Google tests driverless car
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Fullofsurprises
A headwind would be that demand might fall because of a new surge in unemployment as numerous staff relating to driver-related services collapse (there would be no further need for a DVLA!), but overall I think it's clear that demand for vehicle use would rise substantially. That's really why Google want to get into this. They anticipate a strong and ongoing future profit surge from the commercial sector as many more vehicles are demanded.
A headwind would be that demand might fall because of a new surge in unemployment as numerous staff relating to driver-related services collapse (there would be no further need for a DVLA!), but overall I think it's clear that demand for vehicle use would rise substantially. That's really why Google want to get into this. They anticipate a strong and ongoing future profit surge from the commercial sector as many more vehicles are demanded.
It's an interesting point about many jobs becoming redundant. You're right that probably will happen. But what should we do about it? Is it really right to restrict the use of technology to keep people in jobs? If you're going to apply rules like that to driverless cars, then why not restrict the use of computers to keep people in jobs?
If the technology exists to do the job without a person doing it, and you hire someone to do it anyway (at much greater expense), you might as well just employ people to do pointless tasks. I've heard this happens in Japan to some extent. For example people get hired to stand in the street wearing a billboard even though you could just leave the billboard out there on a stand.
I do see why it could potentially cause a problem due to unemployment, but that's a problem that is hardly limited to this. I don't think purposefully halting technological advancement is the right way to address it.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They claim that, as do the other Silicon Giants. Yet the NSA documents leaked by Snowden repeatedly show them eagerly and actively co-operating.
It isn't surprising as Google are also working on numerous US government projects, including robotic warfare.
It isn't surprising as Google are also working on numerous US government projects, including robotic warfare.
Original post by Thom_Ryan
"Tapped it", NSA "confessed" due to not wanting to tarnish Google's reputation of being family friendly, reliable and over all, safe.
The NSA wouldn't risk loosing anyone who uses a Google product, they need their reputation to remain in tact for future NSA projects and spying.
The NSA isn't the only security agency we need to be worried about.
Just my two cents on the subject.
The NSA wouldn't risk loosing anyone who uses a Google product, they need their reputation to remain in tact for future NSA projects and spying.
The NSA isn't the only security agency we need to be worried about.
Just my two cents on the subject.
You realise what I linked to was literally the Snowden documents stating that they tapped it without Google's knowledge, right?
Original post by Psyk
It's an interesting point about many jobs becoming redundant. You're right that probably will happen. But what should we do about it? Is it really right to restrict the use of technology to keep people in jobs? If you're going to apply rules like that to driverless cars, then why not restrict the use of computers to keep people in jobs?
If the technology exists to do the job without a person doing it, and you hire someone to do it anyway (at much greater expense), you might as well just employ people to do pointless tasks. I've heard this happens in Japan to some extent. For example people get hired to stand in the street wearing a billboard even though you could just leave the billboard out there on a stand.
I do see why it could potentially cause a problem due to unemployment, but that's a problem that is hardly limited to this. I don't think purposefully halting technological advancement is the right way to address it.
If the technology exists to do the job without a person doing it, and you hire someone to do it anyway (at much greater expense), you might as well just employ people to do pointless tasks. I've heard this happens in Japan to some extent. For example people get hired to stand in the street wearing a billboard even though you could just leave the billboard out there on a stand.
I do see why it could potentially cause a problem due to unemployment, but that's a problem that is hardly limited to this. I don't think purposefully halting technological advancement is the right way to address it.
I was really suggesting that it be carefully thought about and that new regulations need devising for it. Also that the changes in employment it will bring about need planning for. The truth is that we can't have an economy where machines are doing every job (those that haven't been exported to low safety and deprivation-level labour countries) and expect demand and general living standards to remain where they are.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
Original post by BlueSam3
You realise what I linked to was literally the Snowden documents stating that they tapped it without Google's knowledge, right?
? You linked to a blog that in turn linked to some media stories. Or have I missed a post?
