Can AI differ a hopping rabbit and a ball bouncing in the street and therefore watch for a child? Oh you programmed for that? What about a cat and a ball? Bird and a frisbee? Shopping bag and a frisbee? Ball and a tumbleweed? It needs to be smart enough to accurately categorize between *something* that *no one* will be running after and *something* that *someone* may be running after, which means it needs to know what everything is smaller than a breadbox. Unless it can sense off road movement through infrared or something, but I don't know if any AI cars have that yet. Even then it will see a shape and need to determine what it is and what it is likely to do. That's just a small example. No one can think of every possibility and program every shape in the world, much less an understanding of it; so understanding will need to be inherent. Not just decision making, but understanding.
They need to be able to determine the difference between a rabbit hopping across the street and a bouncing ball.. because a child may be running after the ball. A human would stop and so should AI.
This is why the government regulates these services in the first damn place. Because once you step outside of an overall civic transportation solution, you're an opportunist.
But you have to do more than press a button to take the subway. So we can't have that. No method of transportation should be more complicated than an Apple device.
Contracting may be an option, but the places in North America where you can have enough jobs to support you on it have shrunk big time. So yes you can contract, but then you don't have a choice of where to live. And you had better be healthy too, and preferably not have a family. And the hours.. when I was contracting, I was expected to work full time and on top of that there was all kinds of paperwork to do; and that was a dedicated gig. I didn't need to take people out and network in order to keep those jobs.
If there is a place n the world where you can have a relatively inexpensive house and general cost of living, no long commute so you can spend it with kids, and yet have a plethora of gigs to choose from so there is no worry of what the next one is I would like to know where that is.
I believe most humans really do want what is best for other humans, but capitalism most definitely does not. Furthermore, it rewards the few remaining that don't want what is best for others.
People will only switch to driving services if they are more the cost of Uber and cost much less than a taxi. Yet I think it is a reasonable assumption that taxis as we know today will be gone by then, so there will be nothing to hold the price of an automated driving service down and they may likely just fill the same niche. People keep saying that self driving cars will be cleaner because they will have sensors to detect when someone pisses in them but I'll have to see that to believe it. There will be no driver, but the car will be more expensive to purchase, operate and maintain so it will be a wash. I do agree with you on the point of the elderly but again, those people would then take taxi's today. The manual car will remain king, because it will be always be cheapest, and it will be there in your driveway to serve you with no waiting.
All we know is how many accidents Autopilot gets into in its perfect driving conditions; situations that humans probably have a low accident rate in anyway. Add to that the fact that ever Tesla driver is driving a brand new $60K vehicle, which most people would be more careful with. Also all of them have probably taken a big step back in how far they are willing to push the envelope since the Florida accident. When Autopilot can leave a person's driveway in a blizzard, deal with snow and ice, driving around snow clearing equipment and piles of snow in the road on the way without touchng the steering wheel once, then we will have an accurate comparison of safety.
There is such a sliver of time where a minor is old enough to go somewhere on their own in an automated car and when they can drive themselves, I don't think that use will be particularly relevant. Maybe between the years of 14 and 16, but that's about it.
I still say capitalism will get in the way of any benefit that automated cars may possibly bring. As long as they are more expensive than manual cars, people will prefer manual cars and we will never reach a critical mass required to be statistically relevant. The people on Slashdot may think the automated thing is cool and all and worth spending a bundle on, but most people won't see it that way. Either governments will have to subsidize most of the difference in cost, or the economy will have to send a whole lot of money to the middle class so that the difference in cost becomes less relevant to them.
Apple's off shore savings (yes I know they are not alone) are already hurting world economy. The removal of the headphone jack will funnel more money into their coffers that are not being returned to support society as it should. Therefore, I think maybe you are underestimating the harm that this might cause.
This requires having a career that carries you through your life, which no longer exists. I know many people in the generation before me that went to work for one company, got on a defined benefit plan, worked there for their whole career and now have a great retirement. That won't be in the cards for many of my generation.
The problem is, unless you are in a position where that particular difficult to attain skillset is being used you're not likely to know it exists, both politically and geographically. Even if you do know it exists, people who are less intellectually capable than you may be given training by their companies. So it really all devolves down to 'right place right time'.
Kids DO learn logic. They talk about Venn diagrams and AND and OR and critical thinking issues. Programming is an application of logic that they don't need to learn logic.
Yeah I think out of high school someone who knows how to program would get a job, but there is no career there. That's worse than not having jobs because it gets them to their 30's at which point they will have difficulty switching to a career that they wlll continue to be able to grow in.
Slashdot Mirror
Can AI differ a hopping rabbit and a ball bouncing in the street and therefore watch for a child? Oh you programmed for that? What about a cat and a ball? Bird and a frisbee? Shopping bag and a frisbee? Ball and a tumbleweed? It needs to be smart enough to accurately categorize between *something* that *no one* will be running after and *something* that *someone* may be running after, which means it needs to know what everything is smaller than a breadbox. Unless it can sense off road movement through infrared or something, but I don't know if any AI cars have that yet. Even then it will see a shape and need to determine what it is and what it