Election 2016

Which Presidential Candidate Is Pumped about Driverless Cars, 3D Printing, and Gene Editing?

"I think it is important to not regulate the AI industry," says Gary Johnson.



One of the most appalling things about the 2016 election is how backward-looking virtually all of the candidates are.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are early baby boomers and true to that generation's solipsism, they can only envision American greatness in the terms of their youth (that they are obsessed with banal notions of national greatness is its own problem). Trump wants to make the country "great again," by which he means returning to a whiter, less ethnically diverse country with markedly fewer Mexicans (the percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States reached its low ebb in 1970). Like Hillary Clinton, he's against trade with foreign countries unless the deals are stacked against our partners. Both share a fixation on growing manufacturing jobs (factory jobs) here in the United States. I'd argue that's because when they were young, America defined "good, middle-class jobs" as factory work (not that either of them would stoop so low as to pull shifts on an assembly line). What they don't realize is that they grew up in a weird, short-lived moment. Thanks to protectionist trade policies, global rebuilding associated with World War II, and pent-up demand in the vast American market, the United States was indeed dominant for a few decades in terms of manufacturing and trade. But that couldn't—and shouldn't—last. Europe and Asia rebuilt, Africa decolonized, and South America developed their own markets and capabilities. The result is vastly wealther world in which overall inequality and extreme poverty is shrinking. American is still a manufacturing powerhouse but we use far fewer people to make more stuff than ever, just as we use fewer farmers to generate more food. There's no going back to the 1950s, '60s, or '70s (when manufacturing employment peaked in the U.S.). More important, why would you want to, especially in terms of daily work conditions and social mores?

And yet Clinton and Trump look backwards while talking about the next four years. They are nostalgic and out of touch with the present, much less the future. Add to this Clinton's hostility to the sharing economy, which recasts employees as independent contractors who often work part-time or juggle various gigs. Clinton wants to shut all that down by insisting that, say, Uber drivers, are employees just like rank-and-file steelworkers were back in the day. On top of that, Clinton (and to a lesser degree, Trump) want to create a uniform set of benefits that all employers must give to all employees. Mandated standardization in the great age of personalization and individualization! It boggles the mind.

You listen to Clinton and Trump talk and you'd have no idea that we're in the goddamn 21st century. Trump doesn't even use email and Clinton notoriously refuses to adhere to basic computer-security protocols. Then there's Dr. Jill Stein, who as a doctrinaire Green Party member is against fracking and other bridge technologies that reduce greenhouse emissions as even lower-polluting alternatives come of age (she is of course categorically against nuclear energy too). She has tweeted that her attorney general would "prosecute Exxon for lying to the public about climate change," and she worries about WIFI's effect on kids' brains. She's said various things suggesting she thinks vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked (and note, there's a difference between being for or against mandatory vaccination and thinking that vaccines cause autism).

Among the four leading presidential candidates, only the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson seems not just unafraid of the future but positively pumped up by the ways in which new technologies and innovations are changing how we work and thrive, and how long we might live.

Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan interviewed Johnson at the former governor's New Mexico home and the conversation is forward-looking, to put it mildly. Given Johnson's belief that Uber and Airbnb are models for generating extra value from cars and houses that are otherwise being unused ("We need Uber everything!" he's known to say), it's unsurprising that he looks forward to driverless cars as a way of reducing traffic accidents and congestion.

But Johnson goes way beyond that. Writes Istvan:

I asked Johnson what he thought of those that want to regulate AI [artificial intelligence], and he wrote, "I think it is important to not regulate the AI industry." Johnson said the same thing about the internet industry. As a Libertarian, he wants to leave those industries to themselves. Not regulating AI development goes against some leading thinkers like Elon Musk, but it's right in line with many AI engineers who argue there's little reason to worry about its creation.

Johnson also believes in longevity research. He says he would "sign legislation promoting research and development" of cures for all diseases. In fact, he likes the Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg recent statements that we should aim to cure every disease before this century is out. Johnson also said he would be "vetoing legislation that would restrict" science development.

In the profile, Johnson also backs gene editing and CRISPR technology and says that he'd install a 3D printer in the White House.

This sort of talk jazzes up Istvan, who is himself running for president on the Transhumanist Party ticket (the only party, I assume, where the president and vice president might be clones of one another). He concludes,

I hope Johnson will make it into the Presidential debates (and Bill Weld into the Vice Presidential debates), so along with his fiscal and social policies, he'll be able to share with America a brave vision on the future. Gary Johnson is a top-notch presidential candidate for American science and technology for two reasons: He's excited about it—and he's willing to openly talk about the issues.