The NSA's chief legal advisor told the US privacy advisor in a sworn affadavit in March that the big tech companies knew all about Prism and actively cooperated with it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de
Asked during a Wednesday hearing of the US government’s institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the Fisa Amendments Act, occurred with the “full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained,” De replied: “Yes.”
When the Guardian and the Washington Post broke the Prism story in June, thanks to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, nearly all the companies listed as participating in the program – Yahoo, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL – claimed they did not know about a surveillance practice described as giving NSA vast access to their customers’ data. Some, like Apple, said they had “never heard” the term Prism.
De explained: “Prism was an internal government term that as the result of leaks became the public term,” De said. “Collection under this program was a compulsory legal process, that any recipient company would receive.”
After the hearing, De added that service providers also know and receive legal compulsions surrounding NSA’s harvesting of communications data not from companies but directly in transit across the internet under 702 authority.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Google has tested its driverless car in California today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/13/google-self-driving-car-demo-mountain-view/9046385/
The 'we do no evil' corporation is predicting these will be hitting the streets 'within five years'.
This opens up a host of regulatory and social issues. I hope our government and the EU won't just roll over to have their tummy tickled 'because it's Google'.
* Is it right that vehicles should be driverless? What will happen if there are accidents? Can it ever be foolproof in today's frantic urban environments?
* What about the pleasure of driving?
* Why should we hand dominance in yet another major field to a silicon valley corporation?
* Is Google trustworthy, or will this be another opportunity for them to hoover up personal data for unknown purposes, including, presumably, sharing it with the NSA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/13/google-self-driving-car-demo-mountain-view/9046385/
The 'we do no evil' corporation is predicting these will be hitting the streets 'within five years'.
This opens up a host of regulatory and social issues. I hope our government and the EU won't just roll over to have their tummy tickled 'because it's Google'.
* Is it right that vehicles should be driverless? What will happen if there are accidents? Can it ever be foolproof in today's frantic urban environments?
* What about the pleasure of driving?
* Why should we hand dominance in yet another major field to a silicon valley corporation?
* Is Google trustworthy, or will this be another opportunity for them to hoover up personal data for unknown purposes, including, presumably, sharing it with the NSA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
I think you're asking the wrong questions. This doesn't need to be looked at from a security standpoint or a political one. Here's the right question:
First came the "automatic" (that is, the self-changing gearbox). Then, the "tempomatic". Now, the driverless car. This means that knowledge of how to drive will be lost in a hundred years. Aeroplanes will similarly become driverless (autopilot doesn't count, as this is the equivalent of a tempomatic in cars). Food service in restaurants will become automatic; so will warfare, and banking, and postmen, and telemarketers.
This opens up the question: as what will people work? If everything becomes automated, and life expectancy becomes ever longer owing to contemporaneous advances in medical science. what will people do? I mean, yes, a certain segment of society will be re-trained to maintain the machines, and another segment of society will do intellectual jobs that no machine could ever do (teacher, doctor, scientist, programmer, lawyer)... but what about everyone else?
NOTE: I am not a Luddite, nor am I a Marxist or socialist of any kind. I simply think this question needs answering. If no answer can be found, I think automation should not be illegalised---let the free market decide. But still, the question, I think, is a good one.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Huskaris
Hopefully these will be a legal requirement for women drivers ASAP.
And Asian drivers.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I was really suggesting that it be carefully thought about and that new regulations need devising for it. Also that the changes in employment it will bring about need planning for. The truth is that we can't have an economy where machines are doing every job (those that haven't been exported to low safety and deprivation-level labour countries) and expect demand and general living standards to remain where they are.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
Sure we can have such an economy. The human race will adjust. Humans have faced worse catastrophes and have emerged relatively unscathed.
I think what you're trying to ask is, would such an economy be advisable. I think the answer is not very important. I'm for scientific progress, because when science causes a problem, this problem is usually resolved in short order. again by science. I don't think science should be politicised.
For instance, suppose we can make humans less-mortal (that is, immortal with the exception of death by disease, murder, and misadventure). Without people dying of senescence, and assuming people will still want to fvck like rabbits, the correct course of action would be to establish colonies on off-planet worlds. Colonise Mars, colonise the Moon, colonise Venus and Titan if you have to. The incorrect course of action would be to adopt a One Child policy.
