It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warren Buffett says Self-Driving Cars will Decide Whether Humans Live or Die

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: tetra50

Because you still have to get to work. That is if you don't have a job in the automobile repair industry, or the many other jobs that will go the way of the DODO bird once these things become common place and reliable.

This will crush millions of jobs and billions from revenue from the imperfections from mankind. No more chance for people to screw up. No people screwing up equals no one to fix our screw ups. Everybody can flip burgers for 25 bucks an hour I suppose?


Oh, exactly. LOL. Glad we're having the conversation about this we really should, now. Of course did it occur to you, that's just what the surface will look like….what you just described?

Whether it is or isn't, hmmmmm.




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

The decisions that are being talked about are variants of the Trolly problem.



Different people will give different answers on the correct solutions. I am not concerned about an AI making these decisions because we can program them to make suitable decisions that reflect what is acceptable in society. If society changes it's mind then we can change the parameters.

Indecision itself will claim lives and indecision is a human attribute.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I have thought about the hypothetical situation too - and I'm not sure why but what about external uncontrollable factors such as wind or other natural forces? Or mechanical issues?

These driverless cars may have state-of-the-art technology, but they are still motor vehicles, with tons of moving parts and pieces that are prone to damage/malfunction.
edit on 6-4-2015 by FamCore because:



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
well, yes. And that, in turn, is similar to the "lifeboat," question, is it not?
What does any of that tell us?
That we're in a kind of hell where you get to choose if you, your children, or others, seemingly more worthy, should survive?
Sry. That's just how I see this way of framing the information.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
First Willy Gates wants his name back in the forefront by jumping on the fear AI bandwagon, now Warren Buffer.

What do they both have in common? Their money (tax games) causes.

All they want is their name back in peoples minds.

AI isn't that amazing, nor even dangerous, I know because this is what I do lol

All these cars are, simple, path finding and reacting to sensors. Nothing "intelligently dangerous" about them, just a bad programmer with a bad set of decision rules.



You are more at risk from your local police/military/government.



edit on 6-4-2015 by bullcat because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2015 by bullcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

In making either decision, you are still a murderer if you choose one group to survive over another. Which is why I struggle to see how giving these cars the ability to make that decision is okay.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat
First Willy Gates wants his name back in the forefront by jumping on the fear AI bandwagon, now Warren Buffer.

What do they both have in common? Their money (tax games) causes.

All they want is their name back in peoples minds.

AI isn't that amazing, nor even dangerous, I know because this is what I do lol

All these cars are, simple, path finding and reacting to sensors. Nothing "intelligently dangerous" about them, just a bad programmer with a bad set of decision rules.



You are more at risk from your local police/military/government.




Those sensors you're talking about: quite cogent point to introduce that concept. Where else do you think they might be? What else do you think they might do?

Of course we are: as to your last about where the "real" risk comes from. Where do you think this idea originated with? Check this out: It's a link amongst about twenty, about the same involvement:
www.livescience.com...
edit on 6-4-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Warren Buffett's comment, absolutely confirms what some people were saying, from DAY ONE, that self-driving cars will be weighing the value of passengers when getting into accidents, that are likely to result in death of CERTAIN passengers. The naysayers were correct, all along. Its funny, MANY people dismissed such comments, but the fact that Warren Buffett has casually mentioned it, means its certainly true, self-driving cars will be acting as Grimm Reapers on roads across the country, once they become more common tech.

Why and how can I make such an assumption, you ask?

Because people like Warren Buffett get to have "frank discussions" about how tech will ACTUALLY interact with the environment, without PR buffers to sanitize the message for the public. People like Buffett, get to hear the "real" problems of implementing new tech, while regular people only get to hear about the "benefits". So, for those that argued such could not happen, here is all the proof anyone with half a brain needs. These cars WILL be deciding who lives and who dies, PERIOD!


originally posted by: KawRider9
Because you still have to get to work. That is if you don't have a job in the automobile repair industry, or the many other jobs that will go the way of the DODO bird once these things become common place and reliable.

This will crush millions of jobs and billions from revenue from the imperfections from mankind. No more chance for people to screw up. No people screwing up equals no one to fix our screw ups. Everybody can flip burgers for 25 bucks an hour I suppose?


Correct, this kind of tech is bad for regular people, whom are not part of the true "Owners of Capital" class.

The "Owners of Capital" believe that this kind of tech, along with the manipulation of legislation and tight wage controls will give them ultimate power over ALL labor, not just the lower classes. People need to start abandoning tech, if they truly hope to have a chance at standing up against the "owners of capital". Currently, people falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by "corporate committee" to do just the opposite.

Here is an example, remember when cell phones were actually fun?

I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after what was considered typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work, while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought at midnight.

When my parents were in school in the 1950's and 60's they were told: no one would have to work in the future, that everything would be done by robots and they would, in turn, have increased free time used for creating, making art, learning and helping others...

