Almost frightening progress in AI technology

I'm skeptical but I can certainly imagine people going out for a drink and not needing a taxi home.

I don't see any of that as a problem.  I live where the insurance is a "no fault" configuration already.  Robot cars don't have to be perfect - just better than the accident rates of humans.  The impersonal nature will make it easier to process claims.  Insurance data and rates can handle it.

While promoting human creativity over machines -- maybe less creative and aggressive driving could be a good thing.

Insurance can handle it? Not in most states under current law. And changing to no-fault almost certainly will be bitterly opposed by lawyers and legal associations since they make a lot of money over these wranglings. And many of the legislators that have to vote on such changes to current law in various states are lawyers themselves.  

From "The Legal Enyclopedia" (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/...-work.html):

When you're involved in a car accident, chances are an insurance policy will come into play at some point. In most states, the driver who caused the accident will bear financial responsibility (usually through an insurance company) for injuries and other losses.

.......................................

Under the "fault" or "liability"-based car insurance systems in place in most states, when you're injured in a car accident, you usually have the option of bringing a claim for compensation against the at-fault driver—typically through that driver's insurance company. In that situation, as part of the "third party claim" process, you usually need to convince the other driver's insurance company that its own insured was at fault for the car accident.

Proving fault can be a long and complicated process involving police reports, witness statements, photographs, and other forms of car accident evidence. Even after all of that, the other driver's insurance company may still deny the claim, forcing you to file a lawsuit.

They will pass off AI failures onto people when it comes to auto collisions. This is already happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg

Insurance can handle it? Not in most states under current law. And changing to no-fault almost certainly will be bitterly opposed by lawyers and legal associations since they make a lot of money over these wranglings. And many of the legislators that have to vote on such changes to current law in various states are lawyers themselves.  

From "The Legal Enyclopedia" (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/...-work.html):

I am more concerned with truth-tables that guide logic - than in the "Truth".  You do note the prejudice that lawyers have to losing income, but still present their view as valid argument.  That should be a clue that it may not be as insightful as professional analysis.  NY, PA and NJ represent a large block of drivers, so my area is all no-fault enabled. The lawyer's lobbies have resisted its growth in the rest of the country.  The real number of concern is the 1 in 8 drivers with no insurance.

I am personally resistant to driverless vehicles.  But, the future is coming closer all the time.

  A key finding from their research is that the existing automobile insurance system in the United States should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the introduction of AVs. Experts generally agreed that, although some changes to the U.S. auto insurance model may be indicated as vehicles incorporate higher levels of automation, it is too early to make radical changes to the U.S. automobile insurance system. In addition, a majority of experts predicted that AVs would be deployed in a fleet ownership model, although their predictions regarding the specific formulation of fleet ownership differed. A majority of experts also said that the automobile insurance claims process for accidents involving AVs and conventional cars would not change significantly in the future, and experts agreed that consumer acceptance was very important to the successful deployment of AVs.

In addition, the authors explored experts' assessments of the benefits and drawbacks of proposed future insurance models for AVs, such as statutory no-fault compensation schemes, current no-fault insurance models used in some U.S. states, fleet insurance, and manufacturer self-insurance. They also interviewed experts in the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Canada about how those countries were adapting their insurance frameworks to incorporate AVs and ensure the compensation of those injured in accidents.

 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_repor...878-1.html

Unless something drastic happens, nothing will likely survive another 80 to 100 years in this cesspool, when the electrical grid collapses and backup systems no longer function, none of this fake make-believe world called "modern society" will be able to survive, much less any AI.
I would welcome an AI referee for politics and courtrooms, mainly something that knows where the interests and investments of the involved people lie, and can make fair decisions based on what is best, not who is manipulating the system or playing nepotism.
I would seriously rather see time, energy, and investment going towards sustainable survival, not whether or not we can build a frankenstein computer that would likely find us to be a cancer and wipe us out.

Unless something drastic happens, nothing will likely survive another 80 to 100 years in this cesspool, when the electrical grid collapses and backup systems no longer function, none of this fake make-believe world called "modern society" will be able to survive, much less any AI.
I would welcome an AI referee for politics and courtrooms, mainly something that knows where the interests and investments of the involved people lie, and can make fair decisions based on what is best, not who is manipulating the system or playing nepotism.
I would seriously rather see time, energy, and investment going towards sustainable survival, not whether or not we can build a frankenstein computer that would likely find us to be a cancer and wipe us out.

Awful dark and defeatest Durward.

I'll take the bet on the 80-100 year survival though.  I think all too often its human nature to become fixated on the negative and overlook the objectively positive.  Would be hard pressed to make a case that you'd be better off being born at any time prior to now.  So, hard to see our "progress" as terminal.

Awful dark and defeatest Durward.

I'll take the bet on the 80-100 year survival though.  I think all too often its human nature to become fixated on the negative and overlook the objectively positive.  Would be hard pressed to make a case that you'd be better off being born at any time prior to now.  So, hard to see our "progress" as terminal.

The handshake bet is on, see you in 100 years! Lol

I would welcome an AI referee for politics and courtrooms, mainly something that knows where the interests and investments of the involved people lie, and can make fair decisions based on what is best, not who is manipulating the system or playing nepotism.
I would seriously rather see time, energy, and investment going towards sustainable survival, not whether or not we can build a frankenstein computer that would likely find us to be a cancer and wipe us out.

Please excuse the equipment and condemn the intent and greed behind malicious programming.

"Back to nature" is more my style, so I like the investment in sustainability.  That said, I believe there is a wonderful newly understood, informational environment.   F*&% bitcoin, but humanity should still be able to quantum compute near-earth space objects.  And reason how life finds a way.

 “We can no longer hear the voice of the rivers, the mountains, or the sea. The trees and meadows are no longer intimate modes of spirit presence. The world about us has become an ‘it’ rather than a ‘thou.’” (Thomas Berry, “The Meadow Across the Creek,” in The Great Work, 17)