this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
392 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
15 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/81940

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think its almost always pointless to hold back innovation, but in this case I think a full ban on self driving cars would be a great move.

I agree on both points. Also I think it's important to characterize the 'innovation' of self driving as more social-economic than technological.

The component systems- sensing, processing, communications, power, etc- have a wide range of engineering applications and research and development will inevitably continue no matter the future of self-driving. Self driving only solves a very particular social-economic-technological issue that only exists because of how humans historically chose to address the same issue with older technology. Self driving is more of a product than a 'technology' in my book.

So my point there is that I don't think a ban on full self driving really qualifies as 'holding back innovation' at all. It's just telling companies not to develop a specific product. Hyperbolic example but nobody would say banning companies from creating a nuclear powered oven was 'holding back innovation'. If anything forcing us to re-envision human transportation without integrating into legacy requirements advances innovation more than just trying to use AI to solve the problems created by using humans to solve the original problem of how to move humans around in cars.

[โ€“] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I see it the same way, but an incredible amount of people I've discussed this with say that its stupid to hold back technological innovation "like self-driving cars". Its an unnecessary piece of technology.

I also just think the whole ethical complication is fucked. The way we have it now, every driver is responsible for their actions and no driver ever glitches out on the freeway (and if they do, they bear the consequences). Imagine a man's wife and kids getting killed by a drunk driver vs a self-driving car. In one scenario you can clearly place blame, and take action in a much more meaningful way than just suing a car manufacturer.