Slashdot Mirror
Intel Predicts a $7 Trillion Self-Driving Future Where Over a Million Lives Will Be Part of the 'Passenger Economy' (theverge.com)
Intel has released a new study that predicts a $7 trillion annual revenue stream from the emerging passenger economy. In the report, Intel says that the companies that don't prepare for self-driving risk failure or extinction. Additionally, the report finds that over a half a million lives could be saved by self-driving cars over just one decade. The Verge reports: The study, prepared by Strategy Analytics, predicts autonomous vehicles will create a massive economic opportunity that will scale from $800 billion in 2035 (the base year of the study) to $7 trillion by 2050. An estimated 585,000 lives could be saved due to autonomous vehicles between 2035 and 2045, the study predicts. This âoepassenger economy,â as Intel is calling it, includes the value of the products and services derived from fully autonomous vehicles as well as indirect savings such as time. Autonomous technology will drive change across a range of industries, the study predicts, the first green shoots of which will appear in the business-to-business sector. These autonomous vehicles will first appear in developed markets and will reinvent the package delivery and long-haul transportation sectors, says Strategy Analytics president Harvey Cohen, who co-authored the study. This will relieve driver shortages, a chronic problem in the industry, and account for two-thirds of initial projected revenues. One of the bolder predictions is that public transportation as we know it today â" trains, subways, light rails, and buses -- will be supplanted, or at least radically changed, by the rise of on-demand autonomous vehicle fleets. The study argues that people will flock to suburbs as population density rises in city centers, pushing commute times higher and âoeoutstripping the ability of public transport infrastructure to fully meet consumer mobility needs.â
Who's going to pay when these cars get in wrecks?
Cabs without drivers = no one to ensure passengers don't vomit, urinate or defecate in them. Drunks will LOVE it!
criminal liability as well + tickets both to the driver and to the car. also turning it over to a real person with 1 sec to crash does not move the blame to the person.
Hit and run is an criminal case.
Some photo speeding tickets to go to driver. Most other ones are like red light ones go to the car.
Tickets from a cop other then parking go to the driver.
Try to win a Darwin Award!
Population in cities? Commute times?
There will only be heroin addicted hobos remaining and they don't have anywhere to commute.
Have gnu, will travel.
If putting 1 million lives "into the passenger economy" can save 1/2 million lives from traffic accidents - does that mean that half of these people would have died in traffic accidents? Wow. /s
Even 2035 is being too optimistic.
Progress in this field is impossible to predict, because it's not proceeding in a linear fashion, but rather it jumps forward every time someone has a good idea. Look at AlphaGo. Given the progress before that, people thought such a program was at least a decade away, but all of a sudden it was there.
Heroin addicted hobos don't have the credit rating required to unlock the door of a self-driving cab.
Intel has released a new study that predicts a $7 trillion annual revenue stream from the emerging passenger economy.
Remember, that money has to come from somewhere. There are a lot of people that drive for a living that will suddenly be out of a job. 7 trillion for some company to provide transportation-as-a-service, but you'll have millions of people out of work as a result.
I'm not saying self driving cars are good or bad, I'm just saying we as a society better prepare for this. That's a lot of able bodied yet suddenly unemployed people for the economy to absorb.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Self driving cars will be more efficient than 90% of todays drivers, and probably most of them will be electic or hybrid
>> relieve driver shortages, a chronic problem in the industry
ELIMINATE driver PAYROLL, a chronic problem in the industry
FTFY
What does a computer playing a game with a strict set of rules have to do with self-driving cars? Nothing. You are one of those AI nutters who thinks just because computers get more powerful every year it will continue indefinitely. After all, you had a C64 when you were a kid, and WOW, look at computers now! In 50 years they will be sentient, because...well...progress always happens, right?
Here is a shock: progress isn't inevitable. Digital computers are not going to get faster and faster indefinitely. Already we are seeing that processor speed is only marginally improving year over year.
