MennoNet.com

Neto wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2026 4:15 pm

barnhart wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2026 3:05 pm To play the devil's advocate, is it possible granting rights to non-human things like animals is an artifact of human consciousness, it makes us more human but doesn't change the animal one way or another. Similarly is it possible we will treat AI as a moral agent not because of what AI is but because who we are.

So, a question: Is the average person more inclined to be 'nice' toward an animal or a machine than toward other people? I've thought about this from the inside out perspective, such as "I should speak respectfully to a machine that calls me to attempt to get me to purchase a product, because if I don't, I'm in some way learning to act in disrespectful ways, and will began to treat PEOPLE the same way."

When self driving cars are common, am will I treat them with respect or as the obstacles of the corporate overlords.

barnhart wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 7:13 am

Neto wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2026 4:15 pm

barnhart wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2026 3:05 pm To play the devil's advocate, is it possible granting rights to non-human things like animals is an artifact of human consciousness, it makes us more human but doesn't change the animal one way or another. Similarly is it possible we will treat AI as a moral agent not because of what AI is but because who we are.

So, a question: Is the average person more inclined to be 'nice' toward an animal or a machine than toward other people? I've thought about this from the inside out perspective, such as "I should speak respectfully to a machine that calls me to attempt to get me to purchase a product, because if I don't, I'm in some way learning to act in disrespectful ways, and will began to treat PEOPLE the same way."

When self driving cars are common, am will I treat them with respect or as the obstacles of the corporate overlords.

We have a 2019 Honda CR-V. I consider it to be intrusive. Anytime we start it up with anyone having a cellular phone along, it "pressures" us to connect it to the vehicle. (I seldom drive that vehicle, basically only on Sundays going to church services, or taking my wife to her eye doctor appointments. And while I do take my phone along on the latter trips, I don't take my phone along to church services.) It does other obnoxious things as well. I will never willingly purchase a self-driving vehicle.

But as for respecting a vehicle, I come from a family where a vehicle was purchased used (generally when it was 4 to 7 years old) and kept for basically for all of its remaining life. These cars were not exactly viewed sentient beings, but a sense of fondness usually developed over its life time. (I'm using the phrase life time in the machine sense, not in the sense of it being a living being.)

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:04 am Let’s say a self driving vehicle is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury. Would you still never willingly purchase one?

A horse and buggy is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury, if that's the criteria. Walking would be even better.

ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:17 am

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:04 am Let’s say a self driving vehicle is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury. Would you still never willingly purchase one?

A horse and buggy is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury, if that's the criteria. Walking would be even better.

These are also valid cases to make. In the case of a car with FSD, though, there is very little negative impact one can claim of buying a new car with FSD versus one without, whereas going horse and buggy or exclusively walking has some negative impact on the former driver’s lifestyle.

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:49 am

ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:17 am

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:04 am Let’s say a self driving vehicle is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury. Would you still never willingly purchase one?

A horse and buggy is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury, if that's the criteria. Walking would be even better.

These are also valid cases to make. In the case of a car with FSD, though, there is very little negative impact one can claim of buying a new car with FSD versus one without, whereas going horse and buggy or exclusively walking has some negative impact on the former driver’s lifestyle.

Might actually have a positive impact...

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:54 am Might actually have a positive impact...

Some would claim that (myself included), but I didn't want to have to detour into making that claim. The very narrow case for FSD seems easier to talk about, specifically for a new vehicle buyer who is otherwise getting a sedan, small to midsize SUV, or crossover type vehicle.

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 11:04 am

I will never willingly purchase a self-driving vehicle.

Let’s say a self driving vehicle is significantly less likely to cause an accident that causes death or injury. Would you still never willingly purchase one?

Yes, because that result (that it might in certain situations be less likely to cause an accident than a a vehicle driven by a human being) is dependent on the perceptions and abilities of the human driver to which it is being compared.

