What if you never had to worry about rent or food?

[OverVolt]

We are on the edge of the largest tech advancement of our lifetimes. Its pretty fucking cool but it will be very disruptive for a lot of people.

The google car covers maybe 0.1% of the roads in the US, goes 25mph, and goes into "ultra safe mode" if a lane is blocked by a construction cone or some such. It frequently gets rear ended because it stops randomly where no human would stop. It once got pulled over for blocking traffic causing a half mile backup. And you think it will be on trucks in 20 years, lol.

You read too much yahoo.

 

[JSt0rm]

Lots of facts in your post with no sources.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The google car covers maybe 0.1% of the roads in the US, goes 25mph, and goes into "ultra safe mode" if a lane is blocked by a construction cone or some such. It frequently gets rear ended because it stops randomly where no human would stop. It once got pulled over for blocking traffic causing a half mile backup. And you think it will be on trucks in 20 years, lol.

You read too much yahoo.

This is all bs!

Accidents are caused by humans that don't obey the laws. For instance, nearly everyone on the road tailgates nowadays.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I read that in the voice of Ron Swanson.

Really? I read that in the voice of Ron Livingston

 

[HeXen]

I don't think computer driven cars will take hold within the next 20 years, it will eventually but of course some people enjoy driving.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't think computer driven cars will take hold within the next 20 years, it will eventually but of course some people enjoy driving.

Driving is not a right.

 

[Moonbeam]

Brain defective conservatives imagine their worth is tied to personal worldly stereotypical success. Their delusions in this area keep them from feeling how worthless they actually feel. With the illusion of self worth at stake you're not going to convince them they are demented. Their egos are built on and thrive on stress. It's a mental illness.

 

[JSt0rm]

all true moony but how is this relevant to the thread? (real question)

 

[1prophet]

You cant stop technology moving forward. Thats the point. At what point do we stop blaming people for not being able to work? This isnt here today with 6% unemployment but it is coming and coming soon.

Those people will lose but someone else will win. Thats capitalism.

The problem is not technology, the problem is you want a star trek type society technologically while keeping your winner take all, greed is good, profits only matter, planned obsolescence, let them eat cake type of capitalism, which in the long term promotes obstacles to the very pie in the sky technology that you believe is right around the corner.

 

[JSt0rm]

I brought that up as the challenge. lol. Read the thread.

 

[BoberFett]

The problem is not technology, the problem is you want a star trek type society technologically while keeping your winner take all, greed is good, profits only matter, planned obsolescence, let them eat cake type of capitalism, which in the long term promotes obstacles to the very pie in the sky technology that you believe is right around the corner.

Ummm, JSt0rm would never say such a thing...

The interesting question will be whether or not technology further entrenches economic power or democratizes it.

Publishing used to be an incredibly expensive venture, and you had to be wealthy to spread your ideas. The internet has democratized publishing and anybody (for better or worse) can publish their ideas for the entire world to see in mere seconds for next to no cost.

Will future technologies do the same thing for manufacturing and distribution that the internet has done for publishing? If in a hundred years, nanobots are building things at a near molecular level (advanced 3D printing?) and everyone has an army of nanobots at their disposal, the only thing preventing you from having anything you want is artificial barriers such as IP law. Yeah, there's a LOT of steps between here and there, but increasingly our entire understanding of economics and law may have to change. And you say capitalism puts up obstacles to that "pie-in-the-sky technology" but it doesn't. Capitalism by itself can't do that. Only when corporations are in bed with government can that happen. Look behind nearly every abusive monopoly, and you'll find it hand-in-hand with government.

 

[MongGrel]

Will future technologies do the same thing for manufacturing and distribution that the internet has done for publishing?

It all ready has, to a high degree.

What, so you think nanobots are currently writing literature or something in an alternative universe ?

You seem a bit behind the times in your understanding of manufacturing processes.

Corporations and the Government have been hand and hand since WWII, it just has gotten progressively ramped up over time ever since.

Actually it was hand and hand way before then, it's just in recent decades Corporations have actually had the right to be seen as an actual person, which is stupid to begin with.

We The People went right out the door about that time.

 

[BoberFett]

It all ready has, to a high degree.

