the future is now ish with AI being integrated into our lives for better or
worse the overwhelming motivation of automation and machinist ascents is to save time money and
lives but does it we can easily be biased in the human cost of innovation in the name
of technological advancement other acquired industrial financial and behavioral changes
needed to integrate autonomous vehicles worth it and for whom now before we shift gears go
ahead and subscribe to our channel to keep a drift with all of our content autonomous
vehicles are not exactly what Back to the Future predicted but it's a good start Eevee's are cars
that can drive themselves with varying degrees of human input which is classified on a zero to
five spectrum level zero denotes no automation whatsoever level one is where minor steering and
acceleration tasks are performed and level two is the likes of advanced cruise control and autopilot
systems at this level the car can automatically take safety actions but the driver needs to stay
alert at the wheel level three of automation still requires a human driver but more safety
critical functions are taken by the car the system has control of functions such as speed
steering and monitoring the environment under specific conditions the driver can be partially
distracted such as swiping right or liking this video but the driver must be ready to intervene
as and when the system requests this poses some potential dangers as the major tests of driving
are transferred to or from the car itself level 4 cars are cars that can drive themselves almost all
the time and anywhere at this level you can be fully distracted and even catch up on sleep the
fifth level is full automation in all conditions and this is a goal but also a distant one as at
this stage there are no commercially available level fours while we're away from fully autonomous
cars their economic impacts can still be estimated people teach their dogs to fetch the paper which
says a lot about humans inclination to do less and enjoy more self-driving cars will most certainly
have a market but at what cost or rather whose the promise of a fully a I integrated future is
enticing for various reasons the appeal of saved money time and lives is a very real one that AV
advocates are pushing for in both the private and public sector the most touted benefit of
autonomous vehicle advocates is the promise of reduced road accidents besides the huge loss
of human life the financial costs of accidents racked up 242 billion in 2010 it's estimated
that 56 percent of all road accidents are due to human error organ capacity distraction and
drunk driving as we know autonomous vehicles from level 4 and upwards are designed to mitigate this
human error so in theory could eliminate the full 56 percent of road accidents unfortunately the
lessons of road safety are too little too late for the 38,000 Americans who died at the wheel every
year this brings us to everyone's favorite companion traffic what if we told you of a
future where traffic is reduced by 35% this is the reality around the corner this is the University
of Cambridge who published a study modeling how self-driving cars can reduce traffic by working
together this includes sophisticated tech like vehicle to vehicle communication platooning and
cruise control now you're all well aware of the cost that traffic has in the quality of
life wasted time delays stress road rage fits of anger fury violent thoughts which of course none
of our mild-mannered viewers are familiar with but what about the economic fallout of traffic
in 2015 the Texas A&M Transportation Institute estimated that congestion wasted a total of six
point nine billion hours of driving and 3.1 billion gallons of fuel to the effect of a
whopping 120 billion that same year congestion is caused by a concoction of ill-timed traffic lights
accidents and breakdowns that ripple across inner roads and freeways when us humans drive we create
a stop and start rhythm to the lane changes merges indecisive driving aggression and it
goes on and on autonomous vehicles have a more consistent Drive especially when in numbers as
they would use tech to communicate estimate and preempts traffic issues the economic benefits of
reduced traffic are reduced risks of oil spikes because oil consumption is more predictable and
consistent reduce supply disruptions because the set consistency and lower motor vehicle emissions
which reduces the amount that governments and therefore taxpayers have to fork out on cleaning
the environment it should be noted that reduced traffic is predicated on the widespread rollout
of self-driving cars not as niche transportation for techies the Badham bujji but as the norm
platooning needs an entourage of cars and vehicle to vehicle comms needs while vehicles to support
this function essentially there is strength in the numbers when it comes to self-driving cars the
more they are on the road the better governments would need to integrate AV in public transport and
the cost of self-driving cars would need to lower significantly to be a viable option to the average
private consumer at face value self-driving cars are a no brainer as we've discussed automation
promises ease upon ease more time more safety and more financial games but how exactly one
of you on Musk's vision for autonomous vehicles is providing owners a second income stream with
theoretically zero overhead alphabets wham-o and General Motors supported crews are focusing their
self-driving efforts on urban taxi services while Tesla is focusing its efforts on selling
cars to private consumers Tesla's alternative to this fleet business model is to have individual
consumers commit their vehicles to a ride-sharing service that would put their cars to use during
the time they would ordinarily be parked so uber in effect except no human capital lower
labor cost and fuel savings could be anything from 90 billion to 296 billion depending on the
extent to which AV technology replaces drivers which is great news for shareholders and not so
for the drivers Musk's idea of a motor transport doubling up as an income generating asset is great
in theory but doesn't help the very demographic who provide taxi services to begin with cab and
taxi drivers the world over were understandably frustrated when ride-sharing platform uber
entered the market destroying their monopolies in major cities the dilemma here is that uber was
disrupting a market that was hardly accessible or democratic especially in cities like London
were it costs a small fortune in literal years of tests to become a licensed cab driver and
then the driver has to make up those costs so they charge the rider for those costs while the public
were generally sympathetic the introduction of alternatives helped more people than it hurt
uber lyft in several other ride-sharing services have created over two million jobs worldwide and
largely support the immigrant populations in those major cities they operate in Tesla's offering on
the other hand is not accessible to the millions working in taxi services for the obvious reason
that the demographic who supports themselves and their families through taxi driving is unlikely
to invest in a $30,000 car in the first place the Tesla consumer is not someone from a vulnerable
demographic who needs entry-level work like driving so ironically the ways in which the
autonomous vehicle industry as a whole envisions its job creation capacity is the very same way
it directly undercuts millions of workers in the transport industry long-distance truckers
immigrant workers and folks who subsidize their incomes with rideshare driving according to zip
recruiter postings for autonomous vehicle jobs increased 27% in 2018 but the catch is that most
of these jobs were engineering related these jobs have a higher barrier to entry higher education
language skills intercultural fit the kind of person who'd work as an engineer for Tesla is
also the kind of person would lease out their Tesla vehicle for ride-sharing while it's parked
and not for the necessity of income either so in an aim to increase job creation the AV industry
inevitably puts millions of people out of work through structural unemployment self-driving
cars are only safer if they can make better decisions quicker than humans but better is
subjective MIT created the moral machine platform which generates the same lesser of two evils moral
dilemmas AI faces to compare and can trash how humans would handle the same conundrums
this study found that different races genders ethnicities and nationalities of people approach
morality through different lenses with some groups sacrificing the old person the overweight person
or the disabled person pointing to a survival of the fittest ethos ultimately this provides a
dilemma for a/b manufacturers will your systems be made to reflect your own demographics and will a
self-driving car in New York City have a different code of ethics than one operating in Prague and
what happens when they operate in different cities the average person is already played with decision
fatigue over what they'll eat for breakfast or which tie though we're so being ready to
apply game theory at every left turn just isn't realistic one might argued that this is why ABS
would do this for us but how will they decide if it's the grannie it should knock down or the pram
she is pushing this also raises the questions about liability naturally a company won't have
much incentive to mass-produce the amount of Av cars needed to make an economic impact if
the liability is too high regulations regarding AI will only increase in volume complexity and
divisive miss put any companies in the middle of more than what the margins may be worth so what do
you say is self-driving the way of the future or is it too much hassle than it's worth who
do they really benefit and where do you see room for improvement in how we integrate them into our
lives let us know in the comments section below and of course don't speed off without subscribing