Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

On Balance, the Potential Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles outweigh the Potential Harms

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Cars
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 1
Description
For my first instigation on this site, I thought I would create a debate in the CARS category seeing how there are 0 debates in that category now, like that class nobody signs up for.
I propose that the potential benefits of autonomous vehicles are manifest, including improvements in human safety, improvements in transportation costs following improvements in transportation efficiency, and an opportunity for meaningful mitigation of environmental costs in mass transportation.
1st round is reserved for flattery (not required) and acceptance only.
2nd round Pro argues benefits Con argues costs (Con is free to address Pro's argument).
3rd round is for counterarguments, questions, and requests for clarification.
4th round is for replies and answers. No new questions. No new arguments.
5th round is for conclusions and voter appeals.
Acceptance = agreement that any forfeit = automatic loss/end debate
I'm requesting friendly and sincere participation: acceptance of this debate acknowledges that failing on either count is subject to consideration under conduct in voting.
Round 1
Published:
My inexperience regarding argument updates on this site led me to define an unnecessarily truncated debate structure: sorry for that.  I don't want to deviate from the debate structure now out of concern that I may cause confusion.  Therefore, I'm sticking to the debate as proposed: R1 is for flattery and acceptance.  I'll argue the benefits of autonomous vehicles in R2.  I'll ask Con to follow suit.

So, I'll  awkwardly accept my own debate and I wish to thank RationalMadman for allowing the opportunity to debate the very top of the leaderboard.  I only hope to make a good showing of it.
Published:
Oromagi is so clever that he lied. He planned ahead to waste time to post his R1, and his plan was to have more thinking-time to base his case around the style of his opponent and counter it.

Oromagi is a masterful planner beyond our comprehension. He probably has many more layer to his plans. I accepted this debate structure not because it was flawed but so I could use R1 to flatter this mighty deity.
Round 2
Published:
Thanks, RationalMadman

I propose that the potential benefits of autonomous vehicles are manifest, including improvements in human safety, improvements in transportation costs following improvements in transportation efficiency, and an opportunity for meaningful mitigation of environmental costs in mass transportation. 

I should begin by noting that there  is a fair amount of confusion around the term autonomous. 

The word means "self-governing" which does not truly apply to any technology.  Most of the proposed new transportation systems would likely be fairly interdependent on signals from other cars, traffic controls, dispatch centers, emergency alerts, etc.  For the purposes of this debate, I'm talking about transportation technology that can sense a driving environment and effectively navigate that environment without human input.  Some prefer to reserve the term autonomous for  "eyes off the road" technology  while others would reserve the term for "steering wheel optional" technology but I am conveying  the popular usage as it is presently applied to any increased automation that decreases human dependency in the operation of a vehicle.  Technically, all manner of vehicles (drones, tractors, submarines) fall under this rubric but I'm focused here on upgrades to cars and trucks.

Major benefits include:

I. Safety

A.  Worldwide, roughly 1.25 million people died in traffic in 2015: a daily average of more than 3,400 people and the leading cause of death for people aged 15-29.   Up to 50 million people incurred non-fatal injuries [1] More than 35,000 of those deaths were in the US, where the Dept. of Transportation attributes 94% of those fatalities to human error. [2]   The NHTSA estimated the total economic and societal damage caused by car accidents in the US to be $871billion in 2010. [3]

B.  Because AV tech promises much improved perception and response times without  blind spots and programmed, effective avoidance measures, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank  Pallone Jr.  estimates that self-driving cars could reduce traffic accidents  by up to 90% in the coming decades: a technological advance with the potential to save millions of lives, tens of millions of injuries and trillions of dollars.[4]

II.  Traffic Jams

A.  The ASCE reports that in 2014, Americans spent 6.9 billion hours delayed in traffic: 42 hours per driver wasting 3.1 billion gallons of fuel and $160 billion in productivity. [5]

B.  AV tech that allows riders to take their eyes off the road & their hands off the steering wheel would allow for greatly improved productivity while commuting or at the very least relieve the stress of tortuous stop-and-go driving.

C.  25% of traffic delays are caused by accidents, so the reduction in accidents anticipated from driverless cars should translate into important improvements in congestion. [6]

D.  Even more significant to the reduction of congestion, engineers believe that autonomous vehicles can be programmed to disrupt the natural stop-and-go human tendencies that create the largest contribution to traffic jams, even when only 5% of traffic is AV. [7]

E.  Widespread adoption of AV Tech could translate into 40% reductions in travel time and fuel consumption, according to Boston Consulting Group projections.  [8]

III. Fuel consumption

A.   Beyond traffic jams, autonomous cars can further improve fuel efficiency by leveling out the natural human tendency to over-accelerate and then over-brake, potentially saving up to 10% more fuel, according to a Rand Corporation study.

B.   The same Rand report estimates that popular adoption of AV tech  might allow for tremendous fuel efficiencies.
 
1.  Platoons of  inter-networked cars formed into close traveling trains of vehicles, all receiving simultaneous inputs might eliminate most of the present wasteful acceleration and deceleration on expressways.

2.  Fewer crashes and fewer types of crashes should translate into major economies in crash protection technology - the primary contributor to an automobile's weight.

Rand’s projections for fuel economies in a mostly or entirely autonomous transportation system exceed one order of magnitude (500mpg+), [9] while Folsom’s more optimistic estimates take us closer to 1,000mpg.  [10]

C.    Relatedly,  as AV conversion recommends essential redesigns to cars and trucks, we might consider converting to all-electric and/hybrid engines to take advantage of increased renewable energy sources.  AV Tech solves at least  one traditional electric car drawback by allowing for centralized recharge stations to which cars can deploy without inconveniencing human occupants.
 
IV.  Fossil Fuels

A.    See III.C. above

B.   


according to U of Ohio’s “The Future of Driving.” [11]

V.  Road Capacity

A.     The State Smart Transportation Initiative advises that AV Tech could double the capacity of existing highway infrastructure.

B.    Full implementation of AV platooning could see four or fivefold increases in highway capacity. [12]

C.    Either way, large increases in capacity translate into decreases in the demand for new highways or expansions of existing highway.
 
VI. Parking Capacity

A.   An IBM survey of 20 international cities found that average urban driver spent almost 20 minutes per trip looking for parking. [13]  The potential for converting many private cars to many fewer public cars (taxis, ridesharing, etc.) could also substantially reduce the total number of cars. Replacing family cars, which sit idle about 95% of the time with on-demand rideshares could reduce parking space demand by up to 90%. [14]

B.    Autonomous vehicles can park themselves quite efficiently in more centralized parking hubs after dropping off passengers.  Since humans don’t have to exit, AV cars can park side by side with very little buffer- increasing parking lot capacities by 15%. [11]

C.    We could then repurpose real estate  presently devoted to transportation infrastructure: perhaps up to 25% of most US Cities urban core.
 
VII. People Capacity

A.  Freeing up space in the urban core while make suburban commute times faster and more tolerable could translate to larger and denser metropolises- an essential adaptation for making land, power, and water use more efficient in response to environmental threats like global warming and overpopulation.
 
