115th United States Congress

[Fiye]

A problem is you're removing the requirement of needing physical access to said car.

[synistar]

So how many years you reckon we even get to this point of having 80%+ automated cars? I don't even see this happening our lifetimes (unless you happen to live past 90) because of the sheer cost of replacing all the vehicles. And I would imagine businesses would hate to spend a whole lot of money replacing their fleets.

[Fiye]

I see it in 30 years. The Tesla model 3 has it.

Edit: There's also a YUGE investment being made by tech companies and car companies.

[Zetanio]

The easy way to do it is to make it mandatory for every electric car.

World will be mostly electric cars in the next 50 years.

[Cantih]

L.A., so a bit of bias, but barring restorations and Beetles, I rarely see cars that are older than 20 years, with pickup trucks doing a not insignificant volume of that. (Toyotas and Beetles, the vehicles that just will not die.)
So probably about that long once it's on the majority of new vehicles.

[Deftscythe]

So how many years you reckon we even get to this point of having 80%+ automated cars? I don't even see this happening our lifetimes (unless you happen to live past 90) because of the sheer cost of replacing all the vehicles. And I would imagine businesses would hate to spend a whole lot of money replacing their fleets.

Again this is not an area of technology I know a lot about, but I'm sure it would be possible for someone to design a kit that could be installed into existing cars to allow them to be autonomous. If the cost of installing the kits is less than employing the drivers, companies will make that choice.

[Fiye]

Most people can't install or afford to install a new radio. @Deft

Its more likely we'll see cars with the tech trickle down. But the problem is the maintenance of said sensors and whether or not a car company will keep that shit updated past 2 years.

[Deftscythe]

Most people can't install or afford to install a new radio. @Deft

Its more likely we'll see cars with the tech trickle down. But the problem is the maintenance of said sensors and whether or not a car company will keep that shit updated past 2 years.

I was referring specifically to Syn's comment about businesses replacing their fleets. Lower income individuals would, I hope, benefit from more vehicles being out and available to transport them making paying per ride viable. I could see a thing where every car turns into a shuttle basically where getting into a car that already has passengers making your ride take longer but cost less, but also having the option to pay more for a solo express ride. Hard to say though since we're very far into hypotheticals.

[Fiye]

Shit throw it into public transportation and you can have that stuff running 24/7

[Cantih]

And with autonomous drivers, mass transit is scaleable. Not enough to justify a 2nd bus on a route, have a car/minivan/shortbus trail the bus. Midday routes can scale to smaller as needed.
If you start routing fare/ridership through an app, you can start getting needed data to dynamically scale mass transit.

[BaneTheBrawler]

then you just link that data into a massive AI following the Three Laws, invent a robot with a soul, commit suicide-by-robot and leave Will Smith a cryptic interactive suicide note


flawless plan

[Zetanio]

You found me out.

[Fiye]

then you just link that data into a massive AI following the Three Laws, invent a robot with a soul, commit suicide-by-robot and leave Will Smith a cryptic interactive suicide note


flawless plan

You know they'd be equipped with a 4th directive.

[Byrthnoth]

This is kind of a non issue.
"Cars are driverless, terrorists can hack them and drive them into people/things!"
vs.
"Cars have drivers, terrorists can steal them and drive them into people/things!"

The major difference being, the number of people are capable of just getting behind a wheel vs. the number of people who can hack vehicles. One of those numbers is much smaller. (Yes, a hack scales. Still.)

Also, does ISIS & friends even have hackers? Do black hats tend to run in the same circles as mass murderers? When I hear about shady hackers, it's generally over financials, corporate espionage, or state sponsored. Not independents killing dudes.


Granted, I'm not waving away improving computer security on cars, or anything else. Hell yes more network security. But "Oh noes, bin Laden jacked my car", not a huge concern.

Yeah, the difference is:
* One guy steals one car and does one thing
* One guy hacks all of X-car on the market and uses the cars' built in navigation systems to pilot them to the nearest ____ location at unsafe speeds, abandoning automatic navigation, flooring it, and steering right or left (depending what side of the street their target is on) when they get close enough. "OK Google, take me to the transformer substation."

You're talking about dozens dead vs. tens of thousands dead and our critical infrastructure damaged.


To be clear, I don't think this is likely to happen in the near future and the concentration of self-driving cars isn't high enough that it would be as devastating as it could be yet. This is a problem I'm envisioning in 2030 when some company is late to the self-driving ball and puts out an econo-car with an insecure self-driving OS and sells a few hundred thousand.

[Rooney]

Not so much worried about the electrical grid. Critical stations have undergone/are undergoing mandatory security upgrades. Now other infrastructure... yeah can totally see that being taken out.

[Gredival]

Debt ceiling negotiations going well.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/34...a-do-it-for-me

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC): “His performance was incredibly poor, and his last words, and I quote, were ‘vote for the debt ceiling for me.’ It was a very arrogant lecture that turned off more of the conference. I’m less sold than when I walked into the meeting.”

[archibaldcrane]

Minutes after the meeting ended, the disaster relief, debt and spending package passed the House with bipartisan support, including votes in favor from the majority of House Republicans. Ninety Republicans voted "no."

Sounds like it went ok.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Ksandra]

Comparing the trucking industry to the radio industry in a quip to dismiss the legitimate concerns of an entire industry being laborless and 1% of the entire population losing their jobs.

I am not dismissing. It is a reality. I feel bad that people have to retrain for a new job when there's are rendered useless, but that is what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as inventions have existed. Truck drivers are not the first nor will they be the last to have their job outdated. Carriage drivers were replaced by cars. Switch operators were replaced by more intelligent computers. Taxi drivers are being slowly replaced by Uber/Lyft. Coal miners are being replaced by renewable energy.

If you see your career going by the wayside you can either just stick to it until the end, or start figuring out what to do next. And I DO get it, that some are too old and/or not within their means to retrain for a new job. Which is why I definitely advocate offering programs to help with retraining. But I don't think we should stop progress over jobs. John Oliver had a great segment about coal miners that directly relates to this.


For a party that goes on and on about pulling oneself up by their bootstraps, they never want to get a new pair when the old one wears thin.

[Fiye]

The problem is we're looking AI replacing traditional workers. From drivers, to middle management, and a number of others. Google right now doesn't have the same hiring power Ford did back in the day. Progress in this case is literally going to destroy working lives without some basic infrastructure that ensures people don't need to be tied to a private job to live.

[Cantih]

See also: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/12...Economy)/page4