Oh, goody. So they expect us to shell over (on average) one tenth of our gross income for self-driving gadgets? (world GDP is 78*10^12 according to Wikipedia)
First off, the U.S. logistics and transportation industry is already at 8% of our GDP. So its not like 9% is much of a stretch. But they said the size of the industry would be $7 trillion in 2050. That will most likely be around $3 trillion in 2017 dollars, so it represents closer to 4% of global GDP. This seems reasonable to me.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
At least Intel seems to be breaking away from the hype a bit, by delaying the self-driving future to 2035 instead of next year.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Here is a shock: progress isn't inevitable. Digital computers are not going to get faster and faster indefinitely. Already we are seeing that processor speed is only marginally improving year over year.
Barring a major catastrophe such as a nuclear war, progress is nearly inevitable. Moore's law may break down, but that isn't even the biggest driver of progress in the computing industry. In one estimate provided by a Berlin professor stated that algorithmic improvements were 43x more influential than hardware improvements in solving complex numerical problems he studied.
Computers don't have to infinitely increase in speed for our progress to continue for quite some time.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What does a computer playing a game with a strict set of rules have to do with self-driving cars? Nothing.
The rules of the game are simple and strict, but evaluation of the board is extremely hard and fuzzy. Comparable to driving, actually. There is a strict number of rules driving a car, but complicated evaluation.
Already we are seeing that processor speed is only marginally improving year over year.
My point exactly. The sudden breakthrough of AlphaGo had little to do with slowly improving processor speeds, but mostly with some guys coming up with a few clever ideas. And this year's version was running on dedicated hardware, not general purpose processors, so it could gain orders of magnitude improvement in a single year.
Aside from the fact that just about any self-driving algorithm is better than a human behind the wheel distracted by texting, I personally welcome owning a vehicle with self-driving capability - especially if it means I can focus on working on projects on my way to work.
I occasionally have to drive from my location to my largest client in Denver, which is a 6.5 hour drive for me. Whether I drive or take a plane, it's a wash for me. Going to the airport, getting on the plane, flying, getting a rental car and driving to the site vs. just driving there is roughly the same time. If that time could be spent productively working on my laptop while the car drove itself the entire way it would be frigging awesomeness.
In fact, if I had that ability, I would far rather drive to my clients (I actually like road trips) and just work along the way. I personally have nothing but contempt for the airlines and all the bullshit TSA crap that goes along with it.
Also, telcos and other organizations would be stupid to ignore building out their networks better along all the major highways linking all the major metropolitan areas. If I had awesome connectivity along the routes I would drive all the time? My SUV would become my mobile office and I would be in "work heaven" :-)
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
Just because you get to the end of what silicone can do also doesn't mean another tech doesn't take over from that point, either.
I read one interesting posit that said that if you consider the *processing* part of Moore's law only that our ability to calculate as a speces has been following Moore's Law for thousands of years. Silicone wafers took over at the limits of paper and pencil, by hand calculation.
We will likely never have a significant number of self driving cars. Once we have autonomous vehicles, there are plenty of better ways to transport people. 90% of cars today spend 90% of their time with a single person behind the driver seat. If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person? Even mass transportation becomes more practical once you don't have to pay a driver to man the bus. But it's not just transporting people that will change. If there are self driving vehicles, there will be a lot fewer people to transport. Why would I go to the grocery store when the grocery store can bring the food to me? Autonomous vehicles also means that lawn mowers can be centrally located, they can drive to your house, mow your lawn and return to a central location. Complex robots of all kinds become more practical if they are able to transport themself.
Most of these kind of studies always predict more of the same with just a single change. That's not how a technology shift works. Self driving cars and self flying drones if perfected are going to be a technology shift that rivals the internet, the car, or even the computer. I think it will be a lot more disruptive than anyone now can even predict.
We don't need to save any more lives. The planet is overcrowded already. We need to find more ways to reduce the population.
If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person?
You wouldn't. You'd call a single seater vehicle instead. The only reason we have single drivers in 4 person vehicles is because people need 4 seats in the weekend, and they don't want to get 3 different cars. But if you can call a vehicle for a single use, it makes sense to get exactly what you need.
You will only move about if the government permits you to do so. Sound crazy? Be wary of governments that want to charge you an "exit tax" to leave the country.
At least Intel seems to be breaking away from the hype a bit, by delaying the self-driving future to 2035 instead of next year.
Yeah, I'll give them that. I've heard some pretty ridiculous hyperbole lately on the self-driving trend. Just look at ridiculous articles like this one (claiming that self-driving trucks will dominate the trucking industry within the next ten years):
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Wrong. In fact, massively so.