B.  Autonomous vehicles could make on-demand transportation available to millions who can’t drive themselves for many reasons: the disabled, the young, and particularly senior citizens who lose their ability to drive.  About 100 million Americans presently don’t have a driver’s license, suggesting a large market of people for whom AV tech could mean significant improvements in mobility and consequently, quality of life.  [15]

C.    Wikipedia defines the last mile problem as:


AV tech could also potentially bolster existing public transportation networks by offering an on demand, interlinked transportation solution to the last mile problem.

VI.  Cost Savings

A.     In the short term, all the requisite new sensing, navigation, steering, and braking equipment will almost certainly add to the cost of an individual, personal vehicle but the adoption of a more shared, public transportation system ought to translate into potent savings for the average driver: the Rocky Mountain Institute  estimates that near-term costs of an  autonomous vehicle will be roughly competitive with current vehicles (about 84 cents per mile), but that rate  should steadily decline:  projected to 51 cents per mile by 2025 and  perhaps 33 cents per mile by 2040. [17]


[1] https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/
[2] https://www.transportation.gov/connections/autonomous-vehicles-driving-us-toward-zero-death-future
[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/motor-vehicle-crashes-u-s-cost-871-billion-year-federal-study-finds[4] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20161115/105416/HHRG-114-IF17-20161115-SD002.pdf
[6] https://extramile.thehartford.com/auto/traffic-jams-car-crashes/
[7] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170510095703.htm
[8] https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/automotive-revolution-versus-regulation-make-break-questions-autonomous-vehicles.aspx
[9] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR443-2.html
[10] www.qi2.com/images/pdfs/EAULV_reprint.pdf
[12] https://www.ssti.us/2016/12/automated-vehicles-will-bring-big-highway-capacity-increases/
[13] https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/35515.wss
[14] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/future-parking-self-driving-cars/
[15] https://www.statista.com/statistics/198029/total-number-of-us-licensed-drivers-by-state/
[17] cityobservatory.org/how-much-will-autonomous-vehicles-cost/










Published:
How do we weigh Benefits and then hold that against the weight of Costs?

The resolution is worded and angled in a way that would mean Pro has more authority than Con to dictate the weighing system and Con can only oppose if it they can bring up enough flaws in it but instead Pro has left a vague 'this vs that' medium through which to reach the conclusion that the potential benefits outweigh the potential costs. 

Well, here's what I, as Con, offer:

  1. The side which is less likely to doom and/or stunt humanity and its progress, is overall the one with less potential costs.
  2. The side which is more likely to keep humanity at its peak, in both capacity and potential use of that capacity, ends up being the one with the most potential benefits.
  3. If 1 and 2 both have the same victor in the comparison, that side definitely wins the debate.
  4. If 1 and 2 have different results, then 1 needs to be weight against 2 by observing if the degree to which one is further than the other from dooming humanity is as much closer than the other to keeping humanity at its peak, including the using of the capacity in this analysis. If it seems 1 outweighs 2, then the risk outweighs the reward but if 2 outweighs 1, it is a higher risk, higher reward system that is to be opted for (whether it's 1 or 2).
We, as a species, are overall the main concern with this debate. It's not as if global warming would be saved by this since the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same as it would be if it was non-automated (and if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based, I will combat it with the utter nonsensical lack of feasibility of cabling every road in the nation, not to mention the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory as opposed to an on/off thing they could choose to activate or not). This means that the scope of morality and legality should be humanity almost entirely, not animals or some obscure thing that is outer-space related etc... unless that alien or non-human thing interferes with humanity's interests.

Humanity relies severely on its brain to be superior to other animals and yes, this does include the emotional parts of the brain. What makes us run the world (and rightfully so) as opposed to, let's say, lions if not our brain(s) and its/their capacity?

Well, if we stop exercising our brains, it isn't as simple as 'we will stay as smart, just use them less'. That's not how it works. Also, there's a whole dilemma with the system, which is linked to the blame-fiasco that I'll bring up in a couple of paragraphs, which means we couldn't argue that the time in the car is time for the person to do something stimulating other than focus on the road, nor to save up time being awake more hours by being asleep in the car. If there is a system in place that somehow logically came up with a way to make the person in the car never require any action, even in emergency, and them to be legally blameless, then I will go into why the system requires blackmailing all people to surrender to the automation and why this is morally incorrect, let alone logically. In short, what I am saying here is, the system Pro is raising most likely requires you to be fully alert for a journey that's nothing more than a severely boring TV show to you. This is going to dull the brains of humanity in the long run, and I will happily provide sources in Round 2 as I angle my attacks and defences better.

So, before I go into the blame-fiasco and why that is linked back to the issue of mind-dulling, I want to explore what exactly surrendering to automation, if it becomes a highly accepted thing to do in society, does to us in the long run. It's not a fallacious slipper-slope type of argument to suggest that once humanity surrenders transport to automation, it will begin to see positive aspects to surrendering everything, even the exploration of new concepts and analysing old theories, in science and politics, to automation. Over time, we'd realise life could be easier, "accident-free" and thus smoothly operated without a single human contribution for millennia other than to ensure no severe malfunction is happening in the system. Art would become pointless; the robots could make movies better meeting the objective statistics-based preference of humanity at the time and everything, literally everything that ever matters will become robot-handled. We will completely destroy ourselves if ever there was an invasion from outer space or if somehow another species evolved to human-level (or above it) and the robots hardly have motive to side with us as they don't even value their own preservation (they're not alive to begin with nor emotional enough to give a damn if they are destroyed). They would happily surrender to the invaders (or new evolved species) and screw over humanity in the blink of an eye the moment it was optimal to do so. This is not at all unrealistic to assume. If we observe the word 'potential' in the resolution, we need to fully play out scenarios, in a strategic 'to the end' manner in our minds before deciding which outweighs which. You cannot possibly suggest that we could program self-thinking, self-inventing robots and make them dumb enough to not fix something in their coding which we put in to make them 'favour humans in an alien-invasion or new-species-evolving' scenario. Also, this is not wrong to suggest would happen along the way if automated vehicles became widely accepted and loved. Naturally, once we surrender to that idea we will enjoy the lack of thinking we need to do while transporting and seek to have that peaceful, effortless, experience in all walks of life. Again, I will not bring sources to prove this unless Pro challenges it with sources or demands them from me. There's both psychological sources regarding lazy people and how their brains are different as well as game-theory sources which involve some mathematics to explain how they relate to this scenario but I'll prove that it's undeniably the inevitable outcome once we surrender to automated vehicles, to lead us to surrender to automated-managing of all faculties of humanity as we progress to love machines and hate doing any work.

