They don't need to do that to be able to drive more safely than an average driver.
Why the hell not? If a manual car automaker made a car on which the lug bolts could break thus losing the wheel and killing the occupant, that car would not be allowed on the market. Why would we allow AI on the market that is in some way not safe? Humans cannot be held responsible for mistakes that the AI makes no more than a lug bold snapping. I don't care how many people it might save one day, you can't guarantee that result so people should not be injured or killed today. What are these companies going to say to the parents when one of these vehicles kills a child who was sitting on a curb with the sun shining a certain way so as to be in a blind spot? "Oh well, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs"?? It will be enough of a tragedy if these things kill animals that a human would have avoided.
You're making the assumption that the AI correctly interprets the situation in the first place, of course. It's going to be twenty years before it understands the world as well as a human. Also, most situations will be a simple warning not to continue with the current action. For example, the driver will start changing lanes and there will be a beep, well it's pretty obvious then that you should stay in your current lane and the human won't have trouble reacting.
I didn't say anything about keeping up with the jonses. I'm just saying if you want the reliability of a new car you have to buy the one that is 'better' today so it is essentially the same price as what it was in the 70's (even though it is a better car).
Well, Elon Musk doesn't seem to think human reaction time is an issue.. At least in this case they would be actively involved at the point there is an issue so reaction time would be faster than with Autopilot. As for what is in it for the driver, if people are that concerned about saving lives that they are willing to allow lives to be lost in the short term in the name of developing it, then they will want technology in their current manual car that would help them. I wouldn't put it in my car, but then I don't feel like I am taking a huge risk when I am driving a manual car.
Manual cars that talk to each other will be almost as effective. It willl hit the mainstram faster because it is simpler and cheaper. You might even be able to have them installed aftermarket. If you consider the adoption rate of AI, you're already obsolete in that regard.
Manual cars will be just as safe. There is nothing preventing manual cars from talking with one another and warning the driver. It is a far cheaper and simple solution and possibly a good first step to full automation, but it is being rushed in in a mad dash for profits. You say no technology is perfect, but will it hit a kid who is small for his age and fit into a blank spot in the sensors? That's what really matters. What assurances do we have that this is ready enough for that?
For anyone who needs to store a over a Tb or so of media and share it locally, it seems the PC remains the only way to do it. You can't send all that through high speed cable, or at least it would be stupid to do it, so the cloud is not an option. As long as there is a basic use like that, the PC will not die.
The Chevy Malibu is not the same product it was in the 70s
But since I don't have the choice to buy a brand new basic car of the 70's for $5000 today, the fact that it is a different car is beside the point. The fact is, cars have become even more necessary today, thus they cost more.
Are you talking technically easier or mentally easier? I do front end Javascript and back end Python, and I've found they can communicate quite well using get/post or json. But perhaps the communication is more efficient somehow with node.js, is there a method of passing data that presents it self without using those protocols? I develop Android/iOS as well so maybe I have just gotten used to thinking in different languages over the years and don't really notice it any more.
You're talking about new inventions, which misses the point. Any technology will experience a cost decrease in its beginning but then it levels out. I'm sure before the Ford Model-T came out cars were considered a luxury item for the wealthy, but people were also doing fine without cars. Yet the Chevy Malibu of 1970 when adjusted for inflation was cheaper than a Chevy Malibu of today. There will be no point in time where a new vehicle costs $2000, it just won't happen. There is no connection to the price point of a product and the cost to make it, what matters only is demand. When households spent most of their money on food and there were no washing machines and dishwashers, most were also single earner families so it is also not an accurate comparison. Sure, technology gets better at the same price point but once the inefficiencies of a new innovation are worked out the price levels off.
I'm really confused about node.js. Can anyone give me an example of something that they used it for that would have been a lot harder or wouldn't work as well as a traditional web framework? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if someone is already comfortable with a framework is there reason to experiment with node.js?
So many people here on slashdot are about working hard, getting the right skils, and we are supposed to be profiting from it. Well you know what, technology was the right thing to go into, I worked hard on my education and I deserve to reap the benefits from it. Why should I have the rug pulled out from under my feet because the choice I made was too good?