Read the whole piece here.

NEXT: John Bolton, Trump's Likely Secretary of State, Is Addicted to Regime Change

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pumped about driverless cars? Someone just lost my vote.

    1. You don’t want Warty doing deadlifts during his morning commute?

      1. Warty’s morning commute consists of him picking up his car over his head and running down the road with it. Any pedestrians he encounters are eaten.

        For his evening commute, he squats so hard that the resulting tectonic disruptions move his house to where he is.

        1. Warty wants to be able, during his commute, to pleasure himself to videos of American female weightlifter medalists doing their thing.

    2. Why? I am pumped about driverless cars as well. Who likes sitting in traffic?

      1. I agree about gridlock. Navigating moderate-heavy traffic can be a fun game.

  2. Looking forward to a thread full of technology experts reminding us that driverless cars are impossible, impractical, and retarded.

    1. Those silly impossible driverless cars that already exist.

    2. I, for one, have no doubt that driverless cars as a commercially available option are inevitable. My problem is that due to a combination of legal issues and the programmers’ frames of reference the cars are mostly just going to be in the way when I’m trying to get somewhere. And since they’re going to be phased in over my lifetime, they are just going to cause me a shitload of stress over the years.

      I also have little doubt that there will be eventually a push to eventually outlaw human operated cars in the name of safety. I just hope it happens after I’m dead.

      Finally, I’m something of a Luddite when it comes to cars. Tablets on the dashboard? Push button start? Push button gear selection? CVT? Blech, blech, blech, blech.

      1. I love most new technology for cars (even if I can’t afford it), but they can have my stick shift when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. Going through that physical arm motion is an essential part of the experience.

        1. Me too, which is another reason why I couldn’t give a shit about the benefits of driverless cars.

        2. Really had to shop around looking for car I wanted with a dumb manual rower vs. the ‘F1 slap-shifting in sixty milliseconds OMFG!’ rendition. And it was completely worth the trouble.

          Driverless cars are a great emerging technology, and one I have no personal issues with so long as there’s an ‘Off’ switch, that said switch is not flippable by anyone but the vehicle’s owner/operator, and said automated systems do not get in my way as I row my own gears luddite-style because I still like too.

      2. outlaw? maybe, but more likely the actuaries will reduce use considerably.

        1. They’ll take care of the outlawing once insurance has made it wildly impractical for everybody but scofflaws, cops, and the super wealthy.

      3. Love me some push to start!

    3. Heard an interesting segment this morning on NPR where they noted how quickly the driverless car evolved from something that individuals would own to probably being owned in fleets by ‘ridesharing’ corporations.

      1. The ridesharing model is the only thing that makes sense to me. Why would I want to pay for a garage and fuel and maintenance and parts etc when I can order a car to meet me out in front anytime I want and just pay for the ride?

        1. I agree. It seems… (feels maybe?) weird to “own” a driverless car.

          I mean, sure, way WAY down the road when the infrastructure works and driverless cars have improved considerably, I guess I can see someone who doesn’t live in an urban area and therefore ridesharing companies are sparse (which is the case now) might own a driverless car.

          1. Um, so you can spend your 90 minute commute playing Candy Crush instead of being bored and frustrated because you’ve been in stop and go traffic for 30 straight minutes.

            1. How does that contradict the lack of need to own a driverless car?

        2. It makes sense to you because you don’t understand economics and problems of peak demand and the need for a capitaL investment to pay its own way.

      2. Heard an interesting segment this morning on NPR where they noted how quickly the driverless car evolved from something that individuals would own to probably being owned in fleets by ‘ridesharing’ corporations state agencies.


        1. Yeah, I’m having trouble thinking of a good interpretation of the phrase ‘We need to Uber everything!’.

          I think the most positive or harmless interpretation is that of a college freshman who just learned about the term ‘shotgunning a beer’ and is exceptionally eager to shotgun all manner of other things and even that requires holes to be stabbed into the sides of lots of things so that the internal fluids can be leaked out.

    4. Looking forward to a thread full of technology experts reminding us that driverless cars are impossible, impractical, and retarded.

      Oh, by that you meant the Teamsters.

      The Teamsters are at the forefront of highway safety. As it stands, the nation’s roadways can be a dangerous place for motorists. The last thing those traveling U.S. thoroughfares need are out-of-control trucks that jeopardize the lives of others!

