|
the problem is it is inherently political, half the hype crowd have already exonerated the machines in case of "accident", so humans are automatically guilty, with barely any evidence, when the machine itself couldn't "drive like a normal person".
the other half thinks we should play the safety card and eliminate drivers alltogether, because totalitarianism. And this is soo bloody important that we should make every one crush their cars and buy a new one (which they better not even think about modifying) plus pay for gobs of infrastructure for the roadways, just to make it easier for the robots.
If people weren't so idiotically sycophantic about it, then it wouldn't be political.
re: more efficient? I think at best it could tie with a hypermiler, after lots of development and expense. And it will still need to take cues from the "driver" as how to compromise between time vs efficiency. Plus it will depend if the rules are different for a machine (which it seems they already are).
if you mean get rid of every other car on the road and just have coordinated robots? I don't see making up that energy lost. And given how automated traffic controls already aren't terribly bright, I don't have a lot of faith that whatever they come up with will be either. And I do see people who can afford it, being able to pay more for faster travel, which I have a hard time appreciating.
so, political, entirely. theoretically of course it could coordinate better, but who is that naive?
|