Not really, not yet. Centralized manufacturing is still the way things are done. And it's that centralized manufacturing that supports capitalism in it's current form. It requires a lot of capital to build a factory, so the wealthy still control production. Democratized manufacturing can turn that idea on it's head.

What, so you think nanobots are currently writing literature or something in an alternative universe ?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

You seem a bit behind the times in your understanding of manufacturing processes.

How so? Things are manufactured far more automatically and with less human labor than in the past, but the capital required to mass produce goods still belongs to the wealthy. Building a robotic factory requires a lot of money. Democratized manufacturing would mean you or I can create something that could compete with a mass-corporate-produced product.

Corporations and the Government have been hand and hand since WWII, it just has gotten progressively ramped up over time ever since.

Go back further. Who do you think started this country?

Actually it was hand and hand way before then, it's just in recent decades Corporations have actually had the right to be seen as an actual person, which is stupid to begin with.

We The People went right out the door about that time.

People get hung up on "corporate personhood" but I'm not convinced the problem is fixed just by taking that away. If corporations are in bed with government, how does telling them they're not people change that? Corporations and politicians will still conspire to make each wealthy. What does removing corporate personhood do to remove the revolving door?

 

[OverVolt]

Not really, not yet. Centralized manufacturing is still the way things are done. And it's that centralized manufacturing that supports capitalism in it's current form. It requires a lot of capital to build a factory, so the wealthy still control production. Democratized manufacturing can turn that idea on it's head.



I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.



How so? Things are manufactured far more automatically and with less human labor than in the past, but the capital required to mass produce goods still belongs to the wealthy. Building a robotic factory requires a lot of money. Democratized manufacturing would mean you or I can create something that could compete with a mass-corporate-produced product.



Go back further. Who do you think started this country?



People get hung up on "corporate personhood" but I'm not convinced the problem is fixed just by taking that away. If corporations are in bed with government, how does telling them they're not people change that? Corporations and politicians will still conspire to make each wealthy. What does removing corporate personhood do to remove the revolving door?

Same thing happened in 1920's from the industrial revolution WRT to wealth inequality . Its actually worse this time with more technology.

Anyway.

Did you know Google's self-driving cars can't handle 99% of roads in the US?

Google’s Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers

The autonomous Google car may never actually happen.

Google self-driving car gets pulled over for driving too slowly

-Google admitted to me that the process it currently uses to make the maps are too inefficient to work in the country as a whole.

Everything I said is factual because I actually remember what I read. You guys sterotype me as some kind of conservative. What you don't know is I used to think like you guys and then incorporate a bit more reality, or the way things really work de facto. I understand the capabilities of technology but I also understand its limitations. I'm not some gadget fanboy like you guys are apparently. I'm rather offended you guys are just going on and on and were so clearly wrong because I'm not around to defend myself. Talking shit to an empty podium huh?

 

[BoberFett]

I love that you link to an article which says that the problem with Google's car is that humans are shitty drivers, and that you assume that technology doesn't keep getting better. Keep spinning.

 

[OverVolt]

I love that you link to an article which says that the problem with Google's car is that humans are shitty drivers, and that you assume that technology doesn't keep getting better. Keep spinning.

Read it, really. Its quite interesting. It stops in places no human would ever stop. And it does maneuvers no human would ever do. The title might pander to people like you (not surprised) but the reality is that its hard to predict what the car is going to do.

A driver/rider in an autonomous car is typically going "why is it doing that!?" and its not some kind of sit back as if you have a chauffeur technology. They have issues deciding when and how to break traffic laws. It currently drives to the letter of the law but thats not actually how traffic flows. Autonomous cars and human cars on the same road together would be very problematic so that is likely out of the realm of possibilities in terms of a way to phase in the technology.

So that leaves the "replace 500 million cars at once" route.

Not going to happen.

 

[JSt0rm]

overvolt learned he could search the internet for things he wanted to find and find them.

We are already in a transition phase, more and more cars have assisted driving. At some point in the future I think we should have policy that only self driving cars should be allowed on the highways and then at some point after that all cars will be self driving. Poor people will no longer need to buy a shit car as a ride will cost the same as a bus ticket.