The whole reason that Go is so signifficant as a milestone for AI is because despite the ruleset being simple and straightforward, the amount of possible board configurations exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe.
Ask a good chess player why he made a certain move and he'll be able to give you a very well defined answer. "I moved the knight there because by doing so I have a guaranteed mate in 5 moves" or some such. Now go to a pro Go player and ask the same thing and they won't give you the same answer, they'll often give some variety of 'it felt right'. You cannot number crunch Go in the same fashion you can many other games simply due to the fact that the complexity and amount of possible plays far exceeds what even the current top of the line algorithms, let alone a human brain can handle. Thus there's a huge component of essentially intuition involved in Go.
This is why even a couple years ago people were still saying it's not possible for computers to beat humans at Go because it requires actually learning to evaluate moves entirely differently from chess. It requires a level of essentially creative thinking.
Most people do not think the progress will continue indefinitely but it doesn't have to do so in order for for computers to a) achieve human level general intelligence or b) achieve consciousness.
What he was trying to point out is precisely that these days the key developments are happening in the software, not the hardware.
That's the whole reason alphaGo is a good example. It's not that google beat Go because they suddenly got a slightly faster supercomputer able top crunch even more numbers, it's that they beat it by creating better algorithms that ran on existing hardware and learned to play the game better than humans.
Self-driving cars are the exact same thing. You're trying to teach a computerized system to play a game (traffic) which has fairly simple rules that even relatively stupid people manage to follow but has an almost infinite amount of possible outcomes (comparable to the amount of board positions in Go). the problems that remain to be solved are not related to processor power. We already have more than enough processing power in self-driving cars to vastly exceed the capacity of any human. The challenges to be solved have to do with machine learning and actually teaching that cars to become good drivers in various different weather and road conditions.
And just like with Go the car will also have to know how to deal with entirely new/unforeseen situations and pick the best move with no prior experience of such a situation.
That's why it's relevant. The key to AI is first and foremost the algorithms used, and those algorithms are improving at a pace which vastly exceeds the linear pace of hardware improvement, as evidenced by alphaGo.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
All the baby boomers will be retired, retirees will outnumber workers, and two-third of the federal budget will go to Social Security and Medicare. There won't be enough workers to drive all these senior citizens to their beauty and golf appointments. Hence, self-driving cars in 2034.
Not downtown San Jose in Silicon Valley. Most people who live downtown don't work downtown as tech jobs are located in the surrounding towns (Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Francisco). Downtown San Jose is practically empty during the day. That's the exact opposite to San Francisco that has an extra 2M+ people during the day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/california-today-san-jose-an-immigration-success-story.html
It's also ridiculous to point at clock rate and say "see? processors aren't getting faster!" okay, so single thread performance is improving only incrementally, and slowly. But for parallelizable problems, the performance is continuing to improve.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We will likely never have a significant number of self driving cars. Once we have autonomous vehicles, there are plenty of better ways to transport people.
The problem with your analysis is that there are already plenty of better ways to transport people than using cars, but we're using cars anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why do you get to define "better"?
Because I'm paying attention, and actually thinking about these issues, not simply regurgitating what some republican masters have instructed me to say. Now begone, cowardly peon, until you develop the intestinal fortitude to log in and have your idiocy associated with some identity, even a made-up one. Run along, son.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the meantime, you might want to learn the difference between "loose" and "lose", so that while you're driving, if you lose a wheel because it comes loose, you'll at least know what happened.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
thank GOD the 7.343564675 billion OTHER people on the planet dont live in silicon valley, its not like they matter MORE or anything. jesus.
The San Francisco Bay Area is only 4M+ people short of being declared a megacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity
And why would the autonomous, single seat vehicle carry me all the way across town using a road every day. It will know where the "commuter train" is, and will time it's pick-up of me to intersect and dock with the train. It will then undock, drive me to work, then either wait for a passenger call or return to dock with the train. The whole thing will be run Uber/Lyft style.
And, why wouldn't a 4 or even 8 seater (with separate compartments) be useful? In the morning and evening, it seems that everyone is heading from the suburbs to the work center (or vice versa) at the same time anyway. People would put in a call on their cell phones, and the networked car would work out a pickup/dropoff schedule that would prioritize minimum rider time and total occupancy.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
We will likely never have a significant number of self driving cars. Once we have autonomous vehicles, there are plenty of better ways to transport people.