I think the problem of jobs would be solved some time after it is caused. Perhaps new kinds of jobs will be created in an automatic world; perhaps money will be earned outside of traditional jobs. Who knows.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
I'm sure that's what some people thought before the use of computers became widespread. Back in the 60s, the average person would have never imagined how they would change our lives. For all we know, driverless cars might have a similarly profound effect on our lives.
Original post by honeywhite
I think you're asking the wrong questions. This doesn't need to be looked at from a security standpoint or a political one. Here's the right question:
First came the "automatic" (that is, the self-changing gearbox). Then, the "tempomatic". Now, the driverless car. This means that knowledge of how to drive will be lost in a hundred years. Aeroplanes will similarly become driverless (autopilot doesn't count, as this is the equivalent of a tempomatic in cars). Food service in restaurants will become automatic; so will warfare, and banking, and postmen, and telemarketers.
This opens up the question: as what will people work? If everything becomes automated, and life expectancy becomes ever longer owing to contemporaneous advances in medical science. what will people do? I mean, yes, a certain segment of society will be re-trained to maintain the machines, and another segment of society will do intellectual jobs that no machine could ever do (teacher, doctor, scientist, programmer, lawyer)... but what about everyone else?
NOTE: I am not a Luddite, nor am I a Marxist or socialist of any kind. I simply think this question needs answering. If no answer can be found, I think automation should not be illegalised---let the free market decide. But still, the question, I think, is a good one.
First came the "automatic" (that is, the self-changing gearbox). Then, the "tempomatic". Now, the driverless car. This means that knowledge of how to drive will be lost in a hundred years. Aeroplanes will similarly become driverless (autopilot doesn't count, as this is the equivalent of a tempomatic in cars). Food service in restaurants will become automatic; so will warfare, and banking, and postmen, and telemarketers.
This opens up the question: as what will people work? If everything becomes automated, and life expectancy becomes ever longer owing to contemporaneous advances in medical science. what will people do? I mean, yes, a certain segment of society will be re-trained to maintain the machines, and another segment of society will do intellectual jobs that no machine could ever do (teacher, doctor, scientist, programmer, lawyer)... but what about everyone else?
NOTE: I am not a Luddite, nor am I a Marxist or socialist of any kind. I simply think this question needs answering. If no answer can be found, I think automation should not be illegalised---let the free market decide. But still, the question, I think, is a good one.
I like where you're taking this, but I still don't think this quite takes it far enough. Given what you say, how will society actually be able to function, when so many low- and mid-level skilled jobs are unavailable? The people who own these automated services will keep hold of much more of their wealth due to having to spend it on substantially fewer employees, and large swathes of the population may not be able to find replacement jobs.
My speculation is that we will need huge reforms in wealth redistribution, since the owners of the automated services will become unusefully rich, and we will not be able to expect all people to get jobs anymore and will have to prevent their poverty somehow.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I was really suggesting that it be carefully thought about and that new regulations need devising for it. Also that the changes in employment it will bring about need planning for. The truth is that we can't have an economy where machines are doing every job (those that haven't been exported to low safety and deprivation-level labour countries) and expect demand and general living standards to remain where they are.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
Yes, technology can offer great benefits, but we aren't in the 19th Century where the introduction of trains allowed cities and towns to be linked for the first time. All of our services work already to a high standard. This is about turning people with low and medium skills onto the streets so that higher profits can be made by the silicon oligarchs and those they serve. I'm not clear where the benefit for the majority is.
honewhite
I think you're asking the wrong questions. This doesn't need to be looked at from a security standpoint or a political one. Here's the right question:
First came the "automatic" (that is, the self-changing gearbox). Then, the "tempomatic". Now, the driverless car. This means that knowledge of how to drive will be lost in a hundred years. Aeroplanes will similarly become driverless (autopilot doesn't count, as this is the equivalent of a tempomatic in cars). Food service in restaurants will become automatic; so will warfare, and banking, and postmen, and telemarketers.