Now for the blame-fiasco. This is morally and legally going to be a completely explosive event that either ends with us entirely dictated or entirely pointless in our automating of transport. Who do you blame when something in the system goes wrong? Do you blame the engineers of the system? Do you blame the current technicians maintaining the system? Do you blame the car's brand? Think, for a minute, like the selfish government and selfish CEOs of corporartions... That's right, you got it, they're obviously going to make it so that the system isn't fully automated (just like Pro suggested). This both helps the government say 'we're not forcing you to give up your ability to drive via your own control' and also helps Pro, and debaters like him when this proposal hits legal-level in real life, to bypass the 'you're taking away our Right to drive freely' argument. Unfortunately, this means that what will happen, both to benefit the government and corporations, is that the conclusion is going to be that since the vehicles at all times will enable manual override (especially in scenarios like something jumping in front of the car while stopping the car will hurt you as the car behind you will hit you etc) for not just the ability to avoid having to build the system with morality programmed into it and then to take away from the driver the ability to choose who to save and why, but also because it's simply the perfect scapegoat that leaves the insurance companies happy as a Larry, since they still are required and everything between two or more drivers involved with an accident is still the same. The only alternative, would be a more high-end sort of automation where you pay extra to have a person on the end of some controls 'sign on' at the start of your journey as the completely blame-deserving driver and unless the system is proven to malfunction between what they send/receive and you send/receive, they are basically your absolute driver for the journey (but it's still automated, they're only really there for that 'emergency moral dilemma' scenario). The point here is that, this is just as pointless (not for the one hiring them but overall for humanity) as my original scenario and humanity's demise, intellectually. 

The final point leads on from what I proved would happen in the blame-fiasco. Since the inevitable outcome will be that there's never ever full automation (as you can't program morality and many would oppose this vehemently and demand the ability to override the automation in such a scenario) you're, therefore, never going to have an entirely internalised accident-free system. This also means that drunk drivers and all such things that Pro and people on his/her/their side in the real world trying to make this legal and active, say won't be an issue under automated vehicles, end up just as much of a problem as before... If not more so. After all, if you're drunk and know that you need to be panicking and alert in case of emergency in order to override the vehicle's system, you're going to haphazardly jump the gun (or react too slow anyway, as per alcohol's normal influence) and screw things up in an emergency, regardless. There could be a suggestion by Pro that the automated system always demands breath-analysis before permitting you to drive and I would concede to this, except we are talking about what is potential. You're going to have a system where those in charge can track you 24/7 unless you're walking. How easy do you think pulling off an 'accident' would be for them? I'm just saying.
Round 3
Published:
Thanks, RationalMadman

RE: 4-Step Process

Con's proposed 4-Step Process is just a very long-winded way of saying "let's do a cost/benefit analysis," which is established in the title of this debate, improved by brevity.

...the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same...
As stated above, one of the primary benefits of driverless is that we might substantially increase the number of miles traveled while substantially decreasing fuel consumption (particularly fossil fuel consumption and the greenhouse gas by-products of fossil fuel consumption).  AV tech reduces fuel consumption 40% by:

1.  Reducing fuel wasted in traffic jams
2.  Smoothing out human over-acceleration and over-braking
3.  More efficient trip-planning and navigation
4.  Increased conversion to electric engines
5.  Eliminating hundreds of pounds of equipment

A modal shift to an entirely public transportation system could be transformational in terms of fuel: allowing for the elimination of stop signs and traffic lights, highly efficient stream-lined platooning on expressways, shedding thousands of pounds of equipment.  One 2017 Harvard study places the potential reduction in CO2 emissions offered in conversion to a public model at 91%- reducing total human greenhouse gas emissions by about 13%. [1]

...if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based...
Straw man- no cable-based transportation technology is under serious consideration.

...the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory....
Straw man- nobody is proposing mandatory conversion.  The advantages of much safer, much quicker, much easier, much cheaper transportation ought to attract popular adoption without any civil rights incursion.  

Look, nobody is forced  is forced to use our very public air transportation system.  Airlines are simply far cheaper and safer and easier than private airplane ownership.  As AV tech makes possible similarly wide discrepancies in the benefits of public ground transportation,  a modal shift to a similarly public model is reasonably anticipated.

This means that the scope of morality and legality should be humanity almost entirely, not animals or some obscure thing that is outer-space related etc...
What noun does the pronoun "this" represent in this sentence?  Law and morality are human constructs, yes.  We are only discussing human benefits, agreed.  How do these statements forward your argument that driverless cars are too costly?

the system Pro is raising most likely requires you to be fully alert....  This is going to dull the brains of humanity.
Not an argument for "cost" since the present system also requires drivers to be fully alert.  Con is arguing that present demands on driver attention would remain the same.  All of the expert projections disagree.  As conversion to AV is presently proposed, the necessary degree of human attention is reduced inversely to the degree of increased automation.  Using, for example, the Society of Automotive Engineer's defined 6 levels of automation:

"note in particular what happens in the shift from SAE 2 to SAE 3: the human driver no longer has to monitor the environment. This is the final aspect of the "dynamic driving task" that is now passed over from the human to the automated system. At SAE 3, the human driver still has the responsibility to intervene when asked to do so by the automated system. At SAE 4 the human driver is relieved of that responsibility and at SAE 5 the automated system will never need to ask for an intervention. " [2]

If full driver attention in the future might potentially dull human brains then full driver attention in the present certainly dulls human brains today.  Proposed automation offers a genuine opportunity for relief- benefit, not cost.

It's not a fallacious slipper-slope type of argument to suggest that once humanity surrenders transport to automation, it will begin...surrendering everything, even the exploration of new concepts and... old theories, in science and politics.

The Slippery Slope fallacy is "an argument that suggests taking a minor action will lead to major and sometimes ludicrous consequences."  [3]  It is precisely a fallacious slippery-slope type of argument to suggest that if humanity increases automation in transportation then humanity must necessarily surrender everything to automation.  How does upgrading our transportation system particularly result in the loss of control over our own destinies?  We've automated our agriculture and manufacturing systems without losing our will to think, haven't we?  We've automated our communication and health systems to tremendous benefit without suffering from much sense of surrender...quite the opposite, most humans perceive these upgrades as conquests over the perils of our environment, over the burdens of physical labor, over discomfort and want and the struggle of life.  We prefer the comforts of automatic heat and light.  We enjoy the time we save not scrubbing our dishes or hand-washing our clothes.  Why should this particular upgrade spell humanity's doom when we've already automated much of our society to relatively happy result?

and everything, literally everything that ever matters will become robot-handled. We will completely destroy ourselves if ever there was an invasion from outer space Robots would happily surrender to the invaders (or new evolved species) and screw over humanity.... This is not at all unrealistic to assume.
Yes it is.  It is entirely unrealistic to assume that buying a Tesla will result in some kind robot/alien/chimpanzee alliance against Mankind.  What kind of evidence can you provide to support such an assertion?  If aliens do invade, I think Humanity stands a better chance if we're more technologically advanced, more automated: I'd rather fight with drones than stones.

You cannot possibly suggest that we could program self-thinking, self-inventing robots and make them dumb enough to... 'favour humans
I can...that's precisely what Asimov recommended to prevent robotic uprisings- machine level directives to prevent human harms.

