LogFAQs > #952457747

LinkPizza posted...

They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose...

This argument is just as applicable to smart phones as self-checkouts.

LinkPizza posted...

And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data.

But that is an option that smartphones offer and therefore, like all other tools and functionalities - from touch screens to facial recognition to data security - it must be extensively tested, whether you - a single end user - choose to make use of it or not.

LinkPizza posted...

That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years.

You're not getting this.

Yes, it saves money - I never disputed that. I'm saying that, proportional to their other expenses, it doesn't save enough for it to drive significant change. Like, if someone offered me a way to save $100 a year, that's cool... but sheer human laziness means there's an excellent chance I won't bother, given that it's a tiny portion of my take-home income. On the other hand, if someone offered me a way to save $50,000 a year, then yeah, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

Same thing with grocery stores. Wages are *not* a big part of their expenses, relative to the other costs they have to pay out, so even if they could halve their workforce (and that's a very open question, given that cashiers in most stores aren't *exclusively* cashiers and still have to help with things like stocking and inventory) it's not going to have nearly as big of an impact on them as that same reduction in work force would have on the transportation sector.

LinkPizza posted...

It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents...

You keep acting like self-driving cars aren't on the road, insured, today.

They are. This problem has already been looked at and determined to not be a problem.

With self-driving cars, it's far easier to determine who is at fault because the cars all have cameras in them, so you review the footage and say "Oh, that car's AI did something it wasn't supposed to - that car's insurance company now has to pay up."

And insurance companies are happy to take that arrangement because, again, the accident rate for self-driving cars is far below the average human driver.

LinkPizza posted...

The only thing I saw was that one van.

Then you haven't been looking.

I'll say it again: self-driving buses already exist. They've already addressed the problems you're talking about. This is not an issue for them.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!