4 ms·

TxDMV needs to follow this. Fuck these companies. They are testing their garbage in dense urban areas. Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of

by xyst 3y ago

TxDMV needs to follow this. Fuck these companies. They are testing their garbage in dense urban areas. Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of the road. If it rains, vehicle stops. If the light is out, vehicle panics and stops. Somebody puts a cone on the hood, vehicle panics. If a single variable not accounted for in their algorithms shifts beyond expected range, it fucking panics. So much money dumped/wasted into “autonomous personal vehicles”. How about we invest in making our cities more pedestrian, bike, and public transportation friendly? Let’s move people more efficiently rather than further digging ourselves into this hole.

therealmarv 3y ago
This! A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.
- xnx 3y ago
  An advanced country is one where as many people as possible can go where they want, when they want, as cheaply as feasible. In the US, autonomous vehicles are the best bet for facilitating this in urban areas.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This is true - where I live only the relatively wealthy can afford close enough to schools to cycle to them. Anyone on a regular salary has to drive in.
jdross 3y ago
What if we do both? Cars should be safe everywhere, and cities should be very pedestrian and bike friendly. Cars also don't only exist in dense cities. They're even used, among other things, to get people into and out of those cities
freedomben 3y ago
Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? (I'm not just asking this rhetorically, I'm really interested in what you or somebody who agrees with you thinks about these things). Alternatively if you reject the premise of those questions that this is a necessary phase to pass through to get to the other side, what do you think the impact on progress would be if no "real world" training opportunities were allowed for these companies? Do you think they'd be hampered and progress would take longer, and what would the impact of that be?
- tivert 3y ago
  > Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Sorry, eggs [regular people]. Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places (e.g. what kind of medical-technological progress would we be able to make if it was possible to do testing on humans like we do on animals?).
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Sorry, eggs [regular people]. I'm not trying to make a statement or a point with the question. The original question is all that is part of the question. Please don't try to read more in than what is there. > Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places. For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous. So, there must be a balance somewhere right?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Giving self-driving car companies free reign to cheaply experiment on the public is not the same as "avoid[ing] any and all pain" or avoiding all technological progress.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        > You're presenting a false dichotomy. Giving self-driving car companies free reign to cheaply experiment on the public is not the same as "avoid[ing] any and all pain" or avoiding all technological progress. I'm not presenting a dichotomy at all (unless you think the spectrum is binary and is only zero pain or non-zero pain, which I don't), let alone a false one. I'm not talking about just self-driving car companies. This is a broader philosophical discussion about technology in general, and how much pain is tolerable for progress. If you believe zero is tolerable in the case of self-driving, then do you believe that in general for all tech? If not, why is self-driving so different? Do you disagree with the premise that on the other side of self-driving cars is a world where humans don't have to labor for their transportation? Edit: to clarify because people seem incapable of non-binary thinking, I'm not making an argument that Cruise (or any other tech company or car company or whatever) should be able to have "free reign to cheaply experiment on the public." That's not something I said or implied. I don't think they should and I think this California decision is probably a good one. There, can we talk about the higher philosophical issue now?
ambicapter 3y ago
> Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of the road. The problem in this case happens to be that the AV tried to pull over instead of stopping in the middle of the road, so not sure this is a great criticism to make.
spaced-out 3y ago
>How about we invest in making our cities more pedestrian, bike, and public transportation friendly? There are tons of companies that would love to help (get paid to) build out public transit infrastructure in cities. You think any major city would have trouble attracting bids to build tram systems, subways, or even buy more busses? Look at your local leaders, how many of them are pro-public transit? How many of them have a long history of blocking projects because they want to "preserve neighborhood character" or some other lame excuse?
rangestransform 3y ago
Cruise's valuation of $30 billion will get you 12 miles of subway in NYC [1], hardly the public transit revolution necessary to make autonomous driving redundant. I don't hate public transit or anything, I cycle and subway in NYC all the time, but the level of investment the US needs in public transit is an order of magnitude above the amount that investors have spent on autonomous driving. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-subway-a-case-study-in-runaway-transit-construction-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-su...
- kart23 3y ago
  how many people does that 12 miles of subway move vs self driving cars? I would think surely an order of magnitude as well.