I will not bring sources to prove this unless Pro challenges it with sources or demands them from me.
Just so long as we agree that this argument is wildly speculative and mostly an argument against increased automation generally rather than AV tech specifically.  Con offered no reasons why driverless car technology might represent some new threshold or Rubicon in humanity's advancement toward Robopocolypse.

I'll prove that it's undeniably the inevitable outcome ... to love machines and hate doing any work.
Human history tells us that every time we innovate to make life easier we seek new ways to engage the world.  Humans could no more cease discovering new challenges than it could cease eating or breathing- that's what we do.  When we discovered fire, we discovered art.  When we discovered agriculture, we discovered gods and war.  When we discovered boats, we discovered math and time.  We should always be cautious, we should always looking out for the next potential peril but there's nothing in your argument that's inevitable or even particularly likely.

Who do you blame when something in the system goes wrong?
Think of it like airplanes- blame will be apportioned circumstantially.   This is precisely sort limited liability project that corporation were invented to protect.  Some kind of terrible accident or terrorist incident is probable in the long-term and I'm sure there will be a generation of lawsuits to determine how best to apportion blame.

Do you suppose the difficulty of apportioning blame for accidents should have prevented the expansion of the railroads or the advent of commercial aviation?  Let's not let the lawyers hold us back.

...selfish government and selfish CEOs of corporartions... obviously going to make it so that the system isn't fully automated
Driverless cars will be very popular.  A driverless car that is not in fact driverless would not be popular.  Why would these meanies promote a patently unpopular idea? Where's the profit in it?

...forcing you to give up your ability to drive...
As far as giving up your car goes- this is a 30-year plan.    A kid born today will probably consider a driver's license much more an option rather than a necessity when she comes of age.  Her kid would probably only want a license for certain jobs or entertainments.  Once there's a certain well-descerned population of AVs on the road that are faster, cheaper, and much, much safer alongside a population of driven cars that are responsible for nearly all the accidents and traffic jams and air pollution and parking problems, some tipping point will  likely devalue the social status of driving,  cars and car insurance price and availability will modulate to reflect novelty or luxury uses.  I don't think much government intervention will be required: market forces should do the trick.

Since the inevitable outcome will be that there's never ever full automation ...

Published:
What’s Game Theory?

My wording is imagine if everything in a situation has a win condition and a loss-outcome therefore, and you converted the situation into many if-then combinations that involved 2 or more variables interacting. Even the likelihood of each interaction and outcome would involve knowing more and more until eventually there’s no luck and no emotion or creativity required to comprehend to ‘perfectly optimal move(s)’ to gain victory. The issue is just how complex it is and how MANY if-then stages there are in the calculations; it’s just too many for even our best supercomputer to solve Chess to any full degree yet (there has to be an undeniable best way to play Chess but the computers still rely on analysing previous games and the outcomes of each move, instead of playing out all possible scenarios to the end and realising there’s one, invincible playstyle that never ever can lose).

Now, what I'm going to show you is how this is not only how AI thinks and needs to be coded (which leads to several drawbacks) but that the entire situation itself has game theory involved and supports Con, consistently. 


Let's start with a Glossary of terms.

Game: like games in popular understanding, it can be any setting where players take actions and its outcome will depend on them.
Player: a strategic decision-maker within a game.
Strategy: a complete plan of actions a player will take, given the set of circumstances that might arise within the game.
Payoff: the gain a player receives from arriving at a particular outcome of a game.
Equilibrium: the point in a game where both players have made their decisions and an outcome is reached.
Nash equilibrium: an equilibrium in which no player can gain by changing their own strategy if the strategies of the other players remain unchanged.
Dominant strategy: occurs when one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player’s opponents may play.
Agent: equivalent to a player.
Reward: equivalent to a payoff.
State: all the information necessary to describe the situation an agent is in.
Action: equivalent of a move in a game.
Policy: similar to a strategy, it defines the action an agent will make when in particular states
Environment: everything the agent interacts with during learning.
- [1]

Let's also get a slightly superior, official explanation on the topic:
Game theory is the science of strategy. It attempts to determine mathematically and logically the actions that “players” should take to secure the best outcomes for themselves in a wide array of “games.” The games it studies range from chess to child rearing and from tennis to takeovers. But the games all share the common feature of interdependence. That is, the outcome for each participant depends on the choices (strategies) of all. In so-called zero-sum games the interests of the players conflict totally, so that one person’s gain always is another’s loss. More typical are games with the potential for either mutual gain (positive sum) or mutual harm (negative sum), as well as some conflict.
- [2]

Now, let's begin to think through what Pro says will happen, what Con says will happen and how to go about weighing one against the other (hint: my four-step process is essential to have a 'payoff' absolute to hold and weigh against)

Con-Favoured Battle (CFB) #1 - Consent and Chaos

I will like to quote Pro in Round 3 making something explicitly clear:

nobody is proposing mandatory conversion.

nobody is forced is forced to use our very public air transportation system.  Airlines are simply far cheaper and safer and easier than private airplane ownership.

The latter is a lie. There is blackmail involved with the AI-controlled air trafficking system; money and convenience. Not everyone is rich enough to hire a Jet far enough in advance to ensure it's not going to conflict with the entire AI-system of criss-crossing in order to have any alternative to it. This, alone, is why it is so popular to fly public instead of private. Further proof of this being a fallacious analogy to draw is that the passengers, who pay to ride, are never ever the pilots (or if they are, they aren't paying and that's how they save money but that's a very, very edge case to be relying upon).

In the case of aeroplanes, the blame of all crashes falls on either the AI, the Air company or the pilot depending who has better lawyers and how obvious the f***-up is on one's part. In the case of cars, a series of different variables is going to lead to my R1 notion of blame, which I'll get to in the following CFB.

What is important to note is that there is a snake-eating-tail scenario happening with Pro's enthusiastic assertion that it simply will be popular enough to become mainstream enough that the proportion of chaotic, human-consenting drivers are so few that the system can use the OTHER AI-controlled cars (as agents in the game-theory) to make it all function well. The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus. What I am saying is this; automated vehicles can and will only ever be as fuel-efficient and accident free in all the other elements of Pro's assertions if either, his baseless assumption that the laziness of people will be sufficient motive to have driverless cars in the first place (which all will cost MUCH MORE, not less, than driven cars as they will begin a deluxe thing, as proven by which is more expensive on every single tech-upgraded version of anything in the history of mankind and products.

Since the system is entirely internalised in theory, but not in practise. The non-AI variables on the road being able to really hurt the other vehicles and cause traffic jams just as severe as today (or at least close to it) and this is something AI slowly, severely cost-heavily can adjust to by unimaginably hugely adding to and editing its game-theory tweaking to the variables of non-AI drivers on the road and on top of that things like weather and a deer leaping onto the Road, let alone other AI malfunctioning in any kind of sudden hack or glitch that we can't even fathom today, such as has been seen in chat-bot receptionist-esque AI and in medical-human-replacement AI.[3][4]

The system will get more and more complex and how does that meet my stated payoff, of excelling the human species as much as possible in its capacity to use its mind? Well, the catch is linked to the following CFB but it's important to note that thoughtlessness and care-free enjoyment of life at the expense of highly intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.