If I'm buying a house in a sellers market I don't whine and complain about it, I just buy the best house I can or don't buy a house. Why should it be any different for corporations?
If UBI is set up right, not working will only allow you to barely live and there will still be plenty of motivation to work. I'm hoping they can set it up right.
I don't think unions are really doing that much to hasten automation. Maybe by one or two years but in the grand scheme of things, automation is happening regardless.
Certainly, a company can pay people minimum wage and still be a great place to work. It's all in how they treat the employees. Do they have flexibility in how they schedule their shifts, does the company throw parties to generally show they appreciate them once in a while, that sort of thing. If the company shows appreciation for the people then you work in a happier environment. From what I hear about Amazon, they basically assume their employees are criminals who will scam the company, and at the same time tries every trick in the book to get the most hours out of them for the least pay. That is a shit job; not necessarily anything to do with pay but overall treatment.
All those things only need so many people to do them. Every industry has a market with a supply/demand balance. For argument's sake, say 25% of all jobs become obsolete tomorrow and all these people get let go and must look for work (I am using handyman as an example). Of the 30 million people out of work, some will become handymen. Not only is the supply of handymen increasing, but the demand for handymen will also decrease since 30 million people will not be able to afford renovations on their current home for some time. Sure, things will need to be fixed but I'm sure renovations are a large part of the work. So this will have a double whammy effect on the handyman market. Yes I know using handyman as an example is over simplifying, but unless you can identify a way that these self employed markets will expand in this scenario, or identify an expansion anywhere in the face of decreasing demand and less flowing capital, I believe most are in for a world of hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't need to do that to be able to drive more safely than an average driver.
Why the hell not? If a manual car automaker made a car on which the lug bolts could break thus losing the wheel and killing the occupant, that car would not be allowed on the market. Why would we allow AI on the market that is in some way not safe? Humans cannot be held responsible for mistakes that the AI makes no more than a lug bold snapping. I don't care how many people it might save one day, you can't guarantee that result so people should not be injured or killed today. What are these companies going to say to the parents when one of these vehicles kills a child who was sitting on a curb with the sun shining a certain way so as to be in a blind spot? "Oh well, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs"?? It will be enough of a tragedy if these things kill animals that a human would have avoided.
You're making the assumption that the AI correctly interprets the situation in the first place, of course. It's going to be twenty years before it understands the world as well as a human. Also, most situations will be a simple warning not to continue with the current action. For example, the driver will start changing lanes and there will be a beep, well it's pretty obvious then that you should stay in your current lane and the human won't have trouble reacting.
On that we agree.
I didn't say anything about keeping up with the jonses. I'm just saying if you want the reliability of a new car you have to buy the one that is 'better' today so it is essentially the same price as what it was in the 70's (even though it is a better car).
Well, Elon Musk doesn't seem to think human reaction time is an issue.. At least in this case they would be actively involved at the point there is an issue so reaction time would be faster than with Autopilot. As for what is in it for the driver, if people are that concerned about saving lives that they are willing to allow lives to be lost in the short term in the name of developing it, then they will want technology in their current manual car that would help them. I wouldn't put it in my car, but then I don't feel like I am taking a huge risk when I am driving a manual car.
Manual cars that talk to each other will be almost as effective. It willl hit the mainstram faster because it is simpler and cheaper. You might even be able to have them installed aftermarket. If you consider the adoption rate of AI, you're already obsolete in that regard.
Manual cars will be just as safe. There is nothing preventing manual cars from talking with one another and warning the driver. It is a far cheaper and simple solution and possibly a good first step to full automation, but it is being rushed in in a mad dash for profits. You say no technology is perfect, but will it hit a kid who is small for his age and fit into a blank spot in the sensors? That's what really matters. What assurances do we have that this is ready enough for that?
Self driving technology is perfect! How could it possibly kill anything? Except I'm hazarding a guess it will run over a cat or a dog.
