Driverless bus crashes on its first day

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: xuenchen

A "pilot" program for a driverless bus is just too rich.

We'll miss the good ole days:

HAHA

"wanna be aman? I'm a treat you like a man"

Clearly we need to keep the Bus Drivers..!

Gonna be a fun time when script kiddies figure out how to take control of these things.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
So it (the bus) knew it got into an accident and had to wait... for what, a cop? I'm surprised it didn't just go about it's business as if nothing had happened. Until there are no more human drivers, this is going to happen a lot.

When it got in an accident it crapped it's catalytic converter.

a reply to: kaylaluv


Thats my fear: that humans will lose the freedom of travel having to rely on machines to take them where only the machines are allowed to go. This might work in very urban areas, but what about the rural countryside? There is an important quality that will be lost once we defer control of our personal mobility to others.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The thrust to replace all driving jobs with robots ought to have US all up in arms against our elite masters together, yet where is the resolve?

Why? You can't stop technological progress by being a Luddite. The Luddites proved that. What we need to be advocating for is a way of adapting our society to accommodate these changes in a way that benefit us all.

And we need to be doing it now, not later.

The problem is that it's going to require government intervention and a large swath of the populace, particularly in the US, is brainwashed into believing that unfettered capitalism isn't simply ideal but beyond reproach. That if government would just "get out of the way" the fruits of capitalism would rain down upon us like so much manna from Heaven.

And don't get me wrong, capitalism has had it's obvious benefits but it became obvious in the 19th century that unregulated free markets did not serve the common good.

Free markets are great for driving innovation but the pressure driving that innovation is almost exclusively profit motive. Sometimes innovations serves both the profit motive and the interest of society (e.g. vehicle safety is both a selling point and good for drivers) but that's clearly far from a given when we consider technological unemployment.

I imagine I'm preaching to the choir given your statements?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I suppose not, but remember who designs and programs those wonderful computers... Humans, last I checked.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Where certain things are concerned, I'm a cheerful Luddite.

But that's just me, I guess. Very uncomfortable with where technology is taking us.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think the number is 30 millin driver jobs are poised to be replaced by this. This which Obama Congress etc funded into existence. Which sure over a long enough timeline the tech giants would have managed without FedGov subsidizing it.

Yet one simple LAW is all it would take to end it.

And you call that being a Luddite? This isnt machines in a factory, this is a whole nother animal.

And what's going to happen when those drivers (mostly men) all the sudden in one sweeping wave are out of a job?

Where are they going to go?

Unless Pure Communism is ready to roll out, then this policy is the jist of our impending doom.

Everyone thinks there's civil unrest now, just wait.

But we cant have Obama The Messiah tarnished in the now so ye liberals whom originally evolved from the Luddites had better sell your souls to the tech giant multinational corporations to maintain your Cult of Personality. Par for the course since Bill Clinton after all.

The headline ignores the basic fact that the driverless vehicle was NOT at fault. It was a truck that crashed into the driverless bus. The driverless bus stopped as it was supposed to.

Let's change the headline to "Driverless bus hit on its first day in service" to reflect what actually happened, if you read the story.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: kaylaluv


Thats my fear: that humans will lose the freedom of travel having to rely on machines to take them where only the machines are allowed to go. This might work in very urban areas, but what about the rural countryside? There is an important quality that will be lost once we defer control of our personal mobility to others.

You will only lose that freedom if you choose to give it up for convenience. Personally, I prefer to drive myself.

a reply to: xuenchen

2 hours later an idiot human backs into it. Fixed it for you.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: turbo8

So the robot forgot to consider Human error.

BwaaaaHaHaHa

Arrogance is bliss.

Um? Not really. It accounted for idiot drivers by stopping completely. The human still manages to hit. You probably blame the cabinet when you hit your head too

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I think the number is 30 millin driver jobs are poised to be replaced by this. This which Obama Congress etc funded into existence. Which sure over a long enough timeline the tech giants would have managed without FedGov subsidizing it.

