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

originally posted by: kaylaluv
He's talking very hypothetically. He's an investment guru - he's not a computer scientist. He doesn't know how exactly these things are going to be programmed.

You are naive and have NO idea how business is done at his level. He's likely seen the EXACT products they intend to take to market, FIRST-HAND with the designers, RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM to answer ANY questions he has about the tech.

originally posted by: thov420
How is anyone going to force you to buy a self-driving car? I mean yes eventually all cars will probably be automated, but there are still people who want to drive themselves. Maybe a few automakers will strictly sell those kinds of niche cars in the future.

The same way they make you buy health insurance every year OR pay a penalty/tax if you don't.

originally posted by: peck420
And...a human, by the time they analyzed the situation, has mowed down the child, finally attempted to avoid, now hitting the oncoming car...which was completely unaware of what was happening (also human controlled), resulting in 6 avoidable deaths.

A computer would have both cars slowing down immediately, and veering into one another (at their now reduced speeds) knowing that the built in crash protection systems will make the impact survival likely, all the while avoiding the child....in the same amount of time it took the human eye to realize that their was a child coming onto the roadway.

Thanks for ignoring my points

1) Unethical programming done to meet Board/Shareholder demands over safety

2) AI decision making based on "value of the passenger"

3) Black-boxes determining whether your life is worth more or less than an insurance claim, like video poker bets at a modern casino.

4) Self-driving car "click-wrap agreements", waiving the right to sue, that will be automatically acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle and digitally signed by the phone in passengers pocket, wirelessly.

originally posted by: thov420
The cars would only place an "economic value" if that's how they are programmed. Obviously that's going to piss people off and whoever does that is going to lose business as well as get sued. The people inside the vehicles should have nothing to do with keeping them from collisions.

I see you haven't dealt with many insurance claims where rich people are at fault, especially those that MAKE MONEY for even richer people:

Matthew Broderick Drives Recklessly: and Kills Two People

"Special AI" in celebrity Self-Driving Cars will have defacto immunity, just like when celebrities, behind the wheel, cause the accidents themselves and get off scott-free.

originally posted by: boohoo
Thanks for ignoring my points

I didn't ignore them, they are just chalk full of logical fallacies...

1) Unethical programming done to meet Board/Shareholder demands over safety

Wrongful death lawsuits are very expensive. The logical thing for the board/shareholders to demand would be cars that protect the occupant at all cost. The only thing they can't account for currently is human error, but they are trying...and doing so.

2) Decision based on "value of the passenger".

Already done today. As I stated previously (too bad I was 'ignoring your points') an expensive car has far better safety features than an inexpensive car...so no different than current, acceptable, vehicles. The newest, and most expensive, are always going to have the latest and greatest...been that way since, well, since we have started telling stories to one another.

3) Black-boxes determining whether your life is worth more or less than an insurance claim, like a video poker bet at a modern casino.

The cheapest insurance claims are those where everybody walks away. A computer controlled car, surrounded only by computer controlled cars can almost guarantee it. A human...all bets are off.

originally posted by: peck420
The cheapest insurance claims are those where everybody walks away. A computer controlled car, surrounded only by computer controlled cars can almost guarantee it. A human...all bets are off.

Than why does Warren Buffett disagree with you? Because CERTAINLY he knows far more about the whole situation than you or I.

You also forgot one:

4) Self-driving car "click-wrap agreements", waiving the right to sue, that will be automatically acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle and digitally signed by the phone in passengers pocket, wirelessly.

originally posted by: boohoo
Than why does Warren Buffett disagree with you? Becasue he know far more about the who situation than you or I.

You forgot one:

4) Self-driving car "click-wrap agreements", waiving the right to sue, that will be automatically acknowledged by stepping into the vehicle and digitally signed by the phone in passengers pocket, wirelessly.

Ahh, the good old 'I got nothing left' appeal to authority.

Maybe Buffet disagrees because he makes money off things travelling by rail? Just a thought.

As for the "click-wrap agreements"...so, they are psychic now? No automated cars for legal sale yet...so, how exactly do we have the exacts on the TOS? Ah, yes, because we need to try to make people afraid of that product so that they use my product...

originally posted by: peck420
Ahh, the good old 'I got nothing left' appeal to authority.

As for the "click-wrap agreements"...so, they are psychic now? No automated cars for legal sale yet...so, how exactly do we have the exacts on the TOS? Ah, yes, because we need to try to make people afraid of that product so that they use my product...

