npts2020

I understand just enough Polish to guess they are telling us their interests are climate science, medicine and AI. Not sure there is really a question or topic to discuss.

I would like to see some data on this. It seems to me lottery sales, being ubiquitous in many (if not most) places and cheaper than casino games, present a greater opportunity and if you have a gambling addiction, it probably only matters what preference (if any) you have for giving your money away.

Define "worse", please. Most casino games have better odds than any state lottery.

Unless you are planning on staging a fake "alien" landing so that a "more advanced authority" can tell humans what to do. Doing the bidding of god seems to be losing some of its attraction.

Very few large ocean going vessels are not steam powered and the vast majority that aren't are military. The reason being that most of the relative advantages of gas turbines (quick start up, size, no steam etc.) are not as relevant to commercial ships as the fact that steam turbines are generally quite a bit more efficient.

This is how most ships get their fresh water. They also use seawater for flushing commodes.

Then why are you commenting on it. I really did not intend to hijack the thread beyond saying AI could be used to automate our transportation system. The engineering and cost problems are relatively minor compared to overcoming the "big gubmint is going to take away muh car (freedom)" mindset.

I thought you already knew all of that, thus enabling you to claim:

What are the costs, time, effort and lost opportunities? Also, what are the new problems with society and accessibility?

The SW USA is about to get a year's worth of rain in the next couple of days.

We'll just have to disagree, then. I say those engineering issues are solvable but apparently you do not. For one thing, vehicles in an automated system will not have to be subject to the same constant high speed turns, braking and accelerating as a race car. For another, there won't be any technical (just physical) restrictions on design, weight, power, etc. and if the system is enclosed to separate the system from pedestrians etc, things like weather and foreign objects should mostly not be a major consideration.

OTOH a cab will pick you up at your front door and drop you off wherever it us you are going at any time of day. Even if one lives next to a bus stop or train station and is going near another stop, there are frequently times and places where mass transit doesn't run. It would be interesting to see what the other 2/3 of the fare is and how much of it is the same for mass transit. Well, humans drive cars around in circles (actually ovals if you want to be technical) at 200 mph (average speed for the Indianapolis 500 this year was over 190 mph including pit stops and yellow flags). Are you telling me that in a system designed similar to railways AI can't go as fast? How many current railroads (especially in the US) go that fast? I would like to see a system anyone can access at any time. Why would we continue to have mass transit with such a personal transit system in place?

AFAIK there are no federal regulations in the US about building your own boat other than the Coast Guard safety guidelines but most, if not all, states require boats to be licensed and some may have restrictions in order to get one.

And I asked, with similar system design, why cars couldn't go as fast, your reply is because some people might feel motion sickness? I have never been unfortunate enough to have motion sickness but I hear tell it happens in all manner of transport; boats, planes, human driven cars and even trains.

Again you are comparing apples to oranges. What maglev system in the world has any of those things where the train goes as fast as a car?

You are comparing apples to oranges, it is precisely because "it is on city streets". If you had a similar design as a maglev, why couldn't it go just as fast?

How much more per passenger mile do you estimate an automated system would be vs a comparable rail system? Taxis are expensive primarily because you have a driver to pay. Why couldn't an automated system be designed to go just as fast? Are we replacing the current system or just putting automated vehicles on it? Since a modern system would likely have to be owned and operated by a government entity of some kind (similar to the postal service), the US will not likely be a leader in this kind of thing. This would not have to preclude people from owning their own vehicle but I can't imagine many people wanting to go through the expense to do so.

Because you are dragging irrelevancies into the discussion. In case you don't know, there are already people who use the current road system who can't afford/store/want a vehicle. Things like car rentals, taxis or borrowing. Why would this necessarily change in an automated system? Also, in a system where the vehicle arrives at your doorstep and takes a person directly to the doorstep of their destination any time they like, who is going to go to a bus stop or train station, wait on a train or bus (if they happen to be running at that time), then have to get from wherever they are dropped off to where they are going?

Why would everyone have to own their vehicles and why would you outlaw having your own?

When autonomous vehicles become ubiquitous (especially if they are in a self-contained and self-powered system), there will be no need for mass transit or railways because everyone will be able to access them, not just those with drivers' licenses and/or the ability to haul loads. I think Peterkin and iNow adequately explain why even more roads will not be required but I can further elucidate if needed. Why would a single automated transit system be worse than the current paradigm where we pay for roads, railroads and all of the local transit systems?

I thought it might be but sarcasm doesn't necessarily translate to print very well and there are those who would believe such a thing...

Citation? I was always under the impression that stress caused slower growth of all types of hair due to increased corticosterone levels hindering that growth.

Seems like AI could "know" whether fuel/recharging is necessary before arriving at the desired destination and take appropriate steps. Why wouldn't this be preprogrammed?

I agree, but none of this explains why it can't be done. It is simply why it won't happen in the US first.