Arizona: People are violently attacking driverless cars from Google/Alphabet's Waymo

How well do those driverless cars handle being pulled over by police for Driving While AI? That’ll happen when they expand out into really hick areas. (I wouldn’t want to be a passenger when some power-tripping LEO is unable to effectively rage against the machine.)


I’ve yet to see a frame of that video where the man appears to point the gun at the vehicle or the driver. He’s certainly brandishing it, but people keep quoting the safety driver claiming the main aimed the gun at the vehicle and/or the driver. That may very well be true, but I haven’t seen evidence of it.

For all we know, he likes brandishing his pistol for any and all passersby, but only the Waymo vehicle captured video footage.

I’m not thrilled by the prospect of a huge number of roving cameras, controlled by a single entity that hasn’t publicly announced any plan about how they’d deal with law-enforcement requests and other potential ways this data could be transformed into a surveillance system.


This is insane. Apparently BB approves of any ol’ little town putting up barricades and deciding who gets to drive on their public roads, and approves of vandalism as an enforcement mechanism.

Yes, there are rules about who and what gets to drive on the roads. But regulations have to have a reasonable justification, which for driving has always been safety- and there are many thousands of worse drivers currently on their roads than Waymo’s vehicles. Until driving standards have been raised to the point where everyone on the road are fantastic drivers, I find their fear to not be worth indulging.


Brandishing is a gross misdemeanor that’ll lose you your CWP in Washington.

Apparently in Arizona, part of their open-carry laws allow people to brandish guns legally, under the idea that waving guns around is less likely to cause shootings than not waving guns around.

Sounds fuckin stupid to me.


pissed off guy in Chandler, Arizona waves his gun at a passing Waymo van.
He got in trouble for it, but man, I can empathize.
By the way, the image was captured by surveillance cameras on the Waymo van, provided to the police, and sort of proving the dude’s point.

So reckless use of a deadly weapon is something to minimize because you empathize with them? I certainly do not like the direction things are going as far as ubiquitous corporate surveillance, but i would never empathize with assholes attacking driverless cars or brandishing guns at them.



The general consensus of the universe being created is that it was a bad idea.


Another car with knives tied to it should suffice.

1 Like

No one is asking for unanimous consent - just some semblance of actual consent.

The worlds largest companies spread some money around to pols - hire some of their staff - what average person had a voice in that?

Perhaps a referendum is in order?

Every disagreement with what big tech companies want isn’t senseless Ludditeism. Remember- some big tech company thought thalidomide was a great idea.


Yeah, but how many thalidomide moms went around trying to murder pharmacists and doctors?


And if we didn’t set any restrictions on the use of technologies our rivers would still be burning. Expecting that the tech companies pushing these vehicles have established their suitability for basic driving conditions before they use the rest of the populace as test subjects isn’t a blind anti-technology stance.


That’s not the robots’ fault - that’s the asshole humans who built and purchased them.

As D.A.R.Y.L. said, “Computers don’t make mistakes. People do.” In this case it’s, “robots aren’t assholes. People are.”

1 Like

I’m sure that everyone who opposes testing in their community advocates murder.


The people who are waving guns around and who are actively running these cars off the road with people inside definitely do.

Running people off the road is a super easy way to kill them, whether its your goal or not.


I’ll bet that AI was scared.
Some places seem to have a limited supply of natural intelligence.


Similarly- the guys sitting in a corner office cutting corners decided that some deaths were acceptable.


Behind every great disruption, is a great crime.


You want to get into that kind of math?

Why do we have a 0.08% BAC limit for driving intoxicated?

0.08% BAC is a lot of acceptable death compared with, say, 0.02 or 0.

Some guys decided that was okay too.

What about the AMA’s guidelines saying that you should get an annual mammogram after 40? Lots of women get undiagnosed breast cancer before then. Someone’s deciding that some deaths are acceptable there.

There’s a lot of acceptable death in letting humans drive cars, and the robots will certainly do a better job for a number of reasons. We do however need the technology to mature before it can become widespread, and that means a small town here and there needs to be a testbed. It can’t all be done in some abandoned alameda county ghost town. And even part of the training has got to be how to deal with technophobic would-be murderers trying to run these cars off the road.

Yes there needs to be regulation, and there actually is. There’s restrictions on how fast, where, and in what manner these autonomous vehicles can be used. I don’t say we give corporations free reign. But we can’t be going around accepting people treat these autonomous vehicles like they aren’t carrying people inside them.


Perhaps we can get back to the question being avoidied.

Consent. In what way was any possible semblance of it obtained?


Unfortunately if we had held onto that hatred and I dunno, kept building mass transit instead, our planet might not be teetering the edge of disaster. Oh well.