• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Driverless cars are cool as fuck but still need their kinks worked out. Driving sucks and so does doing it for a living, I don’t see a real negative especially once the tech cements them as safer than human driven cars, or at least no real negative which doesn’t have it’s root in our broken economic system.

    An other article explain it got stuck in the crowd and then stopped moving as it should. Embarrassing to see people cheering on mindless vandalism and sharing false info.

    Edit: it doesn’t seem to be very clear what happened and there’s conflicting information so my last paragraph might be completely wrong and even worse, hypocritical.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I disagree about being no negatives. Cars with or without drivers are ruining both our cities and our planet and San Francisco already has multiple excellent public transportation options. All driverless cars do is discourage people from taking public transit.

      • Kcap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        To be fair, calling San Francisco’s public transportation ‘excellent’ isn’t something I can agree with after living there for over a decade haha. But it is better than nothing 🤷

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I see them as a stepping stone towards a mostly carless society personally.

        I also think anyone being discouraged from taking public transit would likewise buy a car before taking public transit. I can even see the opposite, where it lets people who still need a car 5% of the time sell their ride in exchange for mostly public transit and a bit of taxi.

        Individually owned cars are the devil and true public transport is definitely king, but I think driverless taxi services can serve an important niche.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think you’re missing the end goal here, which is having everyone in a driverless car. The taxis are a first step in that direction. It will by no means stop there.

          There was a reason why GM was investing so heavily in Cruise (until a woman got dragged under a Cruise car in SF during a crash). They weren’t doing it in the hopes people would transition to public transit.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m not missing the end goal, I just don’t think GM will pull back if we decide to ban driverless cars or boycott them.

            We both want 100% public transport but that’s beside the point, the event happened because the car was driverless, not because it wasn’t a bus.

            If someone was proposing to ban all cars in San Francisco, I’m all for it but that isn’t really what’s happening. But for now, I’ll take driverless cars even if it only gets rid of a couple privately owned ones.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              You’re right. It isn’t what’s happening and I am proposing a ban on personal transport in San Francisco (and other major metropolitan areas with decent public transportation systems).

              I also don’t see this as a path to that happening. And that should be the goal.

          • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            The obvious intent is that driverless cars would be a new model of ownership. Where you buy the car, then pay a yearly flat subscription to use driverless features.

            Step 2 would be an insurance reduction for removing manual driving, then they could start per-mile system like ISP and cell phone providers do per gigabyte of data used.

          • GluWu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s going to weird when people are choosing a vehicle based on whether it will decide to drive you off the cliff, or just plow through the pedestrian. There will be a Jerryrigeverything who buys cars to test their self driving to destruction.

            Given how little liability auto manufactures have due to the responsibility put on the driver, I don’t see why they would be pushing for self driving. Unless there’s a single unified AI that makes the same driving decisions for every car, which I don’t think is a good thing, the manufactures will then take the responsibility for accidents involving their proprietary driving software.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Unless there’s a single unified AI that makes the same driving decisions for every car, which I don’t think is a good thing

              Honestly? I don’t know that it would be the worst thing, especially on busy highways and streets, to have the same AI controlling all of the traffic instead of individual self-driving cars from individual brands, all with different software and hardware.