Hilarious Attack Ad In Florida Suggests That Legalizing Autonomous Vehicles Puts Old People At Risk
from the run-for-your-lives dept
It's political silly season, so you expect to see all kinds of ridiculous campaign ads, and in local elections they can get particularly bizarre. Most of them have little to do with technology and innovation and things that we focus on, but here's one that's been making the rounds that seems worth discussing here. A local campaign ad in Florida attacked candidate Jeff Brandes for... legalizing "driverless cars" in Florida. First, just watch it:
The voice over and the graphics are pretty funny, but hilariously wrong. The idea that driverless cars are going to run down little old ladies in the street seems pretty odd -- especially when you consider the driving ability of some of those little, old ladies themselves. I've spent plenty of time in Florida, and I'd feel a hell of a lot safer with autonomous vehicles on the road than some of those little, old ladies behind the wheel.
Then, the ad "quotes" Forbes supposedly saying that "Driverless Cars for All: More DANGEROUS Than Driving." Here's the screenshot:
Except... as Alex Knapp at Forbes points out, if you look at the actual article in question, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the physical safety of autonomous vehicles, but is more of a political discussion about the idea that, someday, in someone's imagination, we'll all be required to use autonomous vehicles, rather than be able to make bad distracted driving choices on our own. In other words, completely unrelated to what the ad appears to be suggesting.
But, more seriously, the ad then attacks the candidate by saying he should be focused on the economy and jobs. Um. You know one good way to do that? It's to help advance job-creating technology and innovations. You'd think that seniors in Florida would be excited, not worried about autonomous vehicles, in that they could help make them a lot more mobile.
Either way, the ad is silly, and pure misleading luddism targeted at Florida seniors. And, clearly, they didn't work, as the guy won his primary anyway. Oh, and it's worth noting that his opposing candidate -- the one that ad wanted the little old ladies to vote for? Yeah, he voted in favor of the same proposal to allow autonomous vehicles on the roads in Florida too. Ah, politics...
Then, the ad "quotes" Forbes supposedly saying that "Driverless Cars for All: More DANGEROUS Than Driving." Here's the screenshot:
But, more seriously, the ad then attacks the candidate by saying he should be focused on the economy and jobs. Um. You know one good way to do that? It's to help advance job-creating technology and innovations. You'd think that seniors in Florida would be excited, not worried about autonomous vehicles, in that they could help make them a lot more mobile.
Either way, the ad is silly, and pure misleading luddism targeted at Florida seniors. And, clearly, they didn't work, as the guy won his primary anyway. Oh, and it's worth noting that his opposing candidate -- the one that ad wanted the little old ladies to vote for? Yeah, he voted in favor of the same proposal to allow autonomous vehicles on the roads in Florida too. Ah, politics...






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Honest Question:
Is this because the voiceover in the political ad is done by that woman? I can hear some similarities in the voice.
More importantly, is this a subtle trick by The Machines to derail not only this candidate, but driverless cars as a whole, because of the mechano-fear that an AI simulating an AI would start a Matrix singularity that would unravel the entire--
*POP*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Honest Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Remote controlled?
Since when does any politician bother to truly understand what s/he's fighting for/against?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
SNL prophecy!
I wish work would let me search/post the Sam Waterston SNL commercial for "Robot Insurance"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Another way these people just don't have a clue what technology they're fighting against.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
History repeats itself
"HORSES DONT DRIVE DRIVE!"
"Horses: lowering your carbon hoofprint"
"Cruise control: more dangerous than a demented horse!"
"Horses: biodegradable"
"1 Horse = 1 horse power. None of these funny metric units here"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: History repeats itself
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Remote controlled?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment