PT is for poor people. Can you please get of it. FFS we are talking about the far future, not you recession babies.

With energy super abundance, why not?

(Solar energy superabundance is where we overbuild solar x 7 for reliability and then use than 6x excess energy for other things. )

I believe reliability issues can be addressed with technology, redundancy and sensors, and a good AI overseeing all of that.

Again, it depends how much we trust the process, and as OP notes, of SDC are fully established and reliable, there will come a point where we trust AI to fly also.

As an illustration, we trust pilots to fly helicopters above our heads all the time, and we know how dangerous those are.

> And how much more expensive is it to drive in Paris than take public transit?

Why would you assume it is more expensive to drive than to use PT.

An All Zones ticket in Paris is 17 euro. If you drive an EV your fuel costs would be much less than that.

> The goal isn't for public transit to be lightning fast, though that would be great.

I like how you casually deem people's free time valueless, despite people only having a limited number of hours to live, which should not be wasted on slow transport. An extra hour per day is 20 hours per month, wasted for nothing, that could have been spent with friends and family.

> The goal is for public transit to be easy, economical, and effective enough that we reduce the number of cars on the road to the essential amount, making everything more efficient.

That is a bit of a nonsense, isn't it? Unless you ban cars (which would make PT worse) people will always prefer the better option. People do not use PT by choice, they use it because the authorities made car travel impractical in some way.

To give you a real example - Germany recently had a 9 euro per month train ticket. It massively increased train usage, but reduced car usage by only 4%. Even if you made PT free, people would still prefer their cars.

> This tradeoff is fine because you can read on a train/tram/bus, you can't while driving. And if you have a chauffeur, I don't think this subject is too relevant anyways.

Kind of ignoring the fact that the thread is about self-driving cars, right? Are you a brigader from fuckcars?

> Once the majority of cars driven on the road are self driven, we can start crafting flying cars piloted only by artificial intelligence. We wouldn’t really have to worry about people crashing as the AI would be the only ones controlling them and as they improve, the probability of an accident drops significantly.

I agree with you and had the same thought earlier today. The main issue is human reliability, and if we can have AI control we can trust that will no longer be an issue.

Sure, but its a minority of people, and what they really resent is being poor.

The r/fuckcars movement is part of the general anti-capitalist movement, pushed by young, idealistic, poor people who feel they have less opportunities than their parents.

It's full of rage but little thought, very unfocused and unpractical. Like tantrums by toddlers really.

Imagine you start a new city. You could either built a road network for $1 million a mile, or a train network for $150 million per mile, and still built a road network.

Imagine your city is expanding, and you are adding new suburbs. You can either extend your roads for $1 million per mile or extend the rail for $150 million.

Imagine you have to run your rail network at a loss, and few people use it, as they already have cars and you have a very good road network already that is more convenient.

Imagine your taxpayers do not use the rail in any case, and vote against rail extensions, since they don't plan to use it.

Still don't understand?

Dont you think its more similar to a pattern knitting machine which was popular decades ago?

Little skill needed, but you still got decide what you wanted to make, and you could even customise it.

I have a strong feeling the anti-car movement is being driven by impoverished young adults who were forced to live with their parents (50% of young adults in USA these days) and who can't afford a car.

Now they resent that the bus does not stop at their neighbourhood and they still have to bum a ride from their parents to do anything.

If we use AI to optimise our impact we would end up in the matrix.

Not everything needs to be optimised. Solve the externalities instead.

> the exact same people are paying before and after

This is obviously not true. For one, building rail is much more expensive than building roads, and buses destroy roads much more than cars.

In addition, especially in Europe, PT is heavily subsidized while cars pay much more than they consume. Per user, rail users get 8x as many subsidies as car users.

Lastly, PT is much more likely than cars to be used by those on low income.

So, in reality, the people who pay for PT and the people who use it are not actually the "exact same people".

Do you think termites ask this question of themselves when they munch on your house?

There is no such thing as "deserving" in nature.

> Trains are the most efficient mode of transportation humans have invented

A family driving to the beach by EV is actually more energy efficient than the same family taking an electric train, and massively more efficient than if they were to take a diesel train.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Sure.

> since people tend to be quite skeptic when I tell them that.

So you should be aware already that your experience is an exception, and can not be generalized to the majority as a solution.

For the majority, cars work much better. 81% of families have cars in France and 69% commute by car.

Of course in Paris most people commute by PT, but people hate it.

> A survey, carried out by French jobs website RegionsJob, has revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Parisians and people living in the Paris region are willing to take a pay cut to avoid the hassle of their daily commute.

Sorry, there are no girls on reddit.

Sorry, research shows your personal assessment is wrong in most cases.

> Our results suggest that using PT takes on average 1.4–2.6 times longer than driving a car. The share of area where travel time favours PT over car use is very small: 0.62% (0.65%), 0.44% (0.48%), 1.10% (1.22%) and 1.16% (1.19%) for the daily average (and during peak hours) for São Paulo, Sydney, Stockholm, and Amsterdam, respectively.

It's also trivial to show this on google maps.

I just generated two random addresses in France.

Random address in France

Street: 1 rue du Château

City: Saint-germain-en-laye

State/province/area: Île-de-France

Phone number 01.70.25.38.45

Zip code 78100

Country calling code +33

Country France Street: 29 boulevard Albin Durand

City: Cergy

State/province/area: Île-de-France

Phone number 01.20.32.88.77

Zip code 95000

Country calling code +33

Country France

By car it takes 28 minutes, by PT it takes 1 hr.

PT is slower, so you dont save any time and increase your inconvenience by using PT compared to a car.

> and that's time of your life you'll never get back

It makes more sense to build a city around personal transport.

Thank you for saying this. I dont know how this redditor got lost here, but she clearly belongs somewhere else.

This is an incredibly stupid take and wrong at all points, and does not belong in /r/singularity .

In the post-scarcity future, why would we want to WALK or CYCLE anywhere, except for fun? Why would we care about saving the environment or energy or money are any of the pre-singularity stuff? Accidents would be a thing of the past.

Go back to r/fuckcars where other stupid people hang out.

Most people think the Turning test is not a good enough test these days, as it's too easy for computers to pass just by faking it.

What differentially AI from humans at this point is that, while AI may be good at individual elements of intelligence, humans are the only ones where these are all integrated - the difference between narrow and general intelligence.

Humans are the only GI at the minute, and the goal of some AI research is Artificial General Intelligence. Some people think we are less than 10 years from that.

> It means being able to make decisions and learn on its own

That is a pretty low hurdle to cross. I think you need to set the bar a bit higher.

If you keep on saying that, there will soon be very little left that defines humans.

According to you its not our ability to calculate, and not our ability to recognize patterns, and not our ability to be creative.

What is left?

They could use the same infrastructure as bikes lol.

Or are you implying bikes don't need parking lots and roads?

And of course being electrified they could be centrally controlled e.g. robotaxis.

> Battery swapping could be possible

Battery swapping for cars is real in China, with Nio, so there is a real competition amongst the technologies, but I think regular built-in batteries are winning even there.

Their cars can of course also be charged in the usual way.

Nio is also expanding to Europe.