Some people who do not care to learn how to drive safely may well chose to pass that responsibility on to a machine, but I don't like the idea of that. Actually, although the wording of news articles sometimes appear to blame the vehicle for an accident, it is generally the driver who is responsible, and it is my understanding that it is also the driver who is held legally culpable when property damage, injury, or death results. So, in the case of self-driving vehicles, who will be held responsible? The occupant, who may actually be in the back seat, the entity operating the self-driving vehicle business, or the manufacturer? If the latter, when does that responsibility pass on to the owner of the vehicle, who must be responsible for the proper up-keep of the machine?

Will road-way accident investigations end up like airplane crash investigations?

Years ago I worked in a plating shop where we rebuilt prop plane engine components. A plane went down in Arkansas, and the props had been magnifluxed and recertified by our shop. It was not until after the federal aviation authority had completed their extensive investigation and determined/judged that the crash was due to pilot error that my co-worker who had done the certification on that prop breathed easy again.

The son of a fellow Bible translator in Brazil went on to become a bush pilot, and was an instructor at the Moody missionary aviation school in Washington (state) when the Cessna he was in with two students crashed and all were killed. The wife of one of the students sued his widow, as well as the school. Eventually the careful examination of not only the aircraft cockpit but also the body parts of the pilot and the two other men showed small fragments of feathers from a certain type of large sea bird. So the study resulted in the judgement that a large bird had crashed through the wind screen, probably killing both the student who was piloting the aircraft at that time, plus the instructor (who was in the right front seat). So it was ruled an accident, one which would have been completely unavoidable.

Neto, self driving cars get in far, far fewer accidents than regular cars - regardless of fault. The life that is saved might be the life of someone else who wasn’t driving safely. So… would you still not be willing to buy an FSD even if it means saving a life?

Current FSD in America requires keeping your eyes on the road - it will warn you and then shut off if it detects you aren’t paying attention.

Will road-way accident investigations end up like airplane crash investigations?

I hope so - accidents being so rare to at every accident is an opportunity to figure out how to prevent it from happening again.

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 5:06 pmCurrent FSD in America requires keeping your eyes on the road - it will warn you and then shut off if it detects you aren’t paying attention.

This can be defeated by wearing sunglasses. Heard from a friend of mine who has two Teslas, one with FSD.

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2026 5:06 pm Neto, self driving cars get in far, far fewer accidents than regular cars - regardless of fault. The life that is saved might be the life of someone else who wasn’t driving safely. So… would you still not be willing to buy an FSD even if it means saving a life?

Current FSD in America requires keeping your eyes on the road - it will warn you and then shut off if it detects you aren’t paying attention.

Will road-way accident investigations end up like airplane crash investigations?

I hope so - accidents being so rare to at every accident is an opportunity to figure out how to prevent it from happening again.

I imagine that self-driving cars DO get in fewer accidents. For one reason, there are far fewer of them on the roadways.

As to whether I would purchase such a car, it is a mute question because I couldn't afford one anyway, and how could I possibly know ahead of time that it would save someone's life? I'm not convinced that is so.

I have seen videos from a guy who conducts tests with totally self driving cars (where he is actually in the back seat). (He apparently does this to create his own media or 'pod cast' content.) He purposely chose destinations that would normally involve left turns on intersections where there is normally a good deal of traffic. He showed videos of where the car would avoid the left turns by looping around using multiple right turns. Then the car came to a place where the right lane was closed, and had cones to mark the closure. The car stalled, not knowing what to do. He called the company, who had drivers out in various parts of the city they could send in to physically drive the vehicle to the desired destination. There was one about 3 or 5 minutes away, but then the car suddenly "decided" to continue, pulling out into the left lane, as though it was going to make the designated right turn. Then it stopped again. Meanwhile, the person who was heading in that direction was notified that the problem was resolved, so he/she headed off to take care of another issue elsewhere. So the car was now blocking part of the left lane. After other (actual) drivers were honking at it, the car made the turn, but there were cones in that roadway as well, so it pulled into the left lane there, and permanently stopped. So the rider was ecstatic, as he'd never recorded such a fiasco before. He excitedly described the whole deal, until an 'escort driver' arrived, and guided the "self-driving car" to the destination.