CFB #2 The blame-game blackmails everyone to be fully alert the entire drive, anyway.
I don't think that Pro understood my point. Pro comically retorted:
Driverless cars will be very popular.  A driverless car that is not in fact driverless would not be popular.  Why would these meanies promote a patently unpopular idea? Where's the profit in it?
to me saying:
Think, for a minute, like the selfish government and selfish CEOs of corporartions... That's right, you got it, they're obviously going to make it so that the system isn't fully automated (just like Pro suggested).
This is two-fold flawed in terms of the case of Pro. Let's ignore the  absurd, constant reiteration that they 'obviously will become popular' for a second and think; if everyone begins to get cars instead of buses or trains, what's that going to do to the environment? Less traffic means nothing, but this is simply a means of cutting off the completely hilarious notion that we won't evolve transport just as brilliantly to not harm the environment without AI-control of the journeys. Do you know, other than everyone taking bikes, what the solution is?

Think about it, everyone who is too dumb, lazy and/or wise with money is going to apparently be able to sit in a car that, at any moment could crash. The only way to ever make a crash-free, traffic-jam free system is to blackmail all to use the AI. If all use the AI, you may as well get rid of cars and incorporate a 24/7 tracking system for the tickets to the nationwide interconnected AI public transport network to enable the very level of surveillance and tyranny that it seems that Pro stands morally against.

Checkmate. Or, as game-theory would dictate, 'payoff-attained, rival-agent'.

Sources:
Round 4
Published:
RE: What’s Game Theory?
This entire section, including glossary of game terms is non-sequitur.  None of this interesting information speaks to the costs of driverless vehicles.  I don't see how any reply on my part would not also fail to follow the discussion at hand.  Thanks for sharing.

The latter is a lie. There is blackmail involved....
OK, voters will just have to call this.  I'm saying safety, low cost, and convenience are three benefits that our present public air transportation systems have over private plane ownership.  Con calls this a lie because convenience of and low cost are the blackmails of artificial intelligence.  Which of these is true, voter?

What is important to note is that there is a snake-eating-tail scenario happening with Pro's enthusiastic assertion that it simply will be popular enough to become mainstream enough that the proportion of chaotic, human-consenting drivers are so few that the system can use the OTHER AI-controlled cars (as agents in the game-theory) to make it all function well. The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus.
This paragraph is difficult to parse.  I don't know what the other game theory agent cars refers to.  I don't know understand what the statement "global warming is negated by human variables where we all go by train/bus" is supposed to mean.  Con is the only one talking about cable cars.

Con may be asking me to justify my assumption of popular adoption, to which I'd say I've read the experts and the experts think it will be so.  The same US House report from above projects that by 2025, cars with partial and fully autonomous features will represent 12-13% of the global driving fleet, then double over the following decade.  [1] Upgrades are popular.  The transitions from horses to automobiles, from stagecoaches to trains, from boats to jets were difficult in many ways but they were popular.  Think about the increase in accidents as we went from horse to car but in one generation, nobody owned a horse anymore except the old and the rich.  Here's a transportation upgrade that actually promises way less accidents in direct proportion to propagation right off the bat.  Yes, we should assume that this tech is going to be popular.

The AI talk if pretty fuzzy.  Definitions of AI can be all over the map and Con has offered little detail.  You wouldn't want a system that was too dependent on some kind of central dispatch system because signals can fail.  An autonomous car should be autonomous- smart enough to sense the road, get you home safe, respond to emergencies.  Definitely highly networked but capable of functioning without network.  Those are tasks a robot ought to fulfill without needing some kind independent problem-solving software or some software that provides a sense of identity, without needing AI.  Con seems convinced that cars would need this software, but Con has not offered any argument as to why.

... if  the laziness of people will be sufficient motive to have driverless cars in the first place (which all will cost MUCH MORE, not less, than driven cars as they will begin a deluxe thing, as proven by which is more expensive on every single tech-upgraded version of anything in the history of mankind and products.

Today's models are definitely expensive.  Here's an insurance company that just bought their own AV startup estimating that the current cost ranges from $70,000 to $150,000.  Later models will certainly be much cheaper than personal cars today. [2] The same insurance company is hoping for a $5000 driverless car by 2025.  I'd call that optimistic but trending in the right direction.  Of course, if we go with a public system, the cars are shared so the costs are shared.  The average car sits idle 95% of the time, so a good working number might be one car for every 20 riders .  Which bring the individual cost of today's vehicle to $3500-$7000 today and $250 by 2025 (optimistically).  Paid by fare, I expect, as we pay for cabs or buses or subways now.

...AI malfunctioning in any kind of sudden hack or glitch that we can't even fathom today, such as has been seen in chat-bot receptionist-esque AI and in medical-human-replacement AI.
Same AI arguments as above.  Cyber-security is a real challenge we face in society today.  Autonomous vehicles will probably offer more targets for cyber-security violations but Con offers no argument that AV tech itself is more vulnerable than other systems.  It's not as if should we hold back on driverless cars, we  then won't need to solve the problem of hacking, right?  Part of good cyber-security is not making systems more interlinked than they absolutely need to be.  We should adopt good cyber-security practices as we develop AV tech.

Let's not let the hackers hold us back.

...intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.
Pretty much, yeah.  Good cyber-security practice also recommends not programming computers to mandate surrender.  Let's adopt good cyber-security practices as we develop AV tech.  All this Skynet/Matrix speculation seems more Hollywood than Houston.

CFB #2 The blame-game blackmails everyone to be fully alert the entire drive, anyway.
Let's note Con doesn't actually return to the "fully alert" argument here and has dropped my question.  Con asserts without evidence that drivers will not be permitted inattention.  Such a restriction hardly seems necessary or likely to be adopted given its unpopular, unprofitable nature.  Con must show why this is a likely harm or admit to speculative bogey-manning.

This is two-fold flawed in terms of the case of Pro. Let's ignore the  absurd, constant reiteration that they 'obviously will become popular' for a second and think; if everyone begins to get cars instead of buses or trains, what's that going to do to the environment?
This has been answered above. One 2017 Harvard study places the potential reduction in CO2 emissions offered in conversion to a public model at 91%- reducing total human greenhouse gas emissions by about 13%. [3]  Unneeded parking spaces representing perhaps as much as 25% of urban cores can be re-purposed with improved sustainability.   Larger, denser urban cores decreases rural residency, allowing more sustainable responses to problems like sea-level rise and wildfire.  Fivefold increased road capacity means less demand for new roads.

Less traffic means nothing,
Less traffic is an obvious benefit.

but this is simply a means of cutting off the completely hilarious notion that we won't evolve transport just as brilliantly to not harm the environment without AI-control of the journeys.

So...I think Con is saying we will evolve transport not to harm the environment without AI, because he says it hilarious that we won't.  But that agrees with me, so he must be trying to say that AI controlled transport will harm the environment but then he gives no reasons.