This opens up the question: as what will people work? If everything becomes automated, and life expectancy becomes ever longer owing to contemporaneous advances in medical science. what will people do? I mean, yes, a certain segment of society will be re-trained to maintain the machines, and another segment of society will do intellectual jobs that no machine could ever do (teacher, doctor, scientist, programmer, lawyer)... but what about everyone else?
NOTE: I am not a Luddite, nor am I a Marxist or socialist of any kind. I simply think this question needs answering. If no answer can be found, I think automation should not be illegalised---let the free market decide. But still, the question, I think, is a good one.
First came the "automatic" (that is, the self-changing gearbox). Then, the "tempomatic". Now, the driverless car. This means that knowledge of how to drive will be lost in a hundred years. Aeroplanes will similarly become driverless (autopilot doesn't count, as this is the equivalent of a tempomatic in cars). Food service in restaurants will become automatic; so will warfare, and banking, and postmen, and telemarketers.
This opens up the question: as what will people work? If everything becomes automated, and life expectancy becomes ever longer owing to contemporaneous advances in medical science. what will people do? I mean, yes, a certain segment of society will be re-trained to maintain the machines, and another segment of society will do intellectual jobs that no machine could ever do (teacher, doctor, scientist, programmer, lawyer)... but what about everyone else?
NOTE: I am not a Luddite, nor am I a Marxist or socialist of any kind. I simply think this question needs answering. If no answer can be found, I think automation should not be illegalised---let the free market decide. But still, the question, I think, is a good one.
This is an interesting question which I've been thinking about for a while, and which some publications/books have already sought to address. Obviously the real answer is that nobody knows exactly what impact technologies will have on society. If you judge by history, every such fear of permanent increased unemployment has been unfounded. Many people, though, are of the opinion that it will be 'different' this time - that we have reached a point where the majority of the population will simply not have the skills/raw intellect to participate meaningfully in a future labour market.
I think, though, that as in the past, jobs will be created on all levels. Perhaps the number of drivers will be reduced; but the number of car mechanic jobs will likely go up. Maybe packaging at Amazon's warehouses will be taken over by robots; but the number of people maintaining their physical servers will go up.
There is also, possibly, a tendency to underestimate much of humanity. While it is true that not everyone can be a software developer at Google, the advent of the internet has shown that the closure of high street retailers and small stores, which typically hire unskilled labour, has not led to a dramatic increase in unemployment. Clearly, most people are able to participate in some way in the digital labour market.
Implementing tax/labour market reforms in anticipation of the technology's introduction is foolish, as we just cannot foresee the overall impact on the labour market. It should be a case of crossing the bridge once we come to it.
And btw, 'Silicon oligarchs'? Such an incendiary term.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Google has tested its driverless car in California today.
* Is it right that vehicles should be driverless? What will happen if there are accidents? Can it ever be foolproof in today's frantic urban environments?
* Is it right that vehicles should be driverless? What will happen if there are accidents? Can it ever be foolproof in today's frantic urban environments?
Well, atm they've done over 1 million km of driving with only 2 accidents and neither of those were it's fault. It was crashed into once and the other time it was under manual control.
The only thing you get is problems like at the beginning of I Robot. I'm not sure if these cars are controlled by Asimovs three laws of robotics,
, but for those who haven't seen it the robot decides to save a grown man instead of a child in an accident. In a similar car crash situation, if it occured, what would the driverless car do if there were 2 objects and it had no choice but to hit one of them. Say one is a dog and the other is a child, Will it be able to know which is which and which to avoid?
no thanks for that technology.
I want to drive a car, I don't wanna be a passenger.
I want to drive a car, I don't wanna be a passenger.
Reminds me of when I got out of my Dad's car when I parked outside my halls and this girl from a nearby flat asked if I knew how to drive when she clearly saw I parked. I told her sarcastically that I don't drive and that I just sat in the drivers seat for the fun of it whilst the car parked itself
Original post by Motorbiker
Well, atm they've done over 1 million km of driving with only 2 accidents and neither of those were it's fault. It was crashed into once and the other time it was under manual control.