30 million? That's like a quarter of all people in the workforce. I don't believe that 1 in 4 employed people are drivers. Car & truck manufacturers have been partnering with tech companies on driverless vehicles having absolutely nothing to do with subsidization.

You freely admit that the "tech giants would have managed" it without subsidization. You freely admit that the free market will not stop it from happening. You *completely* ignore that the US isn't the only country on Earth and that all over the friggin' planet, auto makers and tech companies are partnering on driverless vehicle technology.

Then you go on some absurd, purely partisan rant about Obama and Clinton. Lmao. Open your eyes:

RANKED: The 18 companies most likely to get self-driving cars on the road first

That's just 18 companies out of a field of hundreds all working toward the same goal, the world over. But it's Bill Clinton's "fault" and some nonsense about Obama. Jesus.

a reply to: seagull

I'm very uncomfortable with many aspects of technological advancement too but being uncomfortable with things doesn't stop them from happening.

Failing to appreciate this fact will only hinder our ability to respond at a point when we can plan for a graceful transition.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No, no it doesn't stop it. Tie me down and tickle my toes, and I'd be forced to admit I don't really want it to. I just don't really like the idea of it being, at some point, forced on me. I'd like to have the choice.

If what I read earlier is correct, it spotted the oncoming lorry then stopped as the lorry was doing something wrong...unexpected. Yes, the lorry driver is at fault for the crash but you do have to ask the question...if a human was driving the bus, would they have been able to take further actions to avoid the lorry hitting them?

'Stopping' is not an acceptable way to avoid accidents. If a car is barrelling down the wrong way of the road towards my car, I'm not just going to hit the brakes and wait because something is wrong....I'm going to move my car off of the road and drive onto the pavement...something which may not be allowed, but will avoid the collision.

I didn't see the accident so I can't say if there was time for a human driver to have avoided the accident... but it is an important question...because we can't replace every single human driver in one go. So we have to know how the automated systems react to issues like this. Simply stopping will get people killed in the long run.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

We humans are not replaceable just yet.

Haven't you heard? Women are going to be replaced by Samantha the robotic sex doll?

a reply to: turbo8


Human error caused this Telsa owner to get decapitated last year. He was watching a movie when his "driverless" car drove under a semi-truck trailer...and kept going.

Wait till the can't stop in time to avoid A or B kicks and either someone gets run over or the bus takes a semi head on. The single person loses the bus will save itself and the people in it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Driverless cars will create some big winners — imagine how Uber’s and Lyft’s profits will jump when they can keep 100% of fares instead of letting drivers keep 70%. But they will produce some big losers too, notably the 5 million people nationwide — including 600,000 in California — who make their living driving taxis, buses, vans, trucks and e-hailing vehicles. That’s almost 3% of the workforce, according to Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. Incidentally, most of these drivers belong to the same demographic cohort as many factory workers — men without college degrees — who’ve already been hit hard by the loss of 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000.
www.latimes.com...

I forgot the exact number I've only heard it spoken once (in that Tucker Carlson speech to those firefighters). There could be even deeper ripple effects, namely when the spending from those professionals lost incomes is pulled out of the economy.

Now factor in how screwed we might ALL be anyways between now and then, as hyper-inflation is an inevitability in our future....

SO, the tech giants in their billions of dollars why did Obama have to put tax payer dollars into our own downfall?

What kind of insane policy is that?

Explain it to me.

If anything, it seems they might not be expecting there to be some many commoners around to do those jobs in the future.

And if you think that isnt going to screw over those poooooor Mexican's the DNC is soooooo in love with, guess again.

I didn't mention Hillary, I said Obama+Congress, YOU brought up Hillary and then twist my words into being partisan hackery when I just called you out for being the false pro-worker liberal that you sure seem to be desperate to prove herein.

Bill Clinton campaigned on fighting for Unions, workers, US industry, against the Banksters, and he sold US all out across the board on those fronts in particular. And today he's your hero. Fake liberal.