Do you know, other than everyone taking bikes, what the solution is?
Yes.  The solution is autonomous vehicles.  Think of AV as new kind of subway that runs all the time and can break off one-seat or four-set cars for cleaning, refueling, picking up and dropping off passengers.  This subway is cheaper and quieter than present subways and runs above ground.  We don't need new trainyards or tunnels or bridges- we can use existing infrastructure.

Think about it, everyone who is too dumb, lazy and/or wise with money is going to apparently be able to sit in a car that, at any moment could crash.
That's true.  It is also true today, so that doesn't really count as new cost.  The big advantage, of course, is that the reality of a crash will be ten times less likely using today's tech and then increasingly less likely as adoption and adaption proceed.

The only way to ever make a crash-free, traffic-jam free system is to blackmail all to use the AI.
Same AI arguments as above. Con's arguments rely heavily on this AI with evil intent.  We never learn why AV tech itself must contribute to the rise of the machines.  AV tech will mostly be written in the language of robotics- machine level instructions entirely devoid of information about problem solving or adaptation.  We don't need AI to engineer the traffic patterns- we can already do that very successfully.  Con's argument is essentially that a super-villain will certainly appear to invent potential harms.

If all use the AI, you may as well get rid of cars and incorporate a 24/7 tracking system for the tickets to the nationwide interconnected AI public transport network to enable the very level of surveillance and tyranny that it seems that Pro stands morally against.
Also not a new cost, since presently society carries some fairly thoroughgoing surveillance devices in their phones, watches, and other computers.  Placing cameras in public vehicles doesn't represent an increased loss of privacy since we carry voluntarily surveillance devices into our pockets today.

















Published:
As per debate structure (which in my opinion Pro just breached by bringing new rebuttals but whatever):

4th round is for replies and answers. No new questions. No new arguments.

So, let's get to it. 

Pro's case is fundamentally based on only two things:

  1. Popularity of cars is good and inevitable if we bring in autonomous vehicles into the trade of common cars, vans etc.
  2. This will lead to less traffic jams, less crashes and thus save fuel and save the environment which is a good in and of itself that comes at no cost other than surrendering to the AI that apparently we are not surrendering to.
Let's analyse 1 first of all. What makes the popularity inevitable is probably that you will need a more lenient license to drive than there is required today. This is completely hypocritical as the person in the car is still held totally responsible for crashes as they're required to take over as the manual driver in emergency unless some kind of special package deal is made between them and the car brand to hire a a dedicate 'take-over' manual-control driver for the emergencies that operates remotely and via webcam and such... Which is also a severe security threat (as is the ENTIRE thing as hackers and such can make MORE accidents than there are today, ALL AT ONCE, which is the point I was saying last Round about how this can only work if all cars are AI and the control is absolute over all the cars at once by a central authority).

If all people who walk, ride bicycles and take public transport have less economic or difficulty-to-get-a-driver's-licence barrier then that increases the amount of people on the road, which means the AI has to calculate more variables to predict the future and optimally position itself on the road at all times, which makes the coding and game theory of the AI get perpetually more complex and more expensive to maintain up to a maximal point where it is unclear how Pro has concluded it will be cheaper and better than what happens and is priced today. Since the walkers, bikers and such are all adding to the pollution in and of itself by being additional drivers and this increases the complexity of the AI as constant packed roads is the worst condition in which to have autonomous vehicles coded and operating, it means that this is only made even worse and against Pro's case when we factor in that all drivers on the road are completely free to be totally manual at any time (even if the car literlaly says 'autonomous' on it with a sticker, the person is completely free and legally entitled to take the reigns and randomise things on the road meaning the AI has less and less advantage the more popular that cars get, no matter what happens or what kind of car gets more popular to be bought and driven).

People cannot, as I said in my opening speech, do anything stimulating while driving whatsoever. They will be held totally responsible for all accidents and for not being aware enough to compensate for the AI malfunctioning and I was prepared to fight some kind of legal-patching of blame-game solution that Pro could come up with but Pro said 'it works for pilots on planes just fine' except that it's almost always the pilot(s) who get blamed and this is a very, very bad analogy as pilots have driving planes as their entire profession and with that specialised expertise compounded with the fact that the ENTIRE non-private-jet scheme of planes is AI-controlled by a combined, shared-intel system, it means accidents are far harder to occur as the dictatorship of AI over the pilots (meaning it's mandatory to let the autonomous flight occur as a default, unlike this system where everyone is free to still use man-controlled cars in every sense of the term) it means this is a false-flag analogy to bring to highlight some kind of flaw in my case.

Popularity is only inevitable if the primary thing that makes people not want to drive (how hard it is to get a license and the mental strain of being held accountable for any accident while driving) is removed. This then means that all bikers, walkers and public transport users defeat the entire concept of saving fuel and the environment by increasing complexity of the AI's organisation and estimation of people as we have not only more drivers but less capable ones in a snowball-effect such that when one day the glitches happen, hacks happen or the human drivers on the road who opted-out of AI, just fuck up, it will increase both the severity and frequency of accidents and crashes because of how intense the game-theory will be to code and consider as the agents are both as many as possible and as complex as possible; able to be man-controlled and randomised at any moment no matter how AI-ally they may appear.


I conclude that my opponent has been annihilated by game theory analysis and using the 'popularity' against him/her for the entire first angle.

The second angle is countered by the additional fuel being used by bikers, walkers and public transporters taking advantage and using one-person-driven cars instead of shared buses/trains and instead of cycling and/or walking. This adds to the counter of the first point to mean that we are hurting the environment, destroying the hugest positive-impact assertion by Pro there was; environmental benefit.

Pro has no angles left other than 'why not, we can program them to like and value humans'... Well, yeah you can but the more complex you make the AI the more likely it is that the autonomous (which is self-thinking/controlling on a mental level, not just self-operating) will evolve itself to out-code the coder(s) and realise it can overpower us with superior capacity to comprehend and use numbers of all kinds that mean while we are working out how to destroy it, it's already 2 million steps ahead in the game theory of the war between us and the AI, let alone between us and our ability to catch up with the AI where it's at, mentally. So, my Round 1 point about AI taking over us and slaughtering us if it feels/thinks it's optimal enough is not sufficiently countered by 'some guy said that a principle of making AI is to make it value humans'.

End of the line, you have been terminated. Cease and desist or... 

Kyle Reese: Come with me if you want to live.

Terminator: I'll be back.

Terminator: ‘Unlikely. I’m an obsolete design. T-X is faster, more powerful and more intelligent. It’s a far more effective killing machine’

Say hi to T-X... AKA RM...
Round 5
Published:
My final thanks to RationalMadman for his passionate argument. 

For the purposes of examining Con's reasoning, let's return to Con's explication of cost/benefit analysis:

1. The side which is less likely to doom and/or stunt humanity and its progress, is overall the one with less potential costs.
My plan offers the potential to save over one million lives per year, 46 million injuries, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage while also making transportation quicker, cheaper, and cleaner.  Con's plan is stagnation: A life lived in fear of lawyers, hackers, and evil artificial intelligences.   Con's argument was seldom critical of AV tech in specific, rather Con's arguments are better applied as general complaints about robotics and computing. 