I wouldn't be so fast about assuming that to be universally true. I think what will happen is that autonomous technology will incrementally get added to existing cars and then eventually we will have a lot of self driving vehicles on the road. Not all of them will be completely self driving for some time to come if ever but probably most of them will incorporate the tech over the coming decades.
If you can call a vehicle on demand, why would you call a huge 4 person vehicle for 1 person?
Because it is unlikely to come to pass that you will be able to call a vehicle on demand in a lot of places. Furthermore the type of vehicle needed at any given time can vary wildly. There are times when a little 1 or 2 seat car with no storage is fine. Other times you might need to haul a bunch of stuff home from the lumber yard and need a very different sort of vehicle. Furthermore what do you do when there isn't a car immediately available. Most places in the USA you cannot simply walk out your front door and hail a cab even today. What might make sense in Manhattan won't make much sense in rural Kansas. Don't get me wrong, I think ride sharing will be a thing just like taxis are today, but I don't think people are going to stop owning cars any time in the foreseeable future.
Why would I go to the grocery store when the grocery store can bring the food to me?
Because you want to pick out your groceries. I don't know if you've ever spent any time at a meat counter or in the produce section but there is pretty wide variability in the products. I don't really trust someone else to not pick me a bunch of pre-wilted lettuce or meat that isn't sketchy. Sure you can order commodity boxed goods with reasonable confidence but not everything. Plus I don't need a self driving car to have groceries brought to me - companies like Amazon are already dealing with that problem. We go to the grocery store because it is economically efficient to do so. I don't see self driving cars solving that problem.
Autonomous vehicles also means that lawn mowers can be centrally located, they can drive to your house, mow your lawn and return to a central location.
How would this be cheaper than what we currently have? You are adding a huge amount of complexity to a rather primitive and cheap device. Are you talking about lawn care services or just the little push mower people keep in the garage?
Complex robots of all kinds become more practical if they are able to transport themself.
True but that complexity has to come with an economic benefit attached. It's not just a technology problem, it's also an economic problem. Self driving cars are potentially viable because they can eliminate some pretty substantial opportunity costs in regards to human transport. It's not so clear that something like a lawn mower would carry similar benefits.
Docking with a train becomes pointless in a self driving car. We use long trains now, because they only require one driver, reducing cost. There is no cost reduction from docking with a car in front of you. Instead, you can just drive right behind it, and go on a different course whenever you need.
Same with 4-8 seaters. Going on a route to pick up people wastes a bunch of time, plus people don't want to share a ride with a bunch of strangers, or have to stop at some place to pick someone up, and find out that person isn't there yet. Also, the efficiency of multi seaters isn't that great if they aren't full, especially not if we get lightweight single seaters.
They do after they shiv you and take your credit cards.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here is a shock: progress isn't inevitable.
When the financial incentives are as huge as they are for something that's already clearly possible as self-driving cars are? Yes it is.
Sorry 'bout the pedantry, but when there's a chance to attempt a bad pun I can't help myself. My parents probably don't think about me much, them being dead and all. I'll check with my grandkids.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
The problem with your analysis is that there are already plenty of better ways to transport people than using cars, but we're using cars anyway.
Define better. There are currently basically 3 types of ground transportation:
1) Mass transportation -- cheap but slow
2) Taxi/Uber/Lyft -- fast but expensive
3) Personal Car -- fast AND cheap once you own the car.
The personal car wins because it's currently the best option: the most convenient option, the fastest option, and the cheapest option.
In order to take out the car you need a service that is better than the car. Places where parking is expensive or hard to find makes
a car less convenient and less cheap and car ownership goes down. The big thing that drives car ownership though is that a car
has 100% coverage where mass transportation doesn't. If you need a car to go grocery shopping once a week or visit grandma once
a month or to do random errand X then your car is a sunk cost and the incremental cost of using it is very little. In order for the
car not to continue to be the better/best option you need something that can fill in the gaps that the car currently fills so people don't
want the hassle of owning a car. One of the main reasons that the taxi/uber/lyft option is expensive is because of the driver. Some
people already use a taxi for grocery shopping but it's currently expensive to do so. Eliminate the driver and it becomes much more
cost effective to use a taxi service for the occasional grocery trip or trip to grandma's house.
