14 people killed on Alberta highways this weekend

[GGG]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Where's my flying cars? I thought those were just a matter of time.

There called helicopters, there just quite expensive.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

The economics of such a transfer are not insignificant, nor is the process inevitable. Instead of blindly believing in progress, one has to understand why things were the way they were, and give a good case for change.

People are so flip when they describe the massive changes of the past. The move from an agrarian rural economy to an urban industrial economy was arguably the most shocking thing that has ever happened to humanity. Ever. It still isn't over.

It amazes me that people are lackadaisical when it comes to the information age. Oh yeah, robots will take over. It will be great. No problems there. You would literally be supplanting yourself as the dominant species on the planet. Not to mention the problems that come with wealth transfer, and the subsequent socio-economic collapse that would come from basically disinheriting 99% of the world's population from ever being to contribute meaningfully to their own destiny ever again.

So yeah, it is a little more than "it sounds hard."

I don't disagree with you at all. But that stuff is happening, and we need to take a measure of control over it. There's a big difference I think with something like urbanization vs a mass global-scale transportation system, or free energy generation, or environmental stabilization in that urbanization just happened, almost as an evolution over hundreds of years as our technology began to change the way we had to interact and work. The changes you talk about/fear also came about at this time. Joe Blow textile maker couldn't make a living selling his own stuff anymore, he had to go work for Levi's. Shoemakers couldn't just make a sell shoes to their community anymore, they had to work for Nike. The difference between something like this and the urbanization is we have to collectively make a choice whether or not do these things. Whether or not to say gufaw to how much it "costs" in dollars and worry about what it costs in real resources.

No doubt there will be changes. There already are. Fast food workers and clerks replaced by kiosks. Gas station attendants. Car washes. We are going to have find uses for ourselves beyond these things. I personally think that's a good thing, but I also understand the economic pitfalls of it, and that it will have to result in a complete overhaul of the way we create and trade goods, absolutely. That part of it, I look forward too. I hate hearing about how expensive something is makes it prohibitive, even if it's something we truly need. What should the monetary cost (something completely artificial that we made up) matter when compared to real cost of lives or habitat lost? If we continue to only care how much things cost in terms of dollars vs doing what we need to do, we can expect inefficiencies everywhere. If we want to (best, not saying we can completely) avoid the dangers of these transitions, we have to have some semblance of control over it outside of what the market wants. What the market wants and what humans need are too often very different things.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

My job takes me on the road a lot too (not in Alberta, although I have driven Alberta highways extensively) and I too am shocked a the carelessness of many drivers. From my experience though, I've seen more carelessness in BC compared to Alberta with guys passing dangerously on single lane highways.

It's so sad that this happens. Especially to the innocent who was driving safely and was a victim of carelessness from another driver.

I drive the Trans Canada every three to six weeks or so from Red Deer to the coast and I'm constantly shocked and appalled at the driving habits of people.

Hardly anybody practices safe stopping distance anymore. The number of cars flying by at well over the speed limit, bumper to bumper, is quite literally insane. Do all these drivers have a death wish? They pass on double white lines all of the time and you can see them getting irritated driving behind me as, shock...horror...., I drive the speed limit. I've been honked at multiple times for driving at the speed limit.

I have to say that I agree that it is worse in BC for sure but on *most* but not all occasions the vehicle being an absolute idiot has Alberta plates.

Funnily enough I've taken to driving through the night on the way out there as it's just safer that way. Hardly any traffic on the roads and a much more pleasant experience overall. Coming back though is through the day and it's pretty much a nightmare.....

[calumniate]

On a daylight savings time weekend.. figures

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Jagger

I drive the Trans Canada every three to six weeks or so from Red Deer to the coast and I'm constantly shocked and appalled at the driving habits of people.

Hardly anybody practices safe stopping distance anymore. The number of cars flying by at well over the speed limit, bumper to bumper, is quite literally insane. Do all these drivers have a death wish? They pass on double white lines all of the time and you can see them getting irritated driving behind me as, shock...horror...., I drive the speed limit. I've been honked at multiple times for driving at the speed limit.

I have to say that I agree that it is worse in BC for sure but on *most* but not all occasions the vehicle being an absolute idiot has Alberta plates.

Funnily enough I've taken to driving through the night on the way out there as it's just safer that way. Hardly any traffic on the roads and a much more pleasant experience overall. Coming back though is through the day and it's pretty much a nightmare.....

Are you sure you're a good driver? I don't get honked at multiple times. Kinda reminds me of my ex who went through multiple jobs because the boss always hated her. Trying to tell her that she was the common denominator was futile.

[CliffFletcher]

I'm all for mandatory driving tests every five years. And a higher threshold of skills in the tests.

But we have to be prepared for what that would mean. It's okay for Germany to have tough driving exams and licensing. They're a densely populated country with excellent public transportation. Germans don't need a car to live and work. Most Canadians do. So what happens when 20 per cent of the population fails the driving exams repeatedly because they just aren't equipped to meet the standards? Those people still need to get to work and buy groceries. So any significant tightening of driving standards would have to be accompanied by improvements in public transportation.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm all for mandatory driving tests every five years. And a higher threshold of skills in the tests.

