MangoCats

Human drivers are only safe when they're not distracted, emotionally disturbed, intoxicated, and physically challenged (vision, muscle control, etc.) 1% of the population has epilepsy, and a large number of them are in denial or simply don't realize that they have periodic seizures - until they wake up after their crash.

So, yeah, AI isn't perfect either - and it's not as good as an "ideal" human driver, but at what point will AI be better than a typical/average human driver? Not today, I'd say, but soon...

If an IQ of 100 is average, I'd rate AI at 80 and down for most tasks (and of course it's more complex than that, but as a starting point...)

So, if you're dealing with a filing clerk with a functional IQ of 75 in their role - AI might be a better experience for you.

Some of the crap that has been published on the internet in the past 20 years comes to an IQ level below 70 IMO - not saying I want more AI because it's better, just that - relatively speaking - AI is better than some of the pay-for-clickbait garbage that came before it.

A gun isn't dangerous, if you handle it correctly.

Same for an automobile, or aircraft.

If we build powerful AIs and put them "in charge" of important things, without proper handling they can - and already have - started crashing into crowds of people, significantly injuring them - even killing some.

AI is not actual intelligence. However, it can produce results better than a significant number of professionally employed people...

I am reminded of when word processors came out and "administrative assistant" dwindled as a role in mid-level professional organizations, most people - even increasingly medical doctors these days - do their own typing. The whole "typing pool" concept has pretty well dried up.

Grafts and extorts?

Don't call it a special tax, call it an incentive for industries which pay fair living wages for employees. Everybody pays the same tax rate, but if you employ people the cost of employing those people can be partially rebated to your business (from the taxes it pays.)

You've never been in Minneapolis in February? Phoenix in August?

That's a placeholder, meaningless, price.

Whatever they charge, you can assume it will be optimized to gain market control (not share) and once they have market control they will begin charging whatever the market will bear.

are his taxis going to be significantly cheaper than other providers? If not, why would I use them?

I had that one taxi driver in Philadelphia who took me on a 40 minute tour of the city for a 6 minute hop from my hotel to the place I needed to be. Running red lights, making wild lane changes across traffic... he was an anomaly, but one you don't quickly forget. Then there are the taxi drivers from SFO to downtown San Francisco doing 80-85 in their clapped out 680,000 mile Caprices. The fact that there aren't crumpled yellow Caprices lining the sides of the expressway is small comfort as you bounce along on completely dysfunctional shock absorbers flying after every pothole - occasional sparks flying on the touchdowns. I've taken that ride a half dozen times across a span of 20 years, it's always been like that for me.

When the robot taxi rapes and kills you, nobody will ever catch it.

Glad they're still there - hope they're not working without pay anytime soon.