Silly fellow, silicone is for breasts (and it can do a lot for them, no tech required).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Many grocery stores will already deliver your food for free. Turns out most of us prefer to go pick it out ourselves. People like going places.
This space intentionally left blank
By 2025 the market for Itanium servers will total 22 trillions a year (* according to low end figures of the current projections), 7 trillions in Itanium for cars will come in addition to that. This points out to Itanium overtaking China as the world's first economy in about 8 years.
585,000 lives saved between 2035 and 2045 = 58.8k lives saved per year.
Current worldwide traffic fatalities are about 1.25 million per year.
That's a 5% reduction. For an outlay that starts at $800 billion a year and scales to $7 trillion.
How about spending a fraction of that money on real driver education, training, and enforcement?
Oh, I forgot -- robots are cool. Nevermind.
Headline should read, "Intel are looking for investors for self-driving vehicle technologies." By saying, "if you don't invest with us, the sky will fall in."
TIFTFY
I'm about the same age as you and I see this so-called 'self driving car' nonsense as a loss of freedom because you'll have no way of actually directly controlling the vehicle (if they have their way, that is), it will go where it will, and worse, someone else (criminals, police, government, some faceless random person sitting behind a keyboard somewhere) will be able to control it remotely. A vehicle is a tool; the way humans use tools, they become effectively an extension of your physical body, so far as your brain is concerned. If you can't control the tool, it can't become a virtual part of you. It becomes more like being on a rollercoaster at that point, except one that could get you killed. I don't need a 'thrill ride' (more like TERROR ride, really) every time I need to go anywhere; I'd rather WALK that put up with that.
that even relatively stupid people manage to follow
This deserves repeating.
People tend to expect flawless behavior from AI for it to be viable, but we have little issue with 50% of drivers on the road 'driving like shit'. People lose their shit if you even suggest that people should retake their driving exams every five years.
We literally regularly say that tons of other people are terrible drivers. There are at least 3 people in my group(s) of friends that I do not trust at all and actively avoid as drivers. One of them has actually almost gotten me killed when she was driving us. This is extrapolation, but I'm under the impression that about 33% of my friends, whether I have been their passenger or not is a terrible driver. And most of my friends are quite intelligent and thus don't even have the excuse of being stupid.
I can't wait for self-driving cars to become the norm.
Define better. There are currently basically 3 types of ground transportation
Your analysis is garbage because it ignores externalities.
There is nothing cheap about letting everyone own a car. It is expensive in every way.
You also ignore that we have had the technology for over a hundred years to put small cars on rails. Instead we put them on roads, which don't scale as well as rail. We allowed this state of affairs to proliferate at the behest of rich men who bought legislation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
thank GOD the 7.343564675 billion OTHER people on the planet dont live in silicon valley, its not like they matter MORE or anything. jesus.
The San Francisco Bay Area is only 4M+ people short of being declared a megacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity
Megacity II on our way.. Just need a law giver a motorbike that rarely works and.. The Law...
we can ONLY create the false illusion of them, a parlor trick, fakery
That's good enough. My brain also creates false illusions, parlor tricks, and fakery, and they allow me to drive a car.
Scientists who study the human brain agree with me
citation required.
That's a mere 0.007% of the global population over 10 years. You're not really making a dent in anything you profess to care about - and if you really did care about it that much, you'd know that reducing poverty and improving education are two far more effective tools in containing population. You're not a jerk, but you're also not very bright.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Define better. There are currently basically 3 types of ground transportation:
1) Mass transportation -- cheap but slow
2) Taxi/Uber/Lyft -- fast but expensive
3) Personal Car -- fast AND cheap once you own the car.
This isn't really true, it depends on where you are and where you're going. #3 is the most incorrect, because personal cars are much slower than #2 in most cities. The factor you're missing is parking. When I go to the downtown part of the large city I live near, a good half of my time is spent looking for a place to park on the street, and then walking from there to wherever I'm actually going, which can be over a mile because I don't want to spend a fortune on a parking garage closer to that place. With #2, there's no parking and they drop you off right at your destination, so it's very fast. Also, depending on the parking situation, #3 can be more expensive than #1 or #2: if you're forced to use a garage, the fees for that can easily be more than just getting a taxi or Lyft, plus you still have more walking time than being dropped off at an exact place.
