They are building machine learning systems to take away the right to drive, aren't they?

They are building machine learning systems to take away the right to drive, aren't they?

well maybe if you car fags stopped killing so many people then they wouldn't have to

People don't kill people, Cars kill people.

nobody needs a high capacity assault car.

a car doesnt need to go over 70mph in the US. you should need a special license and several background checks inorder to get the license.

Car silencers are also an issue. You should be forbidden to quiet your assault car. So what if it causes hearing damage or disturbs the neighbors or heats up the firewall with hot exhaust. If you want a silencer on your car, you should have to pay a tax stamp worth 20% of the average car.

high capacity cars need to be banned aswell. Nobody should be allowed to have a fuel tank of more than 10 fl.oz. There are gas stations on every corner, you only need enough gas to get from one gas station to the next.

THEY TAKIN ER CARS

neural networks are a meme
>pic related

Since when has anyone ever given a shit about cars killing people, other than when the driver is drunk? Driving sober is almost a license to kill, as long as you don't make it so explicitly obvious that was your intention. If your target is a cyclists, you're even more in luck as people give even less of a shit about them compared to pedestrians.

Have money/power and want someone dead? Oops, the brakes accidentally malfunctioned in this perfectly functional, just serviced vehicle that just happens to be internet connected. How many times will the plebs need to read "journalist killed in car crash" before it clicks.

yes

Thanks for this image, I hadn't seen it and it's exactly what's so completely wrong with ML research today.
Everyone publishes its 'breakthroughs' buy literally nobody does any kind of real analysis, just throw data at a black box, do a fucking chi squared test or whatever and claim your scientific significance.
The main reason some people are really scared of AI is because of this, and they're not even wrong. AI is not scary, researchers fucking around with tons of data and applying their shitty black box inference results to cars/policy/toasters/whatever is scary.

>the right to drive
Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Cars aren't going away for the same reasons guns aren't going away, people enjoy it as a hobby and won't let someone take that away.

>mfw John Nash warned us about the communist conspiracy and got accused of being mentally ill (they even made a movie about it), then when he started talking about the communist infiltration of the upper echelons of the government he died in a car crash

Just a few years ago Michael Hastings was killed in a bizarre car crash shortly after being in contact with Wikileaks and emailing his colleagues that he needed to go "off the radar".

This isn't something new, it's just become more obvious.

>commies kill with cars
>chads kill commies with choppers

>tfw ban assault trucks will be a real thing

If a robotic car is at fault for an accident, who pays for the damages?

The non-driver who leases the robotic car from large company, via insurance.

>They are building machine learning systems to take away the right to drive, aren't they?
The biggest single cause of road deaths and trauma is drivers. Eliminate the driver and thousands of deaths will be prevented each year.
It's a bit like guns, isn't it?

when this takes over, government has a streamlined way of killing 'undesirables'

The solution is to only drive cars that run GNU/Linux.

There is no right to drive you stupid mongoloid retards.

Driving is a privilege that can be revoked at any time you fucking brain dead aspies

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT INFRINGING YOUR RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU'RE THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON ON THE PLANET

1% of our population dies from automobile accidents though. The same cannot be said about guns.

driving isn't a right

Driving is already not a right, which makes it even worse. They are laying the groundwork for taking away a "privilege" that is actually absolutely necessary in this country (USA).

>implying they couldn't kill people with regular cars
look at vault 7, they've been killing "undesirables" for years

It becomes significantly easier to hide the evidence when it is entirely electronic and can be done remotely.

We know they've been doing it for years, using whatever means necessary. Car crashes are one of their favorites. Other favorites are "drowned while taking a bath", or just simply "took their own life", but there's more risk involved with them.

Are drivers not is drivers

>"single cause"
>plural copula.

Go back to school

>ai will be statistically safer than humans, so insurance companies won't insure humans
>all cars being driven by ai would increase efficiency because traffic signals and things will become obsolete

Yeah, we're fucked. At minimum, humans won't be able to drive in major cities.

Being a doctor with an ability to prescribe is also not a right - it's fucking ludicrous.

The main financial motive is probably replacing truckers, but phasing out human driving in general is likely and honestly I can't really refute the logic there.

Forgot where I saw it, but there was an article about researchers having a computer design digital circuits to perform certain tasks where it generated a circuit that only worked on one particular FPGA via an electromagnetic quirk. Outsourcing design work to AI/machine learning risks making kludges that nobody really understands or can verify.

I'd like to see AI taking over for drivers within city limits and on motorways, but manual control being optional if you're just driving out in the sticks.

What I see happening is self-driving cars/trucks being deployed first on relatively sparsely populated highways where roads are clearly marked and defined, there's not much else to mess with the sensors, and damage would be limited if something goes wrong. Cities have greater risks and more potential for glitches, while the sticks will have their own sensor issues (dingy roads, wildlife) and the least economic incentive to adopt the tech right away.

>other than when the driver is drunk?
Since ever? Humans have short attention spans.

People
>fall asleep at the wheel
>check their phones
>start wondering about whatever at traffic stops
>drive recklessly when in a hurry
>think they can drive faster than the speed limit
>like to brag about their car/skills with other drivers
>pay little attention to car maintenance for things other than fuel

Just let a dedicated computer to that job for you with the option to override at the driver's discretion. Would be could if we all could go at 300Km/h (about 200 mph in burgers) without having to worry about anything else than enjoying the ride.

But isn't basically the opposite being done right now?
Isn't basically all the testing occurring in cities? Like the Google car?

From what I can find the Google car is being tested in what amounts to test tracks simulating neighborhoods, as opposed to actual cities.

I was skipping ahead to commercial deployment, though Silicon Valley giving early permission to use the tech in cities is very plausible. Probably not gonna see it in New York or Chicago until it's been well-tested on highways though, unless they decide to add infrastructure to help self-driving cars get around.

I think that's the fully driverless Google car.

>neural networks are a meme
Explain how

What black box are you talking about? All the papers I've seen list out exactly what they do.

Post your results Sup Forums
>moralmachine dot mit dot edu

I bet you think you're so clever with your shitty copy pasted metaphor.

Cars have a primary utility other than killing people. Theres a difference between something that can inadvertantly kill someone, and something thats main purpose is killing people.

Its the perfect analogy. And it could be argued that cars made with specs greater than whats needed to just move people and things, are unnecessary and should be banned.

Driving is a profession not a privilege

> CARS - GUNS FOR EUROPEANS!!1!!!