I’m worried about the people who you mentioned in your article got into accidents with the driverless cars. Acting like a mob and burning vehicles is of course not ok. But not feeling safe on the street is also not ok.
This, is of course, a really important part of the conversation here. In the one case of a pedestrian being dragged by a Cruise car it led to Cruise not operating in California. The case between the cyclist and the Waymo is less clear, although the damage was reported as only a dew scrapes and bruises. Also, balanced against this is evidence of a strong safety record for Waymo at least: https://futureofbeinghuman.com/p/waymo-safety-study-shows-benefits
Even one human being harmed by a driverless car is too much. I would not want to be around machines that are incapable of processing a cry for help. Certainly there must be other uses for such vehicles. Why impose them on people in cities?
The word luddite comes from a guy named Ludd, who famously destroyed the looms that made weaving faster and easier. So, burning driverless cars makes perfect sense.
I was going back and forth on bringing in Luddites (I've written a lot about the movement -- recently here: https://futureofbeinghuman.com/p/unraveling-the-luddite-narrative), but I'm not sure this incident justifies the term as the Luddite movement wasn't anti-tech but anti tech that took away jobs and livelihoods.
The Luddites were not anti-tech, as you say, but that nuance got lost and the name of the movement became a shorthand for backward looking primitivism, propagated by people with an interest to frame any opposition against technology as nothing but. The same, I fear, is happening here. You frame the people torching the car as opposed to all autonomous technology. Maybe they are just opposed against the deployment of a technology in their city without them having a say in it? Or maybe they were concerned about safety? Or maybe they expressed anger about the incursion of private interests into public spaces? I don't know, I did not ask them, but neither did you, but you dismiss whatever legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons there might have been to paint this as an attack on autonomous technology per se. It's the Luddites again - the narrative, not the movement.
I’m worried about the people who you mentioned in your article got into accidents with the driverless cars. Acting like a mob and burning vehicles is of course not ok. But not feeling safe on the street is also not ok.
This, is of course, a really important part of the conversation here. In the one case of a pedestrian being dragged by a Cruise car it led to Cruise not operating in California. The case between the cyclist and the Waymo is less clear, although the damage was reported as only a dew scrapes and bruises. Also, balanced against this is evidence of a strong safety record for Waymo at least: https://futureofbeinghuman.com/p/waymo-safety-study-shows-benefits
Even one human being harmed by a driverless car is too much. I would not want to be around machines that are incapable of processing a cry for help. Certainly there must be other uses for such vehicles. Why impose them on people in cities?
You should not make machines in the likeness of the human mind. Burn them all.
Thankfully I don't think my mind looks like a self driving car!
Its obvious how all of this leads to existential threat to humanity. So it is understandable if humans do not wish to die. Life is love and beauty.
The word luddite comes from a guy named Ludd, who famously destroyed the looms that made weaving faster and easier. So, burning driverless cars makes perfect sense.
I was going back and forth on bringing in Luddites (I've written a lot about the movement -- recently here: https://futureofbeinghuman.com/p/unraveling-the-luddite-narrative), but I'm not sure this incident justifies the term as the Luddite movement wasn't anti-tech but anti tech that took away jobs and livelihoods.
The Luddites were not anti-tech, as you say, but that nuance got lost and the name of the movement became a shorthand for backward looking primitivism, propagated by people with an interest to frame any opposition against technology as nothing but. The same, I fear, is happening here. You frame the people torching the car as opposed to all autonomous technology. Maybe they are just opposed against the deployment of a technology in their city without them having a say in it? Or maybe they were concerned about safety? Or maybe they expressed anger about the incursion of private interests into public spaces? I don't know, I did not ask them, but neither did you, but you dismiss whatever legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons there might have been to paint this as an attack on autonomous technology per se. It's the Luddites again - the narrative, not the movement.