      1. I’ve seen how Teamsters drive. I’ll take my chances with Hal/Skynet.

        1. Stereotype much? Some of us former Teamsters might take exception to that. *yells for muscle

  3. Molly . I can see what your saying… Samuel `s c0mment is unimaginable… last monday I got a great new Infiniti after bringing in $6142 this past month and-also, $10k lass month . without a question it is the most comfortable work I’ve had . I began this 5 months ago and straight away began to make over $81 p/h

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

    1. How’s that Infinity working out for you, giving blow jobs in the back seat?

    2. If our spambots are the current state of AI, then yeah, it could use some work.

      1. I am pumped about the future spam bots that will pass the Turing test.

      2. If our spambots are the current state of AI, then yeah, it could use some work.

        If spambot filter around here is current state of the art in AI making judgement calls, that takes a big shit on whole driverless cars thing.

    3. the most comfortable work I’ve had

      La-Z-Boy product tester?

      1. Bathrobe model?

  4. “We need Uber everything!” he’s known to say…

    Untermensch, watch out!

    1. (waves tiny fists from inside cave)

  5. Is it just me or is that headline really sad and pathetic?

    1. I know, right? Serial comma? Come on!

      1. [adopts Christopher Walken voice]

        The serial comma, you don’t like it?

    2. You’re not pumped about the headline?

  6. Am I the only self professed Libertarian who actually thinks Johnson/Weld is a far better choice for POTUS than either major party candidate?

    Or is it that I just lack that veneer of jaded cynicism so many so called libertarians use to wrap themselves in a virtual mantle?

    1. I think the vast majority of people here who could be accurately described as libertarian, rather than laughably self-describing themselves as libertarian like American Socialist despite the crap they post, would agree that Johnson, flawed as he is, is a better choice than Clinton or Trump.

      1. I think even those of us who may not vote for him would agree with that. “Lesser of three evils” and all that…

        1. If he had a chance to win, he might be the lesser of the three evils. But now I’m not so sure.

          1. There are three different questions:
            1) Which candidate is the lesser of three evils in terms of their policy preferences (to the extent they are knowable)?
            2) Which candidate is the lesser of three evils in terms of how the US will actually be governed if they win?
            3) Voting for which of the three candidates will result in the lesser of three evils? For most people, of course, 3 is pretty much a wash since their vote doesn’t count. But consequentially, it’s the only question that really matters.

    2. They’re better in that they don’t suck as bad.

      They’re awful; based on their bumbling pronouncements I expect if they were elected would lurch from fuckup to fuckup. They’re so awful that I will be writing in “none of the above” for the presidential race again this year.

      But, they are nowhere near as bad as Trump or Clinton. Or for that matter Stein, who would be the worst of the lot.

      1. But think of the greenhouse pollution.

    3. Probably better, depending on how much Johnson was willing to stand firm and veto. But I imagine he’d still want to ‘get things done’ and have a legacy and end up signing a whole bunch of crap. It might be incrementally less bad crap, but still crap. And I’m afraid he’d choke if anything significant happens with foreign policy.

      Still likely far better than the other two. But without a wider libertarian movement, I’d keep my hopes for such an administration very, very low.

      1. Power corrupts. I don’t care how libertarian you are. Once you become president, you will start imposing your vision onto others and the feeling of power will take over your soul.

    4. Am I the only self professed Libertarian who actually thinks Johnson/Weld is a far better choice for POTUS than either major party candidate?

      No, but you’d sometimes wonder.

      Or is it that I just lack that veneer of jaded cynicism so many so called libertarians use to wrap themselves in a virtual mantle?

      I suspect a portion of “libertarians” are actually contrarians. They chose to be libertarians because they are out of the mainstream. Now that the philosophy is becoming more accepted, they need to be outraged over gay nazi cakes so they can continue to show the world how cool they are by never being part of the crowd. EVEN if the crowd supports increased liberty.

      1. Good observation, Francisco. I would add that many libertarians are insularists first, libertarians second, and, when freedom threatens their culture, they rush to redefine libertarianism.

        1. No it isn’t. And you aren’t a true libertarian, not as I define it.

  7. He could easily kick my ass, but he sure as fuck doesn’t look like it!

  8. My guess as to who the candidate is: Darrell Castle.

    1. +9 or 10 comments that are just Eddie replying to himself

      1. It’s kind of ironic that Eddie, a christian, keeps promoting a candidate who essentially advocates policies that spit on Christ’s teachings.

