4 ms·

This is so short sighted... autonomous vehicles including buses and trucks are on their way to our streets. We don't want to create rules and govern how this is

This is so short sighted... autonomous vehicles including buses and trucks are on their way to our streets. We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans? We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... there are many options for setting rules that autonomous vehicles must follow which is in the best interests of the public not just the rider.

zzzeek 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
newZWhoDis 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  What about fire engines?
- rocketpastsix 1y ago
  why not?
  - mostlysimilar 1y ago
    Because the average American is pathologically selfish.
    - jandrewrogers 1y ago
      s/American/human/g
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  And that opinion is why the public transit system in almost every American city is barely functional. We’re not allowed to have nice things because some car driver might be slightly inconvenienced on occasion.
- octernion 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - trealira 1y ago
    I don't even necessarily agree with them, but what's so terrible about that opinion that you'd say it's awful and should be flagged and legislated against?
munificent 1y ago
> We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? Correct, the Republican Party does not want anyone to be able to regulate that. > It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans? The vehicles will follow whatever rules are in the best interest of the corporations that made them. I think the simplest, clearest way to interpret this legislation is that it's a straight transfer of power from individual citizens to AI corporations.
- sershe 1y ago
  Where do individual citizens come in here? This is a transfer to corporations and citizens, from governments and bureaucracies. The latter, when allowed to regulate, mostly prevent things from happening - housing, for example. Or new meds. Or wind farms. So, a good call imo
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    This would eliminate the right of citizens at the local or state level to regulate these things as they see fit.
    - sershe 1y ago
      That to me seems like amazing mental gymnastics. It would eliminate the right of distant citizen proxies to take away the actual rights from actual individual citizens. The proxies who, especially in single party states, can do whatever they or the loudest groups of nimbys and activists want, with impunity. Don't get me wrong, I don't like either party. But in this case they are doing a good thing even if for questionable reasons. Although also, I do think that fear of having California regulate ai innovation known to the state of California to cause cancer, combined with the large market "veto power", causing harm vs e.g. China with regard to ai progress, is pretty credible.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Individual citizens get screwed over without adequate regulation, as we've witnessed over and over again. Deregulation has brought you crappy internet access, broken healthcare, airplane crashes, and lack of meaningful consumer protection. And now you want what, an "intelligent" robot that comes up with a bunch of bullshit reasons to auto-reject your health insurance claims faster than a human can? How in the world can you call that "good"?
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
> We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... I can only see this working if we jump straight to 100% self-driving. Otherwise, you'll have to make transitory guidelines for drivers without driverless tech, such as "yield in x situation when you see the rapid transit public bus." But if you do this, you're making the driving rules more complex and less predictable. That means you're creating more dangerous situations for drivers. But of course, we're not going to go straight to 100% driverless. We're going to have some portion of people driving their own cars for a long time, especially in the USA.
- mikeweiss 1y ago
  Could have special lanes for self driving cars that adhere to certain protocols, like we have today for HOV lanes.
daft_pink 1y ago
This is not an accurate depiction of the law. This doesn’t mean you can slap AI on something and completely ignore existing right of way laws or discrimination laws (which are generally Federal anyways). It simply means that Federal law will take priority in terms of specific AI laws and they can’t pass a patchwork of restrictions on the technology so that in Podunk, Flyoverstate the technology is illegal and that impacts the whole country. The reason this is important is that in the United States there is 1 Federal government, there are 50 states, roughly 3,000 counties, 19,500 municipalities, and 16,500 townships. They don’t want startups to face roughly 40,000 law making bodies with varying laws while the technology is in it’s infancy. The Feds have pre-empted many other technologies including: air travel, railroads, auto safety, banking, environmental regulations, medical devices, maritime law, labor relations, nuclear energy, taxation on internet communications, etc etc. It didn’t create a dystopian world where rules don’t exist.

zzzeek 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

newZWhoDis 1y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 1y ago
What about fire engines?
rocketpastsix 1y ago
why not?
- mostlysimilar 1y ago
  Because the average American is pathologically selfish.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    s/American/human/g
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TimorousBestie 1y ago
And that opinion is why the public transit system in almost every American city is barely functional. We’re not allowed to have nice things because some car driver might be slightly inconvenienced on occasion.
octernion 1y ago
[flagged]
- trealira 1y ago
  I don't even necessarily agree with them, but what's so terrible about that opinion that you'd say it's awful and should be flagged and legislated against?

munificent 1y ago

> We don't want to create rules and govern how this is going to work on our public roads? Correct, the Republican Party does not want anyone to be able to regulate that. > It's just going to be everyone for themselves, the vehicles will just follow rules meant for humans? The vehicles will follow whatever rules are in the best interest of the corporations that made them. I think the simplest, clearest way to interpret this legislation is that it's a straight transfer of power from individual citizens to AI corporations.

sershe 1y ago
Where do individual citizens come in here? This is a transfer to corporations and citizens, from governments and bureaucracies. The latter, when allowed to regulate, mostly prevent things from happening - housing, for example. Or new meds. Or wind farms. So, a good call imo
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  This would eliminate the right of citizens at the local or state level to regulate these things as they see fit.
  - sershe 1y ago
    That to me seems like amazing mental gymnastics. It would eliminate the right of distant citizen proxies to take away the actual rights from actual individual citizens. The proxies who, especially in single party states, can do whatever they or the loudest groups of nimbys and activists want, with impunity. Don't get me wrong, I don't like either party. But in this case they are doing a good thing even if for questionable reasons. Although also, I do think that fear of having California regulate ai innovation known to the state of California to cause cancer, combined with the large market "veto power", causing harm vs e.g. China with regard to ai progress, is pretty credible.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  Individual citizens get screwed over without adequate regulation, as we've witnessed over and over again. Deregulation has brought you crappy internet access, broken healthcare, airplane crashes, and lack of meaningful consumer protection. And now you want what, an "intelligent" robot that comes up with a bunch of bullshit reasons to auto-reject your health insurance claims faster than a human can? How in the world can you call that "good"?

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

> We have an opportunity here to set rules that cars should yield to rapid transit public buses, that vehicles should behave in ways to increase the flow of traffic, etc etc... I can only see this working if we jump straight to 100% self-driving. Otherwise, you'll have to make transitory guidelines for drivers without driverless tech, such as "yield in x situation when you see the rapid transit public bus." But if you do this, you're making the driving rules more complex and less predictable. That means you're creating more dangerous situations for drivers. But of course, we're not going to go straight to 100% driverless. We're going to have some portion of people driving their own cars for a long time, especially in the USA.

mikeweiss 1y ago
Could have special lanes for self driving cars that adhere to certain protocols, like we have today for HOV lanes.

daft_pink 1y ago

This is not an accurate depiction of the law. This doesn’t mean you can slap AI on something and completely ignore existing right of way laws or discrimination laws (which are generally Federal anyways). It simply means that Federal law will take priority in terms of specific AI laws and they can’t pass a patchwork of restrictions on the technology so that in Podunk, Flyoverstate the technology is illegal and that impacts the whole country. The reason this is important is that in the United States there is 1 Federal government, there are 50 states, roughly 3,000 counties, 19,500 municipalities, and 16,500 townships. They don’t want startups to face roughly 40,000 law making bodies with varying laws while the technology is in it’s infancy. The Feds have pre-empted many other technologies including: air travel, railroads, auto safety, banking, environmental regulations, medical devices, maritime law, labor relations, nuclear energy, taxation on internet communications, etc etc. It didn’t create a dystopian world where rules don’t exist.