2 ms·
There’s a lot of ifs and predictions here. How many deaths would be prevented by automatically citing a vehicle for breaking traffic laws? This is a much cheap
by tekknik 7y ago
There’s a lot of ifs and predictions here.
How many deaths would be prevented by automatically citing a vehicle for breaking traffic laws? This is a much cheaper and simpler option than an SDC.
SDCs can be programmed to obey laws, I never said they couldn’t. However a software system will not reach the same level of reasoning a human brain can in our lifetimes. Compute capacity isn’t even close yet. So again, an SDC / Software System / AI is no replacement for a human brain.
We have driver assist technology now. No company in the world is going to keep a human driver on the books when they can be replaced by a machine. History is there as proof. It’s not a question of if they will be replaced, it’s how long it will take to make the technology robust enough.
They don’t make the news because death is a normal, acceptable thing for us. People die, accidents happen. Covering every person that dies would not at all be time efficient.
There’s also something to be said for darwinism here, but I’m not going to get into that.
- shadowgovt 7y ago> They don’t make the news because death is a normal, acceptable thing for us. That's how human cognition deals with things we don't think we have control over. There was a time when smallpox deaths were just "part of God's plan." I disagree the car crash body count is inevitable or needs to stay normal any more than some people's children just naturally succumb to smallpox. > There’s also something to be said for darwinism here, but I’m not going to get into that. Yes, I definitely wouldn't. It's an offensive attitude to have around people who have lost friends and loved ones this way to imply they weren't good enough to live.