this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
446 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

84354 readers
3719 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

If AI worked, we would have had self driving cars by now.

I can’t think of anything good that we have today cause of AI that we didn’t have 5 years ago.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

quarterly profits have been great or something

[–] EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Will no one think of the shareholders. 🫤🙄 I am very much against this push of AI on everything without proper informed consent. I’m mainly thinking about how bad it is that AI is scanning people’s private photos like Google and Meta in the name of looking for child abuse. It’s an easy sell if you say anything is done to “save kids”, but it’s just mass surveillance and creating more harm than good.

[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 18 hours ago

Global warming. It is definitely better rn.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It AI worked, we would have had self driving cars by now.

We don't have self-driving cars because no corporation is insane enough to take on the liability for driving a fleet of cars on our highways - it's a bloodbath out there (when you look at it from the large-scale view), and anyone operating 10,000+ vehicles out there is going to be involved in multiple fatal accidents per year.

When it's UPS operating a fleet of trucks, the liability for the 30-ish people killed per year in collisions with their trucks is handled driver-to-driver. When "the robot" is out there up against the world, who's the jury going to side with?

[–] LadyButterfly@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago

Yep juries will pick the person every time. You only need ONE that hits the headlines... bus load of kids, famous person etc and your brand is annihilated

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they have a similar rate of accidents as regular people, wouldn’t it be easier to mitigate risk through insurance since they are at scale?

You can go as far as to say that self driving manufacturers could insure their cars themselves since they have thousands of vehicles.

If what your saying is true, then insurance wouldn’t be profitable today

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Insurance companies have resorted to denying everything and forcing their customers to sue them for their money. I'd say that's a pretty good sign it isn't actually profitable today.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

Insurance is a numbers game: actuarial tables, predictable risk, predictable liability, and they do pay out occasionally, they even pay out ridiculously over-valued claims occasionally, as part of a numbers game that keeps their overall costs as low as possible.

[–] speculate7383@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Isn't profitable? Insurance companies are definitely making profits because of their tactics of doing that to their customers,