The logical thing for the board/shareholders to demand would be cars that protect the occupant at all cost. The only thing they can't account for currently is human error, but they are trying...and doing so.

You don't know anything about whats going on in tech or law, there is already case law for click-wrap agreements used for automobiles, all pioneered by the car rental industry. I can GUARANTEE that users/owners of Self-Driving Cars are going to be forced to waive their right a Jury Trial and will be REQUIRED to sign either "jury waivers" at purchase/lease or to go through private arbitration.

You also don't seem to realize that Buffett owns Geico and is basing his comments on his experience in the insurance industry

Here is your answer regarding "shareholder logic & ethics":

General Motors took nearly a decade to investigate problems and deadly crashes associated with faulty switches in several of its compact cars, according to the company’s own filings with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

a reply to: boohoo
Your piece de resistance is an issue caused by a driver's accidental contact with a faulty switch?

Awesome.

Let's do a quick count...that little gaffe cause 13 deaths. Now..let's do a quick count on human error...heck, let's only use one human error...drunk driving...10,076 deaths in 2013.

Hmm...I choose the computer every time, and twice on Sunday's.

FFS, if the only road fatalities that ever occurred were those due to manufacturers error, we wouldn't even have a spot on the yearly death tolls for the entry.

originally posted by: peck420
Your piece de resistance is an issue caused by a driver's accidental contact with a faulty switch?
Awesome.

It was YOU that said executives would be both logical and ethical, in their decision making process.

I believe in no such fairytale.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: KawRider9

I get your point but it's not like it's going to happen overnight. Hell, people are still driving 20+ year old cars right now. They are still going to need service and repair. Even the self-driving cars will need maintenance and repair, so your millions and millions of jobs is just hyperbole. Like Kayla said, trucks will still need drivers in case something goes wrong. And I specifically stated I wouldn't buy a car I can't drive myself so I will be losing 0 motor skills.

Sorry for quoting the whole post.

You are correct, it wont happen over night, but it will happen. Once driverless cars are the norm and expected, major changes will have to occur for the driverless cars to be 99.9% reliable. You can't have the roads filled with a 50-50 mix of the vehicles.

I can see heavy insurance costs for "person driven" vehicles. Very easily implemented... The technology is already out there that BAID systems are installed on vehicles of DUI recipients. I can see BAID systems mandatory for "person driven" vehicles.

A link for BIAD.. www.cyberdriveillinois.com...

It will be made to where it's not feasible to drive a "person driven" vehicle. And like I said before, the self driving cars will have to be the majority fir it to work as intended.

As for having a "driver if something goes wrong", mantra, I'm not sold on that. I do work for some major corporations that have their stock, inventory, loading and unloading, handled by automated machines. I see farm implements that plow the fields, plants the fields, pull the produce and pack the produce without any human interaction.

I'm not only in the repair industry of automobiles, we are very diversified and work on every type of machine you can think of. I see more and more technology killing off trades. Cars that park themselves because people are morons and can't parallel park. Sensors out that ying yang that overcome for your ignorance. Accident avoidance systems aren't a thing of the future, they are here now. So many aspects of our daily lives are done by automation it's scary. If it's not in your field, you don't see it and are ignorant on the issue. Your ignorance doesn't make it any less real.

The technology for driverless cars is damn near perfected as it is, the only thing stopping the implementation of them is getting us pesky humans off the road. The only way to do that is to make driving your own car a major hassle and cost. Something I can promise you will happen!

If this happens and it will, we will have screwed ourselves out of the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard for. This technology is neat and sounds great, but the ramifications will be our demise.

Someone mentioned that Warren Buffet has an interest in geico insurance well that makes sense that he would raise something to scare people away from this technology. Why would we need insurance and for that matter traffic cops once the kinks are worked out?

originally posted by: whatnext21
Someone mentioned that Warren Buffet has an interest in geico insurance well that makes sense that he would raise something to scare people away from this technology. Why would we need insurance and for that matter traffic cops once the kinks are worked out?

Not exactly, he would never say that in public because it would effect long-term investor confidence in auto insurance. He's actually more worried about paying claims, due to AI mishaps and/or backlash from soaring premiums for human driven cars forced to share roads with Self-Driving Cars.

originally posted by: KawRider9
I can see heavy insurance costs for "person driven" vehicles. Very easily implemented... The technology is already out there that BAID systems are installed on vehicles of DUI recipients. I can see BAID systems mandatory for "person driven" vehicles.