Robotics, the Singularity, Cell Regeneration and Artificial Intelligence are essentially the same lie, told to our parents, rehashed for a 21st century audience. I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech like the Singularity, AI, Robotics, Self-Driving Cars, etc. Do people really think when these thing finally become real, functioning, working designs, applicable to industry, that we, the "peons", will somehow ALL get a Data from Start Trek or a C-3PO from Star Wars, to help us at home, at the job site or in the office, etc?

In reality we are going to get a David 8 from the Prometheus/Aliens movies or the Robot Probation Officer seen in film Elysium.

They are going to take away jobs and make unethical policing and policy enforcement, both easier and cheaper, for the true "Owners of Capital". They won't be paying a salary to the robot worker, so the savings will instead be pumped into legal fees and political lobbying, resulting in an overall savings and good ROI for the corporations/governments and a full blown, loss of liberty, for everyone else.

Elysium Probation Officer:
fourthdimensionalrecovery.files.wordpress.com... 1/probation-officer1.jpg

Introducing David 8:
www.weylandindustries.com...

In the words of the fictional David 8: “I can do almost anything that could possibly be asked of me, including things that my human counterparts might find distressing or unethical”

Whom goes to jail when an AI Robot or Mind-Clone pulls your arm out of the socket? Will it be considered "negligence" by the human that lost the arm", a "civil suit", "not a criminal act", etc, in court/arbitration? How about when a self-driving car decides to kill all the passengers on board? I'm sure the "click-wrap agreement" that WILL be needed to start the car and drive away, will absolve the corporation from any arising claims or lawsuits.

All sounds swell, don't it!

The only way regular people can save themselves, NOW, is to abandon tech, physically impede tech research and stop buying/supporting companies making this AI/singularity tech.

I personally at this point are willing to live with 1980's +/- era tech, if it means, I am more free and can continue to earn money to live off.

First, AI is going to make regular people jobless
Second, it is going to steal what few liberties and freedoms we have left
Third, it will make human life valueless to the true "Owners of Capital", many of whom are Closeted Fascists
edit on 6-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo
Great points, I think boohoo.
I am replying greatly to this thread, in case anyone is wondering, because this is the last bastion of "choice" for mankind: Does anyone see the attack of travel that seems to be currently taking place, vis a vis planes, trains and automobiles?

The more unsafe this is made, vis a vis our having a "choice" as to where and how we are going, the more the "choice" aspect will be robbed from us.

This, is the proof of the removal of choice. Think the "star" technology in your car is to keep you safe? We've had clear indications for quite some time, it's about tracking where you are, and perhaps, even, who you are…..or even perhaps making you seem like who someone wants you to "seem" to be…..

edit on 6-4-2015 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Also, think truck drivers, cabbies, all delevery jobs will be a thing of the past. That's millions upon millions of jobs lost.

As ot is now, there are many places where trucks are loaded by an automated machine. When drivers aren't needed, the job market will take a nose dive.

We are in dire need of good jobs as it is. Killing off entire employment sectors is not in our best intrests. EVER. All in the name of safty my rear!

Not looking forward to this deal at all!!!



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9
All great points, Kawrider. I dislike, intensely, the causing of extraneous problems to give people jobs, but this is doubling that effort, IMHO.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

We want to get from point A to point B: you need to get to your job or to the grocery store or to your friend's house, etc. What if you wanted to do all these things in a single day, and there is about 30 miles of traveling. How are you most efficiently going to do that? A car, of course. So if you are going to be in the car, might as well relax and not have to worry about not texting or reading while you are driving.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but it seems pretty obvious to me why we like to use cars for transportation. There is no difference whether you are a driver or a passenger - cars are pretty darn convenient.
edit on 6-4-2015 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I guess I don't see the big deal here. I don't get how the number or age of possible passengers would change how the computer avoids a collision. As far as what's the point of it, it's the same point of having a car now. There are no buses, trains, or cabs within 20 odd miles of where I live. If I need to get somewhere I have to take a car or walk/bike. How about people with a long commute? I would much rather a computer do the driving than somebody who's sleepy and may dooze off. Or college students, they could study for a big test on the way. Or even more important, people wouldn't have to worry about drinking and driving if their car can get them safely home.

Of course all of this is still in the testing phase and probably will be for some time before they go on sale to the public. Personally I think this is going to be great, as long as people still have the option to take control themselves. I don't think I would ever buy a car that's strictly computer controlled.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: thov420

Yes, just great. You'll be able to enjoy a good book instead of focusing on the road.

Losing motor skills and awareness is awesome!

Losing millions upon millions of jobs is a great thing!

All in the name of safty and ease. Yessir, just snipping GREAT!



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Why wouldn't you still need truck drivers and cabbies? Not everyone will own a car - same as now. I would think you would need a human in the truck in case there is a glitch in the system and he/she needs to manually take over. Planes practically fly themselves, and yet you need a couple of pilots for certain tasks and in case something goes wrong.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: tetra50

We want to get from point A to point B: you need to get to your job or to the grocery store or to your friend's house, etc. What if you wanted to do all these things in a single day, and there is about 30 miles of traveling. How are you most efficiently going to do that? A car, of course. So if you are going to be in the car, might as well relax and not have to worry about not texting or reading while you are driving.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but it seems pretty obvious to me why we like to use cars for transportation. There is no difference whether you are a driver or a passenger - cars are pretty darn convenient.