        1. It’s like rain on your wedding day.

        2. [enter anti-catholic mode]
          Eddie is Roman Catholic, so probably not christian.
          [exit anti-catholic mode]

          I am more ecumenical than that, but the view isnt unheard of in the protestant community.

          1. I bet it’s pretty common. My father was a lax member of about 5 different mainline denominations in his life and held a similar attitude – he found Catholicism to be Roman paganism dressed in Christian garb.

            1. It is common. My Southern Baptist Minister Uncle questioned (not denied) Pope John Paul 2’s christianity.

              1. I always find that a bit amusing. Was Christianity supposed to have taken a dirt nap from 200 – 1517, in that view? So strange.

                1. Nope, according to the Fundamentalist view the real teachings of Christ were alive and well in the local churches, it was just Rome and the church hierarchy that was apostate and they view the Protestant Reformation as “the real church” kicking those pagans out of the fold and not the Protestants leaving the church.

              2. My Southern Baptist Minister Uncle questioned (not denied) Pope John Paul 2’s christianity.

                I was raised protestant and generally agree that Catholicism is seen as an inferior interpretation of Christianity by both Protestants and Evangelicals. I know I’ve mentioned this before but it sticks with me; my English teacher (a Southern Baptist) and she described the Pope to one of our classmates as the Grand Wizard of the Catholic Church.

                1. I wouldn’t bring up the Klan if I were you

                  “How Separation of Church and State Was Read Into the Constitution (Hint: the KKK got its way)…

                  “10. Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed (or was it the Klansman’s Kreed?). Before he joined the Court, Justice [Hugo] Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.” In 1947, Black was the author of Everson, the first Supreme Court case to hold that the first amendment’s establishment clause requires separation of church & state. The suit in Everson was brought by an organization that at various times had ties to the KKK.”

                2. Catholicism comes under the broad umbrella of “Christian” as defined as “those who believe Jesus is the Son of God”.

                  But it is fundamentally incompatible with several tenants of protestant Christianity. The whole “Priest as intercessor” idea.. the Saints. Praying to the virgin Mary. All the statuary that comes uncomfortably close to idolatry.

                  And then there’s the Pope as God’s representative on earth. This is also at odds with protestant beliefs about the church and the relationship of people with God and Christ.

                  Of course Catholics see protestants as failing to adhere to many tenants of what they believe to be the true church.

                  I don’t know that they are as different from each other as both are from Mormonism, but there are some pretty striking differences.

          2. Is that kind of like when we accuse such and such of not being a real libertarian?

            1. I call dibs on Nick praying to statues of the Virgin Hillary comments.

      2. At least someone finds his comments worthy of a response.

        1. Butthurt detected!

      3. I didn’t know I was such a celebrity.

        1) If I didn’t reply to myself, how would I be able to have an intelligent conversation?

        2) I don’t know which of Castle’s policies “spit on Christ’s teachings,” but I’d love to learn.

        3) Protestants have had all sorts of ideas about where the *real* Church was until 1517.

      1. These masturbation euphemisms are oddly unpleasant.

  9. “Not regulating AI development goes against some leading thinkers crony capitalists like Elon Musk, but …”


    1. Masterplan, part dumbass.

    2. Fuck Elon Musk. According to Trey Parker, Elon Musk loves to play human paladins. Never trust a paladin.

      1. Non-human paladins are cultural appropriation.

  10. who is himself running for president on the Transhumanist Party ticket

    What restroom does Istvan use, though?

    1. He doesn’t. All of his hygiene is digitally crowdsourced.

      1. +1 self-driving urine stream

    2. Xe has to wait for xis 3d printer to make xim one.

    3. And are they vegan?

  11. First = lame headline.

    Second = there goes my one hope that I’d get to vote for a pro-Butlerian Jihad candidate in my lifetime

    1. I like to keep a gom jabbar in my pocket… you know, just in case.

  12. “I think it is important to not regulate the AI industry,”

    What if a Jewish AI manufacturer doesn’t want to make a 3D printer for Nazis?

    /trolliest troll that ever trolled

    1. (btw, before you point out that AI and 3D printing aren’t exactly the same thing…the Nazis would of course use the 3D printer for an army of Nazi robots)

      1. I think that’s an episode of Scooby-Doo?

        1. There was more reality about Scooby-Doo than my mother used to admit. Notably the way paranormal events were always covering up some sort of scam…

    2. You couldn’t out-troll Nick on the trolliest day of your life if you had an electric trolling machine.

  13. Uber and Airbnb are cool – especially to us hip folk – and Democrats are cool – again, especially to us hip folk – and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, so therefore she is cool and obviously loves Uber and Airbnb.