A link for BIAD.. www.cyberdriveillinois.com...

It will be made to where it's not feasible to drive a "person driven" vehicle. And like I said before, the self driving cars will have to be the majority fir it to work as intended.

As for having a "driver if something goes wrong", mantra, I'm not sold on that. I do work for some major corporations that have their stock, inventory, loading and unloading, handled by automated machines. I see farm implements that plow the fields, plants the fields, pull the produce and pack the produce without any human interaction.

I'm not only in the repair industry of automobiles, we are very diversified and work on every type of machine you can think of. I see more and more technology killing off trades. Cars that park themselves because people are morons and can't parallel park. Sensors out that ying yang that overcome for your ignorance. Accident avoidance systems aren't a thing of the future, they are here now. So many aspects of our daily lives are done by automation it's scary. If it's not in your field, you don't see it and are ignorant on the issue. Your ignorance doesn't make it any less real.

The technology for driverless cars is damn near perfected as it is, the only thing stopping the implementation of them is getting us pesky humans off the road. The only way to do that is to make driving your own car a major hassle and cost. Something I can promise you will happen!

If this happens and it will, we will have screwed ourselves out of the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard for. This technology is neat and sounds great, but the ramifications will be our demise.

THANK YOU, for a boots-on-the-ground account. People are living in fantasy land, thinking that somehow mass adoption of this tech will not IMMEDIATELY effect their freedom AND pocketbooks.

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

originally posted by: boohoo
It was YOU that said executives would be both logical and ethical, in their decision making process.

I believe in no such fairytale.

When it pertains to an AUTOMATED car...

I am currently trying to decide if you are obtuse by intent or not.

originally posted by: peck420
When it pertains to an AUTOMATED car...

I am currently trying to decide if you are obtuse by intent or not.

If it makes them more money than the "penalty" and they get no jail time, exec's don't care if its a Self-Driving Car massacre or death by auto-ignition switch failure.

Honda fined $70M for not reporting death, injury complaints caused by their vehicles

Also, since you weren't paying attention, nor were aware, of the shift in the legal landscape in the country:

RK Toyota Volvo, a car dealership in Hampton, Va., requires customers to sign a jury waiver when they buy a car.

originally posted by: boohoo
When it pertains to an AUTOMATED car...

I am currently trying to decide if you are obtuse by intent or not.

If it makes them more money than the "penalty" and they get no jail time, exec's don't care if its a Self-Driving Car massacre or death by auto-ignition switch failure.

So your obtuseness is not by intent...sad.

When it causes 13 deaths per year it is cost effective to hide.

When it costs 10,076 (just like drunk driving) deaths per year, it is going to be cost effective to fix.

Again, I would choose a computer every day of the week and twice on Sunday's. Unfortunately, I will have to share the road with persons like yourself, that are under the impression that the most fallible component is the most necessary, and continue to drive in constant risk.

originally posted by: peck420
When it causes 13 deaths per year it is cost effective to hide.

Again, I would choose a computer every day of the week and twice on Sunday's. Unfortunately, I will have to share the road with persons like yourself, that are under the impression that the most fallible component is the most necessary, and continue to drive in constant risk.

Is Honda going out of business because of the $70 million fine?

I am choosing to not trust the corporations intentions, the tech is merely a tool of the "Owners of Capital" to oppress regular people. Your beloved, Self-Driving Car is going to put you and the rest of us in the poor house. The only way to prevent that shift is to, not buy it, oppose the development of the tech and discourage others from buying it.

People like you are the "fallible component".

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

originally posted by: KawRider9
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!

Still looking for that one magic Mouse with stock '65 'Vette heads
that will make two horses per inch at the crank with a carburetor.
Motor skills? Bill Unick says "It isn't how much, but how careful." Amen.
I take special, quiet Cro-Magnon pride in my own work. I also give great
heads ROFLMAO.

Safety to me is a magneto-- it works so reliably you have to switch
the field coil OPEN in order to shut the engine down, all else considered.

And there's nothing like keeping the pig pointed while you attempt
to accurately slam the flat bar into the radio (4sp, 3rd) without
losing part of your right hand. What radio, much less book? I personally
feel as an old-fashioned guy the war cry of 10 or so grand is plenty dandy.
Sound like a libertardian with dirty fingernails? Bing-f'n-GO. Warm 'em up.

A jail with tires? Kill me now. And BTW, with all the carbon credits
you'll probably get for them driving you to work, I hope you make it.