No you aren't in fact, understanding my point at all.
You are correct.
But then, why is it we need someone, or a computer, in the car to take control of it for us? That's MY point. Understand, I have hinted, largely, here, that the control of our lives has already been taken from us. This is the last stand. Your car. Your mind, ahem, may already have become a victim, something of a fait accompli, if you will.
My point is, why even have a car, then? Just extend public transport in whatever form, to wherever the population for it exists. Why is it we need the AI in our cars?

As to the poster who suggested it's okay as long as humans can take back control when they want to: are you kidding me? Usually, and historically we should know this, if we've gotten to the point where things are happening rapidly to show we can't make good decisions ourselves, it's very likely part and parcel of taking the process away from us forever.

READ. We have lots and lots of science fiction to warn us where this ends up.
tetra



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
I guess I don't see the big deal here. I don't get how the number or age of possible passengers would change how the computer avoids a collision. As far as what's the point of it, it's the same point of having a car now. There are no buses, trains, or cabs within 20 odd miles of where I live. If I need to get somewhere I have to take a car or walk/bike. How about people with a long commute? I would much rather a computer do the driving than somebody who's sleepy and may dooze off. Or college students, they could study for a big test on the way. Or even more important, people wouldn't have to worry about drinking and driving if their car can get them safely home.


You are so naive, it unbelievable, remember the Self-Driving Cars "talk to each other" and in time will have lots of detailed passenger info gathered from RFID Tags/Cell Phones in peoples pockets.

I'll give a simple scenario,

You are in your Self-Driving Car going one way and Tom Cruise is in his Self-Driving Car headed the other way, his car hits black-ice and is likely to run head on into your car. Since the cars know that Tom is in one car and Regular Joe, YOU, is in the other car, BOTH vehicles then calculate and weighs the broader "economic damages" of "Toms death" versus "YOUR DEATH". Pending on how the cars are programed, people like Tom Cruise might always be "determined" by the AI to be better "survive choice" in such accident scenarios because they "make lots of money for really rich people" and you don't. Heck rich people might be able to purchase cars with "special AI' that ALWAYS favors them in accidents when communicating with other regular Self-Driving Cars. There is no way any of us peons would know it or could prove otherwise. Also even if we could prove it, we went along with the "click-wrap" agreement when we started the vehicle and drove away in it. You can be certain self-driving cars of future Presidents and other high level officials will be programed to operate in such a way, so there is little reason to believe rich celebrities won't have access to the same tech and built-in protections.
edit on 6-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

It would be a heck of a lot easier and less expensive to have self-driving cars then to have public transportation extended to every single person's home or apartment, every single place of employment, every single store, etc. And it would have to be running 24/7/365 between all those millions and millions of points.

Also, people just like the convenience of their cars. They have more freedom - if they want to get in the car at 2:00am and drive to the all-night grocery, they can. If they want to be alone in peace and quiet in their own personal car instead of being in public transportation with a bunch of strangers, they can.

You still have control with the self-driving car. You go exactly where you want to go, same as before.
Let's say you have 4 people in a car. As it is now, only 1 person is the driver, the other 3 are passengers. Do you think the passengers are suffering with lack of control just because they aren't behind the wheel? The only difference with the self-driving cars is - you have one more passenger. That's it.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: boohoo

I thought the computer-driven cars would have sensors that would warn them of ice patches up ahead.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
It would be a heck of a lot easier and less expensive to have self-driving cars then to have public transportation extended to every single person's home or apartment, every single place of employment, every single store, etc. And it would have to be running 24/7/365 between all those millions and millions of points.

You still have control with the self-driving car. You go exactly where you want to go, same as before.
Let's say you have 4 people in a car. As it is now, only 1 person is the driver, the other 3 are passengers. Do you think the passengers are suffering with lack of control just because they aren't behind the wheel? The only difference with the self-driving cars is - you have one more passenger. That's it.


Did you read my comment?

You are also VERY naive, remember the Self-Driving Cars "talk to each other" and in time will have lots of detailed passenger info gathered from RFID Tags/Cell Phones in peoples pockets.

I'll give a simple scenario,

You are in your Self-Driving Car going one way and Tom Cruise is in his Self-Driving Car headed the other way, his car hits black-ice and is likely to run head on into your car. Since the cars know that Tom is in one car and Regular Joe, YOU, is in the other car, BOTH vehicles then calculate and weighs the broader "economic damages" of "Toms death" versus "YOUR DEATH". Pending on how the cars are programed, people like Tom Cruise might always be "determined" by the AI to be better "survive choice" in such accident scenarios because they "make lots of money for really rich people" and you don't. Heck rich people might be able to purchase cars with "special AI' that ALWAYS favors them in accidents when communicating with other regular Self-Driving Cars. There is no way any of us peons would know it or could prove otherwise. Also even if we could prove it, we went along with the "click-wrap" agreement when we started the vehicle and drove away in it.
edit on 6-4-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join