    I don’t know who this bedenimed dork is, but since he is not Hillary Clinton he’s obviously not cool.

    1. Though she also has enough common sense to know that they need some common sense regulations. That’s what will make those companies even better and more responsible and more common sense.

    2. [Golf clap for the word “bedenimed”]

  14. So wait. If that trans humanist candidate is also running for president, doesn’t that mean there are actually TWO candidates pumped about all those technology thingies?

  15. Putting a makerbot in the whitehouse is the 21st century equivalent of the carter solar panels. No wonder nick is impressed.

  16. *looks at picture*

    Well, I’m out.

    1. Are those supposed to be “NOT momjeans”? Or is that a warning that

      “Momjeans can affect anyone, even those we love. Donate to Momjeans anonymous and help people get the treatment they need”

      1. They are not “mom jeans” or “dad jeans.” They are just jeans!

        This is a politician in dad jeans. This is how to be a cool politician while wearing jeans.

        1. both those things are also painfully wrong.

          1) that cutout of Mitt has a pooch. Momjeans are built to accommodate pooch. He looks like a eunich.
          2) i disagree about the dad-ness of biden’s jeans, or the suitability of the ‘loafers/no-socks’ with that kind of denim. boat shoes, maybe. but go back to dockers, joe.

          If you’re going to wear jeans with a button down, they should be darker, non-ironed, and ride lower on the hips.

          Rand could rock jeans like a boss.

          People who iron their jeans don’t understand the purpose of jeans. Its like starching your underwear.

          1. “People who iron their jeans don’t understand the purpose of jeans.”

            I was trying to figure out what was wrong with those jeans, you nailed it. Also agreed they should be darker.

            Rand could rock jeans like a boss.

            Say what you will about flyover country, we know how to wear jeans. They should look like you’d rather be at the ranch, not at Martha’s Vineyard.

            1. I don’t know why I did quotation marks with the first quote and italics with the second, blah whatever

            2. They should look like you’d rather be at the ranch, not at Martha’s Vineyard.

              Exactly. If you want to look vineyard-casual, wear linen, dumbass. And khaki was invented to fill the gap between suits and jeans.

              1. I think there is something generational about jeans.

                For me and my generation, jeans are casual and durable. They are everyday wear and should be well-worn. Definitely never ironed. Dark jeans might be fashionable in certain circumstances, but will always remind us of Gloria Vanderbilt and as such any red-blooded male will be uncomfortable to some degree in dark jeans.

                My wife’s idea of jeans is completely at odds with this. For her, jeans should never be worn with tennis shoes (what?) – they should be dark, pressed and worn with heels. She prefers me to at least wear boat shoes instead of sneakers.

                But she came of age in the era of acid washed jeans, pinned legs and bandannas tied around your thigh. So her opinions on the subject are obviously contaminated.

                Still, as one of my generation, I’d rather see you in a pair of jeans that is on its third wearing than in a pair of ironed fashion jeans. Jeans are about comfort and durability in my book.

                Oh, and there’s the race component. My college roommate used to not only press his jeans, but he’d work to get a nice, sharp crease. So did my ex-wife, now that I think about it. Definitely a race thing, because I never saw a single white dude try that, but all of the brothers at the Alpha party would definitely have their jeans creased.

                1. Tennis shoes are for tennis.

                  1. And sneakers are for?

  17. Only One Presidential Candidate Is Pumped about Driverless Cars, 3D Printing, and Gene Editing

    @!#(*@!)$( christ, Gillespie…

    For a guy who’s always reminding us that “there is a space beyond the political”, you’d think you might be the first to suggest that “Who Gets to Be President” doesn’t affect every single dimension of life.

    Presidents aren’t Wizards who are going to either make or break the future. I’m pretty sure whether Trump or Hillary becomes president, that the “3D Printing” industry will be much the same either way. The opinion of presidential candidates on some shit *simply doesn’t matter*. And we should stop encouraging people to think it does.

    1. Presidents enact laws and oversee regulatory agencies that oversee things like driverless cars, 3D printing, and genetic engineering.

      I mean I’m sure you already knew that and just wanted to hate on Gillespie.

      1. Presidents enact laws

        Every time I read this I cringe.

      2. Presidents sign(or don’t) legislation. What congress proposes or doesn’t propose isn’t at the whim of the president.

        Being the ostensible boss doesn’t mean everything in the fucking world is affected by who happens to be in office. That childish presumption of significance is the sort of thing Al Gore played to when he pretended he helped invent the internet… because “it happened” while he was VP.