 

[zinfamous]

Read it, really. Its quite interesting. It stops in places no human would ever stop. And it does maneuvers no human would ever do. The title might pander to people like you (not surprised) but the reality is that its hard to predict what the car is going to do.

A driver/rider in an autonomous car is typically going "why is it doing that!?" and its not some kind of sit back as if you have a chauffeur technology. They have issues deciding when and how to break traffic laws. It currently drives to the letter of the law but thats not actually how traffic flows. Autonomous cars and human cars on the same road together would be very problematic so that is likely out of the realm of possibilities in terms of a way to phase in the technology.

So that leaves the "replace 500 million cars at once" route.

Not going to happen.

except that it is going to happen, and far faster than you realize.

It is interesting to me that your assumption is that technology never improves, and that if it doesn't work now, no point in improving. Baffling, then, how you accept that any business succeeds under your rigorous constraints.

Humans are the reason that traffic exists, and that wrecks happen. It is a fact. Humans constantly do things that humans shouldn't do when it comes to driving. Do you expect an automated car to rubberneck?

They are certainly coming and there will be a day where commuter highways and cities will eliminate humans from the equation; but I am certain that you will be one of the voices amidst the chuckleheads that will cry and moan the very first time an automated auto gets into a collision and declares the technology a failure, all the while never seeming to acknowledge the vast difference in the amount of accidents caused by humans.

 

[BoberFett]

Read it, really. Its quite interesting. It stops in places no human would ever stop. And it does maneuvers no human would ever do. The title might pander to people like you (not surprised) but the reality is that its hard to predict what the car is going to do.

A driver/rider in an autonomous car is typically going "why is it doing that!?" and its not some kind of sit back as if you have a chauffeur technology. They have issues deciding when and how to break traffic laws. It currently drives to the letter of the law but thats not actually how traffic flows. Autonomous cars and human cars on the same road together would be very problematic so that is likely out of the realm of possibilities in terms of a way to phase in the technology.

So that leaves the "replace 500 million cars at once" route.

Not going to happen.

Shitty human drivers do unpredictable things all the time. If I had a nickel for every time I cursed out a terrible human driver, I'd be retired to Bora Bora. Just this morning, a few snowflakes turned the freeway into a shitshow. A hundred million overly cautious computers driving or a hundred million shitty humans? I know which one I'll pick.

 

[OverVolt]

except that it is going to happen, and far faster than you realize.

It is interesting to me that your assumption is that technology never improves, and that if it doesn't work now, no point in improving. Baffling, then, how you accept that any business succeeds under your rigorous constraints.

Humans are the reason that traffic exists, and that wrecks happen. It is a fact. Humans constantly do things that humans shouldn't do when it comes to driving. Do you expect an automated car to rubberneck?

They are certainly coming and there will be a day where commuter highways and cities will eliminate humans from the equation; but I am certain that you will be one of the voices amidst the chuckleheads that will cry and moan the very first time an automated auto gets into a collision and declares the technology a failure, all the while never seeming to acknowledge the vast difference in the amount of accidents caused by humans.

It suffers from the same problems that plague AI's. You aren't thinking. Making an ultra-conservative never-break-the-law AI is easy. Giving the AI judgement is completely different.

For example if I'm on the highway and run up on completely stopped traffic around a corner I double tap my brakes as a signal to everyone behind me that traffic is at a standstill around the bend.

I start braking hard before I crest the visibility cutoff around the corner so people can see my back end coming to a stop before I'm out of sight. I don't want to get rear ended at 65mph. I don't care if "I'm in the right of way" if I get my back thrown out of whack for life from such a crash. The google car gets rear ended at a rate twice that of normal drivers because it fails to negotiate with other drivers. Really its a nuisance on the road that only gets to its destination because of the human drivers being nice to it. Its not actually keeping pace with traffic flow.

AI is a concept that has failed over and over and over. The type of computing and programming logic that we use simply isn't suited to AI. The data processing speed is there, and the memory and storage are there. But the way logic is handled in the digital vs biological world is too different. AI actually needs to be more judgmental based on past experience. Which is a dicey proposition when a large group of people is involved. The current group think is how you end up with the ultra-conservative AI to begin with.

