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:
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…
Filed Under: attack ad, autonomous vehicles, jeff brandes, politics
Comments on “Hilarious Attack Ad In Florida Suggests That Legalizing Autonomous Vehicles Puts Old People At Risk”
I’m disappointed that this ad is seriously meant to be anything but amusing.
Re: Re:
I’m going to be disappointed until they have autonomous voting
Honest Question:
I noticed that after the video is concluded and the usual amalgamam of suggested next videos pops up, the one in the lower right hand corner is called “oracle advice” and shows a picture of the The Oracle from the sequels of The Matrix movies.
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*
Re: Honest Question:
Dang it, I listened to the video again and now I want a cookie.
Remote controlled?
I notice it called them “remote controlled” as well, which shows how they don’t quite understand the technology they’re fighting against…
Re: Remote controlled?
I wouldn’t expect a politician to understand what he is voting for or against. That would fry their circuits.
Re: Remote controlled?
…and that would be: perfectly normal!
Since when does any politician bother to truly understand what s/he’s fighting for/against?
Re: Remote controlled?
Maybe they’ve been watching too much Mythbusters and just assumed all cars worked that way.
Re: Re: Remote controlled?
If they watched too much Mythbusters, they’d simply assume that all cars exploded.
Re: Re: Re: Remote controlled?
I’d say most terrorists watch a lot of Mythbusters then…
Re: Remote controlled?
….as is almost always the case….
This reminds me of that time we had to vote to approve a government supplement for Old Glory Robot Insurance so the elderly could afford to protect themselves from roving bands of androids bent on eating their pills at night.
Re: Re:
I must remember to refresh before posting. Ya beat me, but its still hilarious!
SNL prophecy!
Oh my various gods!
I wish work would let me search/post the Sam Waterston SNL commercial for “Robot Insurance”
Re:
will it run on android?
Did anyone else notice that the car didn’t stop a the stop sign? Ignoring the fact that the cars will be programmed to watch for pedestrians, a robotic car that doesn’t stop for stop signs, will never make it onto the road in the first place.
Another way these people just don’t have a clue what technology they’re fighting against.
Re: Re:
I did notice that, but I also noticed some other oddities. For a car that was supposed to just run through the intersection, and potentially run the old lady over, it still seemed slow down at the stop sign and/or by the old lady, so the framing and cutting of the video makes me think, a little, that it did actually stop but they cut that out of the video!
Re: Re:
The streets will eventually be far safer with these things on the road and I’m happy to see governments are already working to legalize them. Plus I can’t wait to go to sleep in my car and wake up in another city. It’s going to change everything we know about transportation – as long as the luddites let it happen.
Re: Re: Re:
I can’t wait to see viruses and hacks that work on these cars. Start your car and take a nap. And wake up 100 miles away of the point you wanted to go. Could be a brothel for added lulz.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like the hacks in navigation software today that leads people to the wrong place?
My only worry is the programming. So long as they do extensive and good programing it should work just fine.
When are we going to start calling them Robocars?
History repeats itself
I remember the political scaremongering around horseless carriages.
“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”
Re: History repeats itself
“HORSES DONT DRINK DRIVE” that should be
I think it’s telling that the best quote they could find from him was “I had to convince the Senate it wasn’t witchcraft”. I’d be less worried about a governor who wants to legalize driverless cars than a senate that thought they were powered by witchcraft.