        Furthermore = GayJay’s postition (or not) on any of these things is doubly irrelevant, since he’s never going to win.

        at best he provides a protest vote. And he pretty much sucks on the aspects of a protest vote that actually matter

        But sure, tell yourself that “in theory” 3D printing would be SOOOPER better-off in the alternate dimension where GayJay wins. Because other presidents hate the future. This knowledge makes you the clever one.

        1. Also, I find it hilarious that so many people are going full Kurzweil over human augmentation and futurism. It’ll look really good twenty years from now when we have maybe a few genetic therapies for diseases and some moderately adaptive programs, not the Singularity utopia everyone’s trying to sell. I’ve sure that Gillespie the English major understands all the nuances and complexity of AI research and CRISPR innovations before he’d open his mouth on it.

    2. Driverless cars will cost taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus drivers, etc., jobs? and many of them are government employees. I can certainly see the Democrats resisting driverless cars.

      3-D printing will cost factory workers their jobs. Given that saving factory jobs is a central point of Clinton’s campaign ? to the point of wanting to build an economic wall around the US to keep those jobs in ? I expect the Democrats to resist the widespread growth of 3-D printing.

      1. See my link to the Teamsters above.

      2. 3-D printing will cost factory workers their jobs.

        3d printing is largely used to prototype designs. It is not and has little prospect of becoming part of any mass-industrial scale “Factory”-production in any thing that employs significant numbers of people in the US.

        If anything it will create jobs because the technology will create *new applications* for production. (i.e. people will think up ways to use it for reasons “other than prototyping” which haven’t yet been conceived – like Cody Wilson and his crazy gun-parts ideas)

        Seriously, relax your sphincter. Neither democrats or republicans are planning to kill the future last i checked. If they do, it will surely be by accident while they’re “stimulating” something that doesn’t need it.

      3. 3-d printing will cost socialists their jobs. Once the workers literally own the means of production, calls for workers to seize the means of production will hopefully be viewed with a bit more suspicion.

  18. You’d think Clinton and Trump would be big on driverless cars, considering neither one of them has driven a car in 25 years.


  19. This is all just cover for the fact that he had Nick at the first sight of him in that shirt. Hubbada hubbada!

  20. Volvo CEO gets pissy when their driverless car can’t see the lines:

    Volvo’s North American CEO, Lex Kerssemakers, lost his cool as the automaker’s semi-autonomous prototype sporadically refused to drive itself during a press event at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

    “It can’t find the lane markings!” Kerssemakers griped to Mayor Eric Garcetti, who was at the wheel. “You need to paint the bloody roads here!”

    Shoddy infrastructure has become a roadblock to the development of self-driving cars, vexing engineers and adding time and cost. Poor markings and uneven signage on the 3 million miles of paved roads in the United States are forcing automakers to develop more sophisticated sensors and maps to compensate, industry executives say.

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently called the mundane issue of faded lane markings “crazy,” complaining they confused his semi-autonomous cars.


    1. (the real story here is that LA has been starved of tax revenue due to bone-deep cuts and therefore can’t keep up its infrastructure)

      1. That is one of the stories. The other is that driverless cars are being completely oversold.

      2. There is plenty of money, and the voters approve more spending on a regular basis, but the only thing it goes to is public employee pay and benefits and the worthless self-aggrandizing projects pushed by leftists activists and whiners, which local politicians love to do in place of fixing what already works, but just needs maintenance. “It’s for the children, or our future, or the planet”, but it never makes anyone’s life better except those connected to the right people.

  21. Gary Johnson is also open to basic income for all, open borders, baking cakes for nazis, and the carbon tax. I can smell the libertarian moment in the air!

  22. We are never going to have driverless cars until the roads themselves become part of the system.


  24. Things Johnson/Weld are not pumped about:
    * Freedom of religion
    * Freedom of association: “The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public.” – Gary Johnson
    * Cutting out unconstitutional drug laws – “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.” – johnsonweld.com
    * Rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment: “The five shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses. That is when they become, essentially a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR15.” – Bill Weld
    * Due process: “You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all.” – Bill Weld

  25. “I think it is important to not regulate the AI industry,” says Gary Johnson.

    At least until the AI starts discriminating against gay couples.

  26. If we adopt driverless cars, we must make sure they do not snoop on us. A driverless private car must not record or tell anyone where it goes. A driverless taxi must not identify its passengers.

    See http://gnu.org/philosophy/surv…..racy.html.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.