The only thing you get is problems like at the beginning of I Robot. I'm not sure if these cars are controlled by Asimovs three laws of robotics,, but for those who haven't seen it the robot decides to save a grown man instead of a child in an accident. In a similar car crash situation, if it occured, what would the driverless car do if there were 2 objects and it had no choice but to hit one of them. Say one is a dog and the other is a child, Will it be able to know which is which and which to avoid?
The only thing you get is problems like at the beginning of I Robot. I'm not sure if these cars are controlled by Asimovs three laws of robotics,
, but for those who haven't seen it the robot decides to save a grown man instead of a child in an accident. In a similar car crash situation, if it occured, what would the driverless car do if there were 2 objects and it had no choice but to hit one of them. Say one is a dog and the other is a child, Will it be able to know which is which and which to avoid?If they leave the decision to a bunch of Stanford and MIT maths grads, it doesn't bode well for an ethical outcome.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Public transport, taxi fleets and emergency services are other obvious targets.
I think you're right that such a change would be yet another major technological revolution causing mass displacement of jobs.
I think you're right that such a change would be yet another major technological revolution causing mass displacement of jobs.
I think people are worrying too much. I mean we've had the technology to fully automate systems like the London underground for years yet people still happily pay those drivers a ridiculous amount. It will be a long, long time before this ever happens. Certainly not in our lifetimes.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
? You linked to a blog that in turn linked to some media stories. Or have I missed a post?
The NSA's chief legal advisor told the US privacy advisor in a sworn affadavit in March that the big tech companies knew all about Prism and actively cooperated with it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de
The NSA's chief legal advisor told the US privacy advisor in a sworn affadavit in March that the big tech companies knew all about Prism and actively cooperated with it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants-knew-nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de
I'm unsure as to the rules on these forums with regards to linking directly to the Snowden Documents (them being illegally obtained, and all), so I did so indirectly. Here's another such link.
Original post by BlueSam3
I'm unsure as to the rules on these forums with regards to linking directly to the Snowden Documents (them being illegally obtained, and all), so I did so indirectly. Here's another such link.
Are you confusing MUSCULAR with PRISM? The former is the harvesting of all internet traffic from GCHQ-installed devices. The latter is the legal process which Google and the other Big Digitals have worked closely with the US government agencies on and to which I was referring.
Original post by Sephiroth
I think people are worrying too much. I mean we've had the technology to fully automate systems like the London underground for years yet people still happily pay those drivers a ridiculous amount. It will be a long, long time before this ever happens. Certainly not in our lifetimes.
Driverless metro systems are in operation in some places. The managers of the Tube have speculated in the past that passengers would feel uneasy travelling on such trains. However, the biggest obstacle to their deployment in London has undoubtedly been the RMT and Bob Crow. In a way that's not a good line of argument, since it was union activity that would doubtless be regarded as 'retrograde' and 'luddite' by some posters in this thread that blocked the development. However, passengers probably feel safer and many thousands of families are still being supported by those salaried workers.
I am not advocating no change, but I think we should have society in charge and deciding about what changes to accept and not just rolling over because big corporations say it will be cheaper and safe to operate. It needs thinking about properly as often the financial motive leads to a rush to judgement.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Are you confusing MUSCULAR with PRISM? The former is the harvesting of all internet traffic from GCHQ-installed devices. The latter is the legal process which Google and the other Big Digitals have worked closely with the US government agencies on and to which I was referring.
I've been referring to MUSCULAR throughout.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can i take friend's car for driving test
- Recently passed and keep crashing
- Driving anxiety and near crash experience
- Do I really need 45 hours of driving lessons?
- Emergency situation!
- Black Box Insurance
- So nervous about driving despite passing test
- I am bad at driving
- Has anyone done an Extended driving test?
- driving test crash
- Is £45 for an hour driving lesson expensive?
- wrong way down a one way street
- Motorbike licence
- Driving test cancellations - how to get them?!
- Is it harder to pass in your own car
- whats better for driving?
- What proof do i need for my driving test if im in my own car?
- mercedes fuel flap motor needed!!!
- Can I change my driving test?
- Driving Test With Own Car
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
