Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Sign boars that say “no texting in construction zones” are great but they aren’t super effective, why not spend some money upfront to prevent the accident instead of paying ever higher medical bills as accident rates keep climbing

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Sign boars lmao^ *sign boards*

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So glad my car is less than 1 year old so I hopefully don’t have to worry about this for another decade.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Can I ask why you think this is so much more harmful than helpful? And are you opposed to lane keep assist and things like that?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

It’s bad enough companies can shut down your car via its computer when those were put in cars.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

So you think the distant probability that a company might shut down your car remotely outweighs the real gains in saving lives? I agree vibes wise that I don’t like the idea of a super connected car, mine is old asf and I like it that way. Still, traffic deaths keep climbing, it’s one of the most common ways to die. Idk how this could possibly harm more than help

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Do you really think this is for you and me? It’s all about government control by the surveillance state. Thanks to existing technology, fatal car crashes have been on the decline for decades. It’s an extreme invasion of privacy.

1

Anonymous landtrust 1w

Eh security cameras on every corner and face scans from police cars scare me more, at least this is actually designed to protect you instead of being designed to protect the state or track people’s movements. If you carry an iPhone ur being tracked anyway, I’d rather stay alive at least

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

That is a dangerous mentality to have. “Tech companies have already set a precedent so that justifies more surveillance”

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Traffic deaths can be reduced so many other ways from how we design roads to what transit systems are encouraged and built into our environment. Acting like this is a miracle for public health (speaking hyperbolically here) is both short sighted and ignorant to the real causes of pedestrian deaths and vehicle collisions. Other countries have vastly fewer deaths attributable to automobiles and it is not because they have semi autonomous company AI systems deciding who is or is not fit to drive

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Public health and safety have time and again been used as scapegoats when liberties are encroached upon when there is little direct evidence of how A policy positively impacts B outcomes. From the Patriot Act to the crimes of the NSA to all the shit we allow companies to put in our appliances to extract data and monitor us

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It doesn’t justify it but it does put it into context. Are you going to stop using your smart phone anytime soon? Or start wearing a face mask every time you walk down the street? If not then you’re being tracked most places you go. Why not keep yourself alive at the very least? Car crashes are one of the biggest killers of Americans and those systems ~supposedly~ don’t even store or send that cabin camera data anywhere anyway. This one is an easy ‘more benefit than harm’ one for me

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The way to fix that is by putting strong privacy protections in place. These systems are already deployed in Europe but they don’t have this concern because this info can’t be sold without your consent. The main concern isn’t even the government, it’s insurance companies

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They haven’t been on the decline, fatal roadway accidents have been climbing for the past 15ish years thanks to the increasing popularity of larger vehicles and increasing cell phone use

6

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

And no I’m not talking about masks for Covid, there were many studies done on how masking helps protect people since the Spanish flu 100 years ago. That’s a different case and putting an item on a face doesn’t restrict one’s ability to speak or move about in this world. I’ve yet to see a study of how AI would be helpful for reducing road deaths that 1) preserves personal autonomy and 2) outweighs other known solutions that we simply do not explore bc of the auto lobby

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

And again, what practical thing are we actually worried about here? That they’re tracking our location? They already do with your phone. That they’re recording you in your cabin? That info isn’t shared. And even if it were shared, what would that really do? Is that harm worse than proven safety benefits?

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Yeah they’re lower in other countries because they don’t drive obscenely large vehicles and actually design their roads to slow traffic and provide shelter for pedestrians. Do you think the average American would respond kindly to car size restrictions? Or tax penalties for buying needlessly large vehicles? I know there are other methods but American democracy is slow to implement them and the public is slow to accept them.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

In the meantime we have things like lane departure warnings, which also use cameras and onboard computers. They’re effective at catching errors when drivers are inattentive just like the system described at the top here. These systems shouldn’t be our only solution but they’re certainly a good part of it.

2

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

1) regulate car size (maybe idk prevent automakers from skirting regulations by pushing SUVs bc SUVs are less regulated than sedans for fuel and safety) 2) reduce reliance on cars (less cars = less deaths from cars) 3) change road design with chicanes, speed bumps, raised crosswalks, cobblestone borders, etc (the Dutch are amazing at this)

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I mean the system described above (as someone else pointed out, one that’s not even fully developed yet) is something that would alert drivers who are distracted. Really not different from lane departure or automatic braking, 2 existing technologies that save lives. Idk where you got tbr idea that this would be some ai that determines who gets to drive or not

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Using your reasoning against taxes and regulations, do you think that Americans would be okay with semi-autonomous black boxes of code and data controlled by corporations and the government of all things to decide road fitness?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

You think because “”democracy””is slow and inefficient we should just slash liberties and implement systems of direct control instead?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

That is the only graph I’ve seen with an increase that sharp. Every other source I’ve found points at a decrease

