaths, and the idea that society as a whole should shoulder the burden of additional risk to greatly enrich a few individuals seems morally indefensible.

zaroth 8y ago
When capitalism encourages extraordinary levels of investment in technological advancement which will save millions of lives, I call that a win-win. Unclean water killing millions of people a year is a compelling reason to encourage investment in more affordable solutions for cleaning water. You know what else kills 1.25 million people per year? Human driven cars. That’s a pretty compelling reason to encourage investment in eliminating the steering wheel. The best way we accelerate the advancement of this technology is, generally, not to regulate it out of existence. > People are primarily developing these technologies to make money, not prevent deaths, and the idea that society as a whole should shoulder the burden of additional risk to greatly enrich a few individuals seems morally indefensible. They can’t make the money unless they can prevent the deaths. The benefits to society as a whole as the technology is perfected is worth trillions. The idea that we would want to perpetuate a system which kills 1.25 million people a year because an extraordinarily rapidly progressing technology isn’t yet perfected is what seems morally indefensible to me. I don’t know what you’re on about society shouldering a burden to enrich a few individuals. Economically speaking we all become richer with self driving cars. The way I see it the question is simple — increase regulation now and shift the adoption curve to the right - resulting in on the order of millions of net additional driving deaths... or eliminate roadblocks and stimulate investment in self-driving R&D and shift the adoption curve to the left - saving millions of lives. The fact there are those calling for clamping down on regulation and stymieing self-driving development after exactly one singular fatality in which self-driving technology may have played a contributing factor (but where the police on the scene ruled that the car was not at fault) appears to me to be a fearful mob type of response.

by yborg 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago

When capitalism encourages extraordinary levels of investment in technological advancement which will save millions of lives, I call that a win-win. Unclean water killing millions of people a year is a compelling reason to encourage investment in more affordable solutions for cleaning water. You know what else kills 1.25 million people per year? Human driven cars. That’s a pretty compelling reason to encourage investment in eliminating the steering wheel. The best way we accelerate the advancement of this technology is, generally, not to regulate it out of existence. > People are primarily developing these technologies to make money, not prevent deaths, and the idea that society as a whole should shoulder the burden of additional risk to greatly enrich a few individuals seems morally indefensible. They can’t make the money unless they can prevent the deaths. The benefits to society as a whole as the technology is perfected is worth trillions. The idea that we would want to perpetuate a system which kills 1.25 million people a year because an extraordinarily rapidly progressing technology isn’t yet perfected is what seems morally indefensible to me. I don’t know what you’re on about society shouldering a burden to enrich a few individuals. Economically speaking we all become richer with self driving cars. The way I see it the question is simple — increase regulation now and shift the adoption curve to the right - resulting in on the order of millions of net additional driving deaths... or eliminate roadblocks and stimulate investment in self-driving R&D and shift the adoption curve to the left - saving millions of lives. The fact there are those calling for clamping down on regulation and stymieing self-driving development after exactly one singular fatality in which self-driving technology may have played a contributing factor (but where the police on the scene ruled that the car was not at fault) appears to me to be a fearful mob type of response.