by xyst 3y ago

therealmarv 3y ago

This! A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation.

xnx 3y ago
An advanced country is one where as many people as possible can go where they want, when they want, as cheaply as feasible. In the US, autonomous vehicles are the best bet for facilitating this in urban areas.
robertlagrant 3y ago
This is true - where I live only the relatively wealthy can afford close enough to schools to cycle to them. Anyone on a regular salary has to drive in.

jdross 3y ago

What if we do both? Cars should be safe everywhere, and cities should be very pedestrian and bike friendly. Cars also don't only exist in dense cities. They're even used, among other things, to get people into and out of those cities

freedomben 3y ago

Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? (I'm not just asking this rhetorically, I'm really interested in what you or somebody who agrees with you thinks about these things). Alternatively if you reject the premise of those questions that this is a necessary phase to pass through to get to the other side, what do you think the impact on progress would be if no "real world" training opportunities were allowed for these companies? Do you think they'd be hampered and progress would take longer, and what would the impact of that be?

tivert 3y ago
> Do you think the potential future where humans are freed from doing anything for their transportation (no driving, no pedaling, no steering, no danger, no waiting in traffic, etc) is worth some short term pain while we develop the tech? Was the pain and suffering during the industrial revolution days that have led to our current high tech world worth it? Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Sorry, eggs [regular people]. Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places (e.g. what kind of medical-technological progress would we be able to make if it was possible to do testing on humans like we do on animals?).
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Or more succinctly: "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Sorry, eggs [regular people]. I'm not trying to make a statement or a point with the question. The original question is all that is part of the question. Please don't try to read more in than what is there. > Ends justify the means thinking leads to some dark places. For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous. So, there must be a balance somewhere right?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > For sure, but if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people. Maybe life satisfaction then was higher, but certainly life expectancy wasn't. Just the death rate of babies and women alone was pretty dangerous. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Giving self-driving car companies free reign to cheaply experiment on the public is not the same as "avoid[ing] any and all pain" or avoiding all technological progress.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > You're presenting a false dichotomy. Giving self-driving car companies free reign to cheaply experiment on the public is not the same as "avoid[ing] any and all pain" or avoiding all technological progress. I'm not presenting a dichotomy at all (unless you think the spectrum is binary and is only zero pain or non-zero pain, which I don't), let alone a false one. I'm not talking about just self-driving car companies. This is a broader philosophical discussion about technology in general, and how much pain is tolerable for progress. If you believe zero is tolerable in the case of self-driving, then do you believe that in general for all tech? If not, why is self-driving so different? Do you disagree with the premise that on the other side of self-driving cars is a world where humans don't have to labor for their transportation? Edit: to clarify because people seem incapable of non-binary thinking, I'm not making an argument that Cruise (or any other tech company or car company or whatever) should be able to have "free reign to cheaply experiment on the public." That's not something I said or implied. I don't think they should and I think this California decision is probably a good one. There, can we talk about the higher philosophical issue now?

ambicapter 3y ago

> Too many times their vehicles just stop in the middle of the road. The problem in this case happens to be that the AV tried to pull over instead of stopping in the middle of the road, so not sure this is a great criticism to make.

spaced-out 3y ago

>How about we invest in making our cities more pedestrian, bike, and public transportation friendly? There are tons of companies that would love to help (get paid to) build out public transit infrastructure in cities. You think any major city would have trouble attracting bids to build tram systems, subways, or even buy more busses? Look at your local leaders, how many of them are pro-public transit? How many of them have a long history of blocking projects because they want to "preserve neighborhood character" or some other lame excuse?

rangestransform 3y ago

Cruise's valuation of $30 billion will get you 12 miles of subway in NYC [1], hardly the public transit revolution necessary to make autonomous driving redundant. I don't hate public transit or anything, I cycle and subway in NYC all the time, but the level of investment the US needs in public transit is an order of magnitude above the amount that investors have spent on autonomous driving. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-subway-a-case-study-in-runaway-transit-construction-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/in-nyc-su...

kart23 3y ago
how many people does that 12 miles of subway move vs self driving cars? I would think surely an order of magnitude as well.