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

In the least condescending way possible what is the system you are talking about here? What does it do and how does it work? It seems like we’re discussing two completely different things here

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Dude I’m with you on all these things, if I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would. But we are a large country with a car fetish and change is slow, meanwhile people are dying. I’ll take all the help we can get to reduce those deaths within reason

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Would you mind sharing one?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I’m discussing the implementation pattern-seeking AI which would ostensibly be trained and partially or fully controlled by the companies which manufacture auto bikes in conjunction with deals made with third parties and law enforcement. You cannot discuss the implementation of AI in anything in a vacuum. In the current trajectory AI in anything is suspect of becoming part of a larger network of control to reshape society for those that control the AI.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

*automobiles, omg I was typing fast

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Ok I’m legitimately confused as to where this system you are describing came from. It’s not what OP described nor what it seems like we’ve been talking about. Some auto manufacturers are working on systems that detect eye movement or pressure on the steering wheel to figure out if a driver is incapacitated or asleep or something.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

So I don’t really wanna argue about these two things as if we’re describing the same thing. What is the thing you’re describing? Does it have a name? I’d be happy to look into it so ik what you’re talking about

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

That doesn’t mean we need this. This is unreasonable

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

You’re acting like this is a saving grace when it’s not even proven in terms of benefits or risks

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Changing the SUV regulation isn’t even some crazy otherworldly thing. We literally regulate sedans in these most important ways already and that’s only since the 80s. That’s like the smallest possible change and you’re acting like it’s a mountain to climb. Yeah we’re propagandized by car companies so the public would be easily whipped up but the public also hates AI!

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Dude I don’t wanna be disrespectful but as I said below I don’t think we’re even talking about the same systems. If you wanna lmk what ai driver monitoring thing you’re describing I’d be happy to talk about it but otherwise I don’t really see how this will be productive

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I just don’t want AI in cars. I haven’t looked at any studies it’s just not a leap to be concerned over the implementation of AI. It’s not on the grounds of any specific proposed system it’s on the grounds of resisting any AI things. Companies and our giver cannot be trusted with any of these capabilities. If you don’t wanna continue that discussion with me that’s fine

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

*govt

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

That doesn’t invalidate my concerns and if you don’t wanna continue discussion on those grounds it’s fine. To me it comes off as trying to evade a larger discussion you don’t want to get into but that’s cool. I’m an AI Luddite girlie

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

It’s not that I don’t want to have a conversation out of pettiness or something, I’m a yapper and love a conversation, I just don’t wanna argue about something when your issues with this system aren’t features it even has. All respect but that just doesn’t make sense

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

It’s simply following the logic of AI Luddism

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

the situation is not that deep and the technology to do this accurately does not exist, the NHTSA says as much

6

Anonymous #7 1w

“It’s not that deep” will be the death of us

5

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Another one! We can do this! And btw this is an access road to a highway with medium thoroughfare

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

I’m not trying to invalidate your concerns but weighing the pros and cons of a specific driver safety system is different from theorizing about future ai applications. Happy to talk about the latter but they are different things. Also my first comment here was anti ai; I’m as anti ai as I am anti civilian firearms. But both technologies have real use cases so we gotta be nuanced and intentional in how we talk about them

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Cause obviously ai slop is bad but ai pattern recognition models that are used to spot cancerous tumors early are a positive thing. There’s lots of gray area here that’s worth talking about

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I just do not trust companies in this country with AI full stop

4

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Can I ask what policies you’d enact to deal with this then? If you were president for a day or whatever? Cause “AI” covers a lot of different things, anything from tiny models created and running on one persons PC to the massive deep mind projects from google that are scraping the internet for data and driving data center construction…etc. And the applications are equally varied.

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Cause vibe wise I’d love to just not deal with it at all, hell maybe go back to small agrarian societies or something. But practical policy wise these technologies aren’t going away. I don’t have all the answers for the right type of policy but I’m curious what your thoughts are

4

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

You won’t be satisfied with this answer but to quote Supreme Court Justice Potter in Jacobellis v. Ohio: “I know it when I see it.” aka yes you’re right that a lot of things are labeled AI when they aren’t by the media and marketsrs and misunderstood by the public. Ergo it’s broad and context dependent

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Well I’m sorry to say but you are correct, I don’t think this really answers my question. I’m not talking about things that are erroneously labeled as ai when they’re in fact something else, I’m talking about the extreme variety of things that fall under the umbrella of ‘ai’. You can train your own model on your own computer, that’s still ai.

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

You say that you don’t trust US companies with ai. What do you mean by that? All companies? Companies above a certain size? Companies that use ai for certain use cases? I just don’t think it’s super beneficial so make sweeping generalizations about a field that is so broad in its applications

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

When I said full stop I meant full stop, I wasn’t being hyperbolic.

1

Anonymous .gaia. 1w

Ok so your policy would be nobody develops any ai at any level? That’s your ideal policy to address this?

1