Finally #1 frequently isn't that cheap. The subway in my city is usually around $3-4 per trip per person, which can be competitive with Uber Pool. And with high traffic, it might not be any slower, or even faster. But buses are usually slower since they're subject to the same traffic problems as cars.
But you're absolutely right about the cost of the driver being a big factor in #2.
Speaking personally, even if I lived right in or near the city somewhere and just used public transit or even walked/biked to work, I do a fair number of 1-2 hour trips to rural hiking spots on the weekends, plus 3-4 hour trips to visit family every few months, that I can't imagine how it'd be economical to *not* have my own car. Renting a car every weekend would get expensive fast, plus there's a significant amount of overhead time involved with the rental process. Plus there's the fact that I can't easily bolt up my hitch-mounted bike rack to a rental car when I want to take my bike someplace for a long bike excursion (and those crappy trunk-mounted racks are infamous for damaging cars).
To an extent. But look at what's happening with movies: a lot of people are giving up on them and staying home and using their home theaters. And online shopping: Amazon is doing quite well, among others.
Basically, if the place you have to go is filled with people you'd rather not be around (theaters), or if the convenience is far-and-away better (Amazon), people will avoid going places. But in the case of groceries, it seems to me that shopping online just isn't that convenient and has serious problems: 1) how do you inspect your produce before buying? Is it too ripe or too green? Is it bruised? How do you pick out the milk that has the latest expiration date? Etc. Do you really trust some minimum-wage worker employed by the store (who'd rather you take the oldest milk and the wilted produce off their hands for full price instead of trashing it) to make the best buying decisions on your behalf? 2) Browsing is a lot easier by just walking down an aisle than surfing a bunch of slow-loading web pages full of tracking code and bloat. And I don't have problems with the people at the local grocery store, unlike in theaters.
This isn't a study, it's a WAG (Wild A$$ guess). There's way to many variables to even attempt to imagine the economy in 2050
*Population by then will likely hit food shortages, (edible bio-mass in the oceans is dropping significantly year after year), temp changes, acidification, over fishing are contributors
* fresh water shortages,
* global warming will change the earth, it's projected that by 2050 5Bn people will face entirely new climates (again, what will that do to plant and animal habitat) , parts of the US will have over 200 days per year of +100 degree temps.
* Automation may displace 50%-80% of all workers. Who will be the consumers of the goods and services if 1/2 the population+ isn't working and has no income?
Sure, none of these are certain, but collectively they will create unforeseen changes and alternatives rendering prognosticators today simpletons. Or, don't believe everything you read.
Nothing about Go involves understanding the world or people. Everything about driving involves understanding the world and people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What percentage of playing the game of Go is the same ruleset applied over and over and over, and what percentage is an actual unique idea? I'd say it is 95% repetition with 5% decision.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The thing that you fail to understand is that #2 will be the taxi of the future, meaning it will cost the same of the taxi. Regular taxi's will be out of business, and probably a lot cleaner by comparison. #3 will still be much cheaper, and not many will be able to afford self driving either. As for renting a car, I frequently need to pop out to a grocery store and it helps that I can drive to one and back in 15 minutes, especially in mornings when I realize my kids don't have anything fresh for me to give them for lunch. I can't see anything working but #3 quite frankly.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
7 trillion dollar industry divided by 1 million customers = 7 million per customer. Math totally checks out, this will save a ton compared to cars.
Oh wait, did they account for the massive riots when they put every moron who can't do more than drive a delivery truck out of business? This could translate to 7 quintilian dollars when you account for the need of the defense industry to more heavily arm the police to cope and start setting up concentration camps.
Nothing about Go involves understanding the world or people. Everything about driving involves understanding the world and people.
My point was not that Go is equal to driving. The point was that progress comes in leaps and bounds, not gradual.
Playing Go means you have to understand vague concepts like "influence" that are not defined by rules. Driving means understanding vague concepts like "pedestrians". Even though these are different concepts, they are comparably fuzzy in their definition, so it's likely that progress in autonomous driving will also happen in leaps and bounds.
What percentage of playing the game of Go is the same ruleset applied over and over and over, and what percentage is an actual unique idea?