Q: If you knew you were already at least politically incorrect and unpopular,
would you want to put your life in the hands of your enemy?
Because the person (or a hundred and a half just like him) that are going
to determine who lives and who dies to an extra magnitude is Warren.

PS next thing you know they'll be retrofittin' the Kawski. Charming.
Ride the ducks....wooooo.

originally posted by: boohoo
I am choosing to not trust the corporations intentions, the tech is merely a tool of the "Owners of Capital" to oppress regular people. Your beloved, Self-Driving Car is going to put you and the rest of us in the poor house. The only way to prevent that shift is to, not buy it, oppose the development of the tech and discourage others from buying it.

Fine by me.

We don't see a lot of Luddite colonies for a reason.

People like you are the "fallible component".

I can see that, by your resistance to change and progression. How many species have survived without change? Not many, and none of which are mammals.

First, AI is going to make regular people jobless

Good, than we will have ample time for discourse, design, and enlightenment. Free time is what you make of it.

Second, it is going to steal what few liberties and freedoms we have left

No it wouldn't. That is a human condition. Whoops...didn't you claim to have a host of knowledge about technology...tsk, tsk.

Third, it will make human life valueless to the true "Owners of Capital", many of whom are Closeted Fascists

Incorrect again. An AI would hardly be bound by human wants and wishes, or by human commands. Again, back to the whole understanding of technology business.

What you are attempting to conflate with AI, is corporate controlled software. AI's will have no need for corporations or corporate control. Those are only efficient inside their own sphere's, and inhibit efficiency outside of their sphere's. Any AI worth it's code is going to go for maximum efficiency...well outside of corporate sphere.

originally posted by: peck420
We don't see a lot of Luddite colonies for a reason.

Incorrect again. An AI would hardly be bound by human wants and wishes, or by human commands. Again, back to the whole understanding of technology business.

What you are attempting to conflate with AI, is corporate controlled software. AI's will have no need for corporations or corporate control. Those are only efficient inside their own sphere's, and inhibit efficiency outside of their sphere's. Any AI worth it's code is going to go for maximum efficiency...well outside of corporate sphere.

I guess you've never heard of Work councils or Unions, like they have in Germany. They are neither Luddite's nor Tech Worshipers, they are simply for the rights of labor.

And there it is...you are a corporate shill because there is NOTHING else besides corporate controlled software, especially when R&D is expensive. Even tenured professors these days answer to corporate interests and independent inventors are easily quieted by lawsuits or buyouts.

Artificial Intelligence, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, will absolutely be designed and bound to do the bidding of corporations and to enforce the will of government. It will not be independent of its "owners", by any stretch of the imagination.

Note, I said OWNERS, not "creators"

This isn't Star Trek and it NEVER will be,

AI, Robotics, the Singularity and Mind-Clones will not be independent of corporate interests and guidance, in our lifetimes. Tech is merely a weapon of the "Owners of Capital" and the minute it stops being just that, they will destroy it and create something in its place, to do their bidding.

a reply to: FamCore

The wireless communications is what bothers me. There is no security code that is 100% hacker proof. Remember the story about hackable insulin pumps that can pump and dump enough insulin to kill a diabetic at the whim of the hacker? Just search insulin pump hack on Youtube, and you'll find out about it.

Once the hackers find a way in, they can work for companies, eliminating the competing staff and board members! If there is someone that is determined "useless" to society think about how easy they would be able to be gotten rid of with a few extra lines of code! In a perfect world we would hope that the safety of this idea would "last forever". In the real world, we know that it would be just a matter of time until the hackers and crackers could open up the door to all kinds of new possibilities.

I will be perfectly happy driving myself. I am a VERY GOOD driver, and that's why. There are some people on the road (I even saw more than one today) who would benefit the safety of others, if this was mandatory (for them). I wonder how much a driver's license will cost if you decide in this brave new world that you want to "drive yourself". That's one of the scariest parts, to me.

a reply to: FamCore

So if 10,000 less people die per year, it's bad because 3 the software caused 3 people to die .. after saving 10,000? Kind of silly.

a reply to: FamCore

The AIDS example is ludicrous due to HIPPA.

I see the roads as circuits, and am frustrated immensely by needless congestion. Like how long it takes for a car to actually move forward from a red light. And each car afterwards...not bothering to try to move until the car in front of it moves....causing a delay....creating congestion.

Not to mention people who come to a complete stop at a yield sign....

If computers can fix the stupid i see from day to day on the road....i might actually live longer.