But we have to be prepared for what that would mean. It's okay for Germany to have tough driving exams and licensing. They're a densely populated country with excellent public transportation. Germans don't need a car to live and work. Most Canadians do. So what happens when 20 per cent of the population fails the driving exams repeatedly because they just aren't equipped to meet the standards? Those people still need to get to work and buy groceries. So any significant tightening of driving standards would have to be accompanied by improvements in public transportation.

Uber, duh.

[Coach]

Public transit needs improvement in this country as a whole, not just intra-city, but inter-city as well.

It's not an excuse to license dangerous drivers. T

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

The economics of such a transfer are not insignificant, nor is the process inevitable. Instead of blindly believing in progress, one has to understand why things were the way they were, and give a good case for change.

People are so flip when they describe the massive changes of the past. The move from an agrarian rural economy to an urban industrial economy was arguably the most shocking thing that has ever happened to humanity. Ever. It still isn't over.

It amazes me that people are lackadaisical when it comes to the information age. Oh yeah, robots will take over. It will be great. No problems there. You would literally be supplanting yourself as the dominant species on the planet. Not to mention the problems that come with wealth transfer, and the subsequent socio-economic collapse that would come from basically disinheriting 99% of the world's population from ever being to contribute meaningfully to their own destiny ever again.

So yeah, it is a little more than "it sounds hard."

LOL is this your concern?

you are joking, right?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Public transit needs improvement in this country as a whole, not just intra-city, but inter-city as well.

It's not an excuse to license dangerous drivers. T

And if we found that 20% of the population could no longer drive, there would have to be changes to public transportation. Or you'd find people would invest more in driver training. Perhaps the 6 weeks and a single test I took 30 years ago should not serve as my current qualifications.

A joke was made about Uber, but you might find ride sharing in general would be more common.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

LOL is this your concern?

you are joking, right?

Exaggeration, for effect but no, entirely serious. These are real problems, especially given technology's increasingly unequal outcomes.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

Exuberance, for effect but no, entirely serious. These are real problems, especially given technology's increasingly unequal outcomes.

Well regardless of your social inequality concerns.... lots of companies are doing massive hiring and have large teams (in industry, not academia) to do this and launch it before 2020. The technology has been known for decades, but advancement takes some time. Maybe the first vehicles won't be fully autonomous (society sometimes wonders why science doesn't take a quantum leap forward, but realistically they take small steps in between big steps forward) but the eventual goal will be to automate the process as much as possible. The first 90% is the easiest, each 1% thereafter gets harder and harder.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well regardless of your social inequality concerns.... lots of companies are doing massive hiring and have large teams (in industry, not academia) to do this and launch it before 2020. The technology has been known for decades, but advancement takes some time. Maybe the first vehicles won't be fully autonomous (society sometimes wonders why science doesn't take a quantum leap forward, but realistically they take small steps in between big steps forward) but the eventual goal will be to automate the process as much as possible. The first 90% is the easiest, each 1% thereafter gets harder and harder.

Lots of concerns beyond wealth distribution:

- Humans will always be the fly in the ointment. It isn't clear whether autonomous technology will ever be able to deal with the myriad problems that driving involves to same degree of success as the highly flexible human brain without extensive mapping. The goal will then be to remove humans from the system as much as possible.

- Huge changes to city infrastructure. Given that computers are still, you know, stupid. The mapping required will eliminate autonomous cars from using anything but main thoroughfares. It is not clear whether or not this will improve congestion. Cities will inevitably get uglier as a result.

- Costs associated with infrastructure mapping and upgrading. Massive. Who pays for this? Google? Taxpayers? (Hint: Taxpayers). Where does this money come from in an economy so totally disrupted?

- Unit economics of car ownership. Do you own your own autonomous car? Do you use a taxi service of autonomous cars?

- Myriad ethical problems.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

LOL is this your concern?

you are joking, right?

That is a legitimate concern. Once AI actually takes off, the natural course is that machines will self-improve at a faster rate than humans can. As time goes on, that rate will rise exponentially thereby making humans pretty useless in the majority of jobs. A learning computer can do a better job than a human can.

In this thread it is driving a car. But artificial intelligence will have the power to take over all sorts of other jobs.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

That is a legitimate concern. Once AI actually takes off, the natural course is that machines will self-improve at a faster rate than humans can. As time goes on, that rate will rise exponentially thereby making humans pretty useless in the majority of jobs. A learning computer can do a better job than a human can.

In this thread it is driving a car. But artificial intelligence will have the power to take over all sorts of other jobs.

Once you dig deep down, there is nothing even close to artificial intelligence. Computers are still quite stupid.