Every game and every position is unique, once you get past the initial opening moves. The computer has learned to recognize patterns of patterns, and apply these patterns in new situations.
What part of playing Go was really an advance in what we already knew about neural networks. Maybe they added a clever spin to make it good at go but did they not just use a Google neural network? Does AlphaGo even learn from game to game at all? Have they demonstrated it getting better and better as it plays and self-adapting (meaning no code changes) . or do they need to make code changes each time?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What part of playing Go was really an advance in what we already knew about neural networks
The playing strength was suddenly far beyond what people were expecting. They were not the first to try out neural networks for Go, but they certainly created the biggest jump.
Have they demonstrated it getting better and better as it plays and self-adapting (meaning no code changes) . or do they need to make code changes each time?
It acquired most of its knowledge from self-play at rapid time controls, using a few weeks of training time. Once it is set up, no more code changes or human input is necessary to improve playing strength. They bootstrapped it by letting it watch human games first, but I've read that people are working on a new version that starts completely from scratch. Similar techniques can be used for driving cars. Google must have endless footage from current vehicles that can be used to train new networks in the lab. By just recording millions of hours of pedestrians walking on/near the roads, and using those as input, you can probably build a good model of a pedestrian, and their likely movements, without any human input.
You're not understanding me. The game is picking the next move over and over based on a small set of rules. How many times is it required to go outside those rules to make an actual decision about the next part of the game?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Except for the fact that there are way more situations in driving that come up then in a game of go. I don't care how many possible board positions there are.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This isn't really true, it depends on where you are and where you're going. #3 is the most incorrect, because personal cars are much slower than #2 in most cities. The factor you're missing is parking.
Which is exactly why car ownership starts to drop in big cities.
Renting a car every weekend would get expensive fast, plus there's a significant amount of overhead time involved with the rental process.
Companies are already working on reducing the friction involved. With Zipcar you can literally just walk up,unlock the car, and go. With an autonomous car that car could come to you. Yes, prices would need to come down but as volume, efficiencies, and competition increase, prices will naturally come down.
Your analysis is garbage because it ignores externalities.
There is nothing cheap about letting everyone own a car.
Externalities are irrelevant as are the sunk cost of owning the car once you are required to own it for any reason. My analysis is why people who own a car use it every day instead of some other form of transportation. Once you own a car, it doesn't make financial sense to wake up in the morning and use a taxi or mass transportation. As long as a car makes financial sense to the individual, it will continue to be the main form of transportation and as long as certain activities can only really be done with a car then it will continue to make financial sense.
And then everyone will take their flying cars back to their homes in the sky, and then they'll arrive via their vacuum tube elevators, and then their robotic maids will 3d print their food to their liking, and then they'll take their pets on a walk outside on top of a threadmill suspended 10000 feet in the air with no guardrails
Predictions predictions. I'm not sure why analysts and companies keep doing this, but seems it's either veiled interests or just pure ignorance on how culture grows with technology. Predictions should not be made by people who can't see past their own area of expertise.
You know the side effect of millions of people receiving the boot because their jobs have been replaced by automation? Record levels of unemployment followed by recession and then depression. You know the side effect of recession and depression? People not having money to pay for anything. You know the side effect of people not having money to pay for anything? Industries not having money to invest on automation. People being unable to sustain themselves. Major public revolt and dissent. Chaos.
We won't have a major uniform and complete shift in just 2 decades or so, because that would provoke an auto-collapse. Either we have gradual changes and implementation along changes in society and culture that enables accomodation of new tech, or we'll risk going back to medieval times. If these futurologists keeps thinking with only tech advances in mind, we are no better in predicting stuff than people in the 60s thinking about the year 2000.
I wonder how Zipcar deals with damage to the car; with regular rentals, you have to walk around the car with the employee and indicate all the damage on the car, then sign a form indicating the damage and the fuel tank fullness. Then when you return it, any new damage you're liable for, and if the tank isn't as full as when you got it, you have to pay a hefty fee for gas.
The other problem with Zipcar is that there likely isn't one right there where and when you need it, so again you may be doing some walking.
Intel predicts great future for something that Intel has invested tens of billions in.
If you consider the amount money spent on technology over nearly sixty years, crap still happens with aircraft.