Is there really going to be "That truck is swerving in his lane like he is tired fuck that guy I'm moving 1 lane over" subroutine? What about "be ready incase the douche in the BMW changes lanes without a signal" routine. What about a poor person whose car looks like it shouldn't be on the highway?

These are untenable situations for a group project.

 

[JSt0rm]

All the cars would be on a network, they would know the slow down is there miles ahead of you double tapping your brakes "signal".

 

[JSt0rm]

at anyrate overvolt is a prime example of the resistance we will see from professional drivers as their jobs evaporate. This will happen in every segment of the economy at some point and the question remains - what do we do with all of these people who, through no fault of their own, can never work again?

 

[OverVolt]

All the cars would be on a network, they would know the slow down is there miles ahead of you double tapping your brakes "signal".

So you are saying they are going to replace ~400 million cars overnight?

The AVERAGE car is on the road for 11.2 years so about half the 2016 models will still be on the road in 2027. Many cars are on the road for ~25 years or more.

So you are saying that human driven cars would be outlawed to have AI on the road in 20 years? Not going to happen.

 

[zinfamous]

It suffers from the same problems that plague AI's. You aren't thinking. Making an ultra-conservative never-break-the-law AI is easy. Giving the AI judgement is completely different.

For example if I'm on the highway and run up on completely stopped traffic around a corner I double tap my brakes as a signal to everyone behind me that traffic is at a standstill around the bend.

I start braking hard before I crest the visibility cutoff around the corner so people can see my back end coming to a stop before I'm out of sight. I don't want to get rear ended at 65mph. I don't care if "I'm in the right of way" if I get my back thrown out of whack for life from such a crash. The google car gets rear ended at a rate twice that of normal drivers because it fails to negotiate with other drivers. Really its a nuisance on the road that only gets to its destination because of the human drivers being nice to it. Its not actually keeping pace with traffic flow.

AI is a concept that has failed over and over and over. The type of computing and programming logic that we use simply isn't suited to AI. The data processing speed is there, and the memory and storage are there. But the way logic is handled in the digital vs biological world is too different. AI actually needs to be more judgmental based on past experience. Which is a dicey proposition.

Where you fail is that you aren't accepting the vast array of technology that comes into force to make this automation work: sudden breaking isn't an issue, because telemetry along the route keeps every car in the system aware of all issues at any given second.

Again, the human is the problem in your equation: you have to break and react quickly, because you had no idea what was happening. You have to plan to break properly because you know the idiot behind you is, very likely, a fucking idiot that will slam into you.

These situations don't exist in a fully automated system where each participant is aware of and calculating adjustments far in advance.

The reality is that a fully automated system could entirely whittle away traffic lanes because the current "bandwidth" required of major expressways is, in fact, a response to the human component, not the volume of humans. Even a major metropolis like NYC could pretty easily get away with 2 or 3 lanes in each direction on major commuter highways with 0 traffic problems.


You are arguing from the standpoint that "X must fail, because I want it to," and so you continue to ignore all of the obvious solutions to the problems that you posit.

~the turn of the century (20th), Manhattan had a huge horseshit problem. Population projections, sanitation capacity, demands for stage coaches predicted that if the current rates continued, all of Manhattan would be buried under 10 feet of horse sheet, and no where to put it 15 years out. It was catastrophic.

Then, something happened that none of the best city planners or technologists predicted, and certainly was never part of their forecast: the automobile and Ford's automated assembly.

You are making the same mistake.

 

[zinfamous]

So you are saying they are going to replace ~400 million cars overnight?

The AVERAGE car is on the road for 11.2 years so about half the 2016 models will still be on the road in 2027. Many cars are on the road for ~25 years or more.

So you are saying that human driven cars would be outlawed to have AI on the road in 20 years? Not going to happen.

I doubt human-driven cars would be outlawed, but there will be automated-only routes, as well there should be.

erasing commute times is a no-brainer and is certainly something that will happen.

You continue to posit examples of where an automated car will be forced to react to an idiot human making an idiot situation. This isn't a real example because the two entities would not be sharing the same route.