But you are right. The technology doesn't exist for some sort of utopian end where everyone who needs something will get it for free from computers. The hype surrounding this technology comes from vested economic interests.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well regardless of your social inequality concerns.... lots of companies are doing massive hiring and have large teams (in industry, not academia) to do this and launch it before 2020. The technology has been known for decades, but advancement takes some time. Maybe the first vehicles won't be fully autonomous (society sometimes wonders why science doesn't take a quantum leap forward, but realistically they take small steps in between big steps forward) but the eventual goal will be to automate the process as much as possible. The first 90% is the easiest, each 1% thereafter gets harder and harder.

Technologically, yes. But the greatest hurdle for something like this will by far be how it's accepted and implemented into the general population. As mentioned, the tech has existed for a while, it's about how do we integrate it to the point that the average person is able to use it and comfortable with it. And how does the infrastructures of our cities and roads need to change in order to accommodate it.

When science DOES leap forward, society generally holds it back with figuring out what to do with it. The internet is the most revolutionary thing that we ever created and that went live in the 80's for the first time. We are still not even close to adapting to it the way we can and should be. Alternative energy tech exists now, but society holds it back by assigning prohibitive "costs" to the things needed to make it viable. It won't be any different with autonomous cars. As seen in the other thread, people can't even adapt to something as simple as bike lanes, now we have self-driving cars? Will they share the road with non-self driving cars? Or will anyone on the road HAVE to use them? Will there be zones (major traffic arteries) where human-controlled cars are not allowed? Those things will take decades for people to decide on at least.

[peter12]

A glorious infograph. Technology is not inevitable. It is created to serve a purpose. It is important to understand for whose purposes it is being designed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._products.html

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Technologically, yes. But the greatest hurdle for something like this will by far be how it's accepted and implemented into the general population. As mentioned, the tech has existed for a while, it's about how do we integrate it to the point that the average person is able to use it and comfortable with it. And how does the infrastructures of our cities and roads need to change in order to accommodate it.

thats a blanket statement, really.

autonomous vehicles might be known and done, but that doesn't mean the whole technology is there. It means the tip of the iceberg, but there is a whole system underneath that needs to support it. On a system level, there was still a LOT of technology that was not / is not available yet which holds it a back, a lot more then society accepting it. A lot of these types of advancements are more technical then a layman level, but they advanced due to other products/industries pushing it forward. Yes, there is a social push back to these types of things... but technology will keep on pushing on. This won't be an overnight thing, this won't happen world wide at the same time and it won't go from 0 to 60 for full automation, but the world is definitely going that way. Whether it goes to full automation I don't know, but money-driven big companies wouldn't spend hundred billions of dollars for a pie in the sky idea.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

thats a blanket statement, really.

autonomous vehicles might be known and done, but that doesn't mean the whole technology is there. On a system level, there was still a LOT of technology that was not / is not available yet which holds it a back, a lot more then society accepting it. A lot of these types of advancements are more technical then a layman level, but they advanced due to other products/industries pushing it forward. Yes, there is a social push back to these types of things... but technology will keep on pushing on. This won't be an overnight thing, this won't happen world wide at the same time and it won't go from 0 to 60 for full automation, but the world is definitely going that way. Whether it goes to full automation I don't know, but money-driven big companies wouldn't spend hundred billions of dollars for a pie in the sky idea.

The resignation to complete technologization has been termed by a favourite blogger of mine as the "Borg Complex." It is just faith, pure and simple. Companies have always spent billions of dollars with increasingly marginal return, and it doesn't mean that they will inevitably someday be successful.

Artificial intelligence, for example, is decades, maybe centuries away, from any meaningful advance.

In regards to automation, we have only advanced the capacity to which computers can process information (even this has a cap, when we get transistors down to the atomic level, Moore's Law just stops working). We haven't solved software problems, economies of scale issues, or the growing birth dearth. All of these are issues that will incredibly impede, slow, or make impossible the progress you think is inevitable.

The truth is, all technological innovation is contingent, over-hyped, and always exposed to the human component.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

thats a blanket statement, really.

autonomous vehicles might be known and done, but that doesn't mean the whole technology is there. It means the tip of the iceberg, but there is a whole system underneath that needs to support it. On a system level, there was still a LOT of technology that was not / is not available yet which holds it a back, a lot more then society accepting it. A lot of these types of advancements are more technical then a layman level, but they advanced due to other products/industries pushing it forward. Yes, there is a social push back to these types of things... but technology will keep on pushing on. This won't be an overnight thing, this won't happen world wide at the same time and it won't go from 0 to 60 for full automation, but the world is definitely going that way. Whether it goes to full automation I don't know, but money-driven big companies wouldn't spend hundred billions of dollars for a pie in the sky idea.

Yeah I'm not arguing any of that at all. I totally agree.

I do think though, that in order for something like this to work, being implemented at the same time, 0-60, into full-automation is the best (albeit most unrealistic) way to go. Not unrealistic because it can't be done, unrealistic because the coordination that would need to be involved would be like nothing ever seen in human history, and we have proven again and again that working together is just too damn difficult to get useful things into practice in the proper way.