For anyone who needs to store a over a Tb or so of media and share it locally, it seems the PC remains the only way to do it. You can't send all that through high speed cable, or at least it would be stupid to do it, so the cloud is not an option. As long as there is a basic use like that, the PC will not die.
But if you buy a used car, then you have the problems of a used car. Not at all the same as buying a new car.
..I watch it all day in my parents basement and now that I'm all grown up they don't bug me much! Life is sweeeet.
The Chevy Malibu is not the same product it was in the 70s
But since I don't have the choice to buy a brand new basic car of the 70's for $5000 today, the fact that it is a different car is beside the point. The fact is, cars have become even more necessary today, thus they cost more.
Are you talking technically easier or mentally easier? I do front end Javascript and back end Python, and I've found they can communicate quite well using get/post or json. But perhaps the communication is more efficient somehow with node.js, is there a method of passing data that presents it self without using those protocols? I develop Android/iOS as well so maybe I have just gotten used to thinking in different languages over the years and don't really notice it any more.
You're talking about new inventions, which misses the point. Any technology will experience a cost decrease in its beginning but then it levels out. I'm sure before the Ford Model-T came out cars were considered a luxury item for the wealthy, but people were also doing fine without cars. Yet the Chevy Malibu of 1970 when adjusted for inflation was cheaper than a Chevy Malibu of today. There will be no point in time where a new vehicle costs $2000, it just won't happen. There is no connection to the price point of a product and the cost to make it, what matters only is demand. When households spent most of their money on food and there were no washing machines and dishwashers, most were also single earner families so it is also not an accurate comparison. Sure, technology gets better at the same price point but once the inefficiencies of a new innovation are worked out the price levels off.
I'm really confused about node.js. Can anyone give me an example of something that they used it for that would have been a lot harder or wouldn't work as well as a traditional web framework? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if someone is already comfortable with a framework is there reason to experiment with node.js?
So many people here on slashdot are about working hard, getting the right skils, and we are supposed to be profiting from it. Well you know what, technology was the right thing to go into, I worked hard on my education and I deserve to reap the benefits from it. Why should I have the rug pulled out from under my feet because the choice I made was too good?
If I'm buying a house in a sellers market I don't whine and complain about it, I just buy the best house I can or don't buy a house. Why should it be any different for corporations?
If UBI is set up right, not working will only allow you to barely live and there will still be plenty of motivation to work. I'm hoping they can set it up right.
Quality of life is better because you can get entertainment instantly? Wow, talk about pacifying the masses.
I don't think unions are really doing that much to hasten automation. Maybe by one or two years but in the grand scheme of things, automation is happening regardless.
How do you figure cost of basic goods is going to decline? Cost savings due to technological advances hasn't been passed onto the consumer ever.
Certainly, a company can pay people minimum wage and still be a great place to work. It's all in how they treat the employees. Do they have flexibility in how they schedule their shifts, does the company throw parties to generally show they appreciate them once in a while, that sort of thing. If the company shows appreciation for the people then you work in a happier environment. From what I hear about Amazon, they basically assume their employees are criminals who will scam the company, and at the same time tries every trick in the book to get the most hours out of them for the least pay. That is a shit job; not necessarily anything to do with pay but overall treatment.
Not filled with excitable kids? People here defend Apple all the time!
If it has a headphone port and a large battery it might have a chance.
All those things only need so many people to do them. Every industry has a market with a supply/demand balance. For argument's sake, say 25% of all jobs become obsolete tomorrow and all these people get let go and must look for work (I am using handyman as an example). Of the 30 million people out of work, some will become handymen. Not only is the supply of handymen increasing, but the demand for handymen will also decrease since 30 million people will not be able to afford renovations on their current home for some time. Sure, things will need to be fixed but I'm sure renovations are a large part of the work. So this will have a double whammy effect on the handyman market. Yes I know using handyman as an example is over simplifying, but unless you can identify a way that these self employed markets will expand in this scenario, or identify an expansion anywhere in the face of decreasing demand and less flowing capital, I believe most are in for a world of hurt.