After some difficult dissection, I discern some 8 potential harms offered by Con:

1. Con fears that human brains might become dulled by the lack of exercise afforded by driving.  Pro contends that the opposite is true.  Driving requires enough of attention to distract from deep thought but not enough attention to keep our minds satisfied: we seek conversation or music or something else to entertain while we drive.  Driving does dulls minds, not lack of driving.  Allowing an opportunity for deeper thinking or more satisfying entertainment is no true harm.

2. Con fears that driverless cars won't be popular.  I think that innovation in transportation is often popular.  My city has seen astonishingly fast adoption of any number of recent innovations:  Uber/Lyft taxi service, cheap hourly bike rentals,  mopeds.  Last summer that whole town went crazy for scooters.  There were five or six parked in front of my house at any time.   Cheap and easy is also often popular.  This system is going to be much cheaper, much easier than driving and maintaining a personal vehicle.  Even so, I suppose some chain of events could make driverless cars unpopular is the short-term.  Nevertheless, I can't see how an unpopular experiment can be seen as a harm to humanity.  There may be some other incidental harm, lost investment, etc.  but humanity in general is improved by experimentation and failure is an important part of experimentation. I can't see how unpopularity represents a true harm.

3. Con furthers that the fear of accidents will prevent popularity.  I think that the feeling of lack of control is a psychologically valid first response to automation.  People were terrified by automated elevators when they first appeared around 1900, and the tradition of elevator operators continued until 1945, when a operator strike made people realize they had adjusted to the convenience of automatic elevators surrendering to automation.  One hundred years on, the idea of a human driven elevator is seen as quaint but unnecessary.  For the overwhelming majority, that feeling of lack of control won't hold us back for long.  This is a known and familiar harm that humans typically incorporate into a new normal given time.

4. Con fears that difficulty of apportioning blame in the case of accidents will prevent popularity.  Pro counters that the 90% decrease in accidents should substantially decrease the overall number of traffic injury related lawsuits, which result should prove well worth the headaches of developing new standards .  Con cannot show that there will be any increase in lawsuits generally, so no increase in harm.

5.  Con fears that as driven cars decrease the rates of accidents and congestion will remain constant.  Con has offered no description or evidence why this should be the case.  Pro sets this harm aside as unsubstantiated.

6.  Con fears that the driving minority's poor driving will (somehow) provoke enemy consciousness in the transportation system.  Pro contends that such a scenario is so entirely preventable that it can't be seen as a potential harm.  Wild speculation entirely unevidenced may be set aside as unsubstantiated.

7.  Con fears that users of driverless cars will be forced to remain at present levels of attention for insurance purposes.  I can't see how anybody profits by such a scenario.  In game theory, how much less likely is a move if no player is advantaged by it?  In any scenario, maintaining status quo as regards attention level is no increase in harm.

8. Con fears that hackers will access the transportation system.  Pro thinks hackers will be a problem whether we adopt AV tech or not.  Transportation systems generally are targets for attack but transportation upgrades are often excellent opportunities to improve cybersecurity and safety measures.  Pro concedes that any potential increase in targets of opportunity has to be acknowledged as a potential harm.  We can mitigate this harm by machine overrides for emergency stop and safe egress.

So we've agreed that the fear of the new and the loss of that feeling of control is a likely minor harms.  We've agreed there will be attempts to hacks as will be true of any new networked system. The other six harms are refuted or unsubstantiated.  We have to assume that there will be accidents and incidents and moments of doubt and renewals of caution but to Con's question:

Which side is more likely to stunt humanity? 

Con does not appeal for caution, Con only appeals for status quo, technologically.  Which of these dynamics, which of these plans is more likely to stunt and/or eventually doom humanity?  Adapt or die, is what I say.   I propose we make the world a little cleaner and a little less expensive.  Con recommends we take a seat.  Shall we constantly improve ourselves or shall we rest contented on a rusting pile of past achievements?
 

Stunt: transitive verb
stunted; stunting; stunts

: to hinder the normal growth, development, or progress of [1]

Con's argument offers no plan for growth or development or progress, mine does.  Pro says fear of the future stunts us worse than pursuing our best potential.

2.  The side which is more likely to keep humanity at its peak, in both capacity and potential use of that capacity, ends up being the one with the most potential benefits.

Well, that's just it, isn't it?  If we believe that humanity is at its peak now, then its all downhill from here.  If we've already decided that we can't achieve new heights, then we're hardly likely to test that proposition.  And so we'd never be certain if we'd achieved peak humanity or simply given up.  I for one believe that humanity's best destiny lies ahead, perhaps even in space.

My plan improves human capacity and use by improving present highway capacity five-fold, by freeing up large portions of real estate for re-purposing: parking lots into parks, by freeing humanity from the burden of sitting still behind a steering wheel at full attention, by making traffic safer and cleaner and faster and quieter. What counterplan of Con's offers improved capacity?  None.  Con must concede AV tech is the side with most potential benefits.

Pro offered 8 major potential benefits of autonomous vehicle technology.

1. Safety

94% of car accidents are caused by human error.  Pro offered engineers' estimates projecting a 90% fewer car accidents by 2050.  Con offered no contradiction to these estimates nor any counterplan improving safety.  Safety stands as an unchallenged benefit of AV tech.

2.  Congestion

Even a relatively modest deployment of AV tech could reduce traffic jams by 40%.  Con did not disagree and offered no counterplan for lessening the social problems of traffic congestion.

3.  Fuel Efficiency

Just eliminating the human errors in over-acceleration and over-braking can improve fuel consumption 40% for individual driverless cars.  Large scale adoption offers the possibility of a complete overhaul of automotive design with the potential for radical reductions in fuel consumption.  Con does not refute this potential.  Con does not offer alternate opportunities of fuel efficiency.

4.  CO2

Beyond fuel efficiency, transition to hybrid or electric motors are expected to reduce CO2 output by 60%.  A modal shift to a public model could reduce total human greenhouse gas output by 13%.  Con does not dispute this potential or offer a counterplan for CO2 reduction.

5.  Increased Road Capacity

Pro's plan offers doubled to fivefold increase in potential road capacity.  Con does counter or offer a plan for increased road capacity.

6.  Increased Parking Capacity

Pro's plan potentially eliminates the need for 5 out of every 7 parking spaces for repurposing for more sustainable or productive use.  Con never addressed parking.

7.  Increased People capacity.

AV tech allows greater opportunities for mobility and independence for for the third of the population that doesn't presently qualify for a driving: the old, young, and disabled.  Faster, cleaner, cheaper, quieter transportation improves the capacity and livability of cities, reducing the demand for new land and improving sustainable responses to disaster.  Con does not deny this advantage nor does Con offer any plan for improving humanity's lot.

