AI point-missing quickie
In MindMatters as usual. A clear-minded analysis of claims for and against self-driving cars.

One side is a good reminder TO ME that the skeptic side in the lockdown argument can get carried away with catastrophism. I'm prone to that type of thinking anyway, and I was doing it heavily at first, when it seemed clear that ALL governments were PERMANENTLY locked into lockdowns. Now it appears that the project is more of a test or selection process, determining which presidents and governors and mayors are demented and psychopathic enough to recruit for further Deepstate training. The presidents who completely failed the test (Sweden, Belarus, Japan, Korea, Turkmenistan) haven't been punished. Similarly with the few governors who have failed the test.

In fact the "failed" leaders are being richly rewarded by REALITY, with local economies that didn't collapse, and local schools and hospitals and civilizations that remained intact. The sane places will be better off for a long time, maybe forever. This isn't much comfort for those of us who are stuck in the crazy places, but it offers a vague tiny hope of spreading sanity.

= = = = =

The catastrophist side on autonomous cars says that self-driving cars will be the ideal tool for the NEXT fake emergency, since forbidden destinations can be automatically forbidden. You can't get there from here. Luckily, this can't happen because autonomous cars will never work.

So most of the article is valid, and a good self-calibrator for me.

Here's the point-miss:

There is no clear historical precedent for a society in which almost all vehicles are autonomous.

Ever hear of horses? For thousands of years all vehicles were autonomous. We've only had fully human-directed vehicles since 1920.

With regular human-directed cars, a much simpler way of controlling travel is gas rationing. It was used in WW2 for necessary and good purposes, and Nixon used it in '73 for nefarious Deepstate purposes.

Labels: AI point-missing, Emersonian justice

  ¶ 1:28 PM