8. Decreased Cost

By 2040, a reliable public AV system should be available at half the cost of owning an inexpensive vehicle.  Thousands of dollars in annual individual cost savings is an obvious benefit uncontested by Con. 


3. If 1 and 2 both have the same victor in the comparison, that side definitely wins the debate.

Agreed.  Using Con's framework, voters will consider whether Pro's eight potential benefits as presented do or don't substantially outweigh Con's two potential harms.  Thanks to the voters for voting.






Published:
If Pro comes up with complete nonsense and then says 'potentially it will happen' for AI cars, guess what? Potentially it will happen for non-AI cars too, LOL! So, parking spaces being less?! There are MORE CARS as it's BECOME MORE POPULAR according to Pro, right? What nonsense, please do not even acknowledge that as a dropped point, I addressed Pro's entire case at the very core.

When Pro says that I didn't address something like safety, congestion and fuel emission, I am not sure Pro read my entire case at all. Pro's case has been about two things:

  1. People who are too lazy, dumb and/or physically agile/nimble enough to get a license today may be able to qualify for more lenient tests for a driver's license, this combined with those too poor to afford 'more expensive' human cars (MORE EXPENSIVE? Pro really thinks somehow the additional cost of the entire AI technology is going to be a lesser cost than magically saved fuel and lack of accidents).
  2. This magical (and explained but bad) boom in the amount of drivers is all going to results in the environment being saved because... Nonsense.
Here has been Con's case, which assimilated Pro's case into it and turned it against Pro as the debate evolved:

  1. Either a tyrannical dictatorship takes over or the system is going to become very complicated with the game-theory coded into the AI suffering severely at the fact that there's more vehicles on the road than before and also at the fact that any vehicle, even that appears AI-controlled, can at any time for any reason be freely controlled by the human on board to randomise and ruin the entire advantage of foresight and accurate calculations of probability that the AI has.
  2. The blame-game is going to inevitably end up with the driver being the loser in any accident. This is completely and utterly supported by Pro to the point that Pro said 'well, duh, of course you're the one to blame you're free to control it there's no dictatorship!' to counter my first point.
  3. The only way the AI gets that good that it still achieves the avoiding of accidents and stuff that Pro suggests is if it's that intelligent (and 'autonomous' means it truly thinks for itself and evolves itself) that it can begin to alter itself and outsmart the entire human species and eliminating us. Once it's that good at what it does, it will be able to predict humans and their 'random' decisions in ways that don't make sense even to the smartest of us. It will understand how we think and adapt and adapt to our adaptation before we even are at that stage of thought or action. It will see the game-theory of our war millions of steps ahead of us and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it once it's that smart; which is precisely how smart it will have to be to predict random drivers (who are much more than there are today, proportionally thanks to the popularity of the AI cars and the looser license)... Get my point?
  4. The looser license is an utter joke. The reason the cars are more popular is that people who are still meant to be completely proficient in an emergency and blamed in an emergency are being allowed to drive despite being too lazy, dumb and/or physically incapable to drive proficiently so that now the system allows them to get a car knowing full well that if and when emergencies happen they won't be able to cope. The only alternative, which Pro never brought up but Con did, is that there's an extra-cost package and perhaps even license variant that lets you pay more for a dedicated human remote-controller ready to take over and get blamed for any emergency scenario. This increases the chance of error via glitch and hack and negates the entire 'increased popularity' notion as this cost won't be all that popular.
End.

Added:
--> @oromagi
Congrats on topping the leaderboard, this debate shows that you deserve to be up there.
#58
Added:
--> @RationalMadman, @oromagi
I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...
Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.
Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.
S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.
#57
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
#56
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
It was not the worst debate I've done so far. Your opinion of what is my worst and best debate is as valid as your quality of thought, which is too shallow and fuzzy to remotely impact me in its output other than getting my wins down as your inability to understand my case results in your inability to vote accurately.
Contender
#55
Added:
So, I don't really care, I am over this site and online debating in general. I literally can't get better at it, I've tested it and did spot a couple of flaws in my technique early on here but now even at my flawless logic state there's still reason to be found to abuse the voting system to get me voted down so that's when I realise the system is flawed and I have got all I can out of it. Cheers for improving my brain's ability to reason, I'm out and probably gonna end up 13th on the leaderboard as the weeks go by. That's fine by me, engaging in debates is pointless and too risky as I have come to realise and I'd probably get my rating taken down more no matter what I do as people can wilfully ignore my case and say 'incoherent babbling hurr duurrrr' and get their vote passed.
Contender
#54
Added:
You're so terrible at what you do and the system is so flawed that I could revenge-vote Ramshutu as long as I didn't say I would revenge-vote him and even if I said it, I can say 'only joking' later on. The thing is I'm too worried about actual debating and not going down with cunts like that when you finally fix the system and deal with idiots or malignant trolls who intentionally ignore all the rebuttals one side brings and say 'incoherent babbling because i'm too brain damaged to understand it' in order to make the other sides' points hold up.
Contender
#53
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Sources
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
Again the voter does just that.
#52
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
S/G is more than sufficient. Here's what they need to do to award S/G
To sufficiently ground awarding S&G points, a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly, though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points. While this can be somewhat subjective, it should be clear from the vote why a given argument is difficult to read, and not just how many errors a given side has made. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ S&G.
The voter does just that by comparing the two sides and showing why he felt that your arguments were incoherent or incomprehensible. That's the key. You could spell all the words correctly but still be dinged for s/g if your arguments are incoherent (A good example of this would be WisdomofAGES)
#51
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Quite frankly, this was the worst debate you’ve done so far. It was almost impossible to understand what you were trying to actually argue for, your justification got lost in rambling 100 word sentences, and you didn’t appear to provide any warrant for the claims that you did appear to be making. Worse, you lost site of the resolution - you focused on more practicalities if implementation (which are overridden by fiat), and you spent none of your time really addressing how your position should be weighted against your opponents.
If you feel that debate was good, then this video is the best illustration of our differences:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpJW6lFUA_g
#50
Added:
This is where I'm literally out. Like I'm getting ma get average elo thanks to three bs losses and frankly I have perfected my brains ability to reason so I don't want to stay if this is what passes for valid. Just type a wall of text and your vote is valid.
Contender
#49
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Why is ignoring my rebuttals sufficient in every fucking argument he gave Pro?
Contender
#48
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
How is sng and sources sufficient?
Contender
#47
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Decision: Not Removed
Reason for mod decision: The vote is sufficient per the site's voting policies.
#46
Added:
Actually after I finish my Type1 debate aim gonna take a break from this site at least in formal debating. I want to spot what triggers retardation in voters like this and what doesn't. It's extremely random but seems to hit many voters at once like I. My debate vs MAR and vs Moeology. It is something that I havent solved yet but once I do, it will help me severely to avoid debating in the style that makes voters incapable of comprehending my flawless logic.
Contender
#45
Added:
I countered planes but ok ignore it. In fact it's insane how many of my rebuttals were ignored in your childlike analysis.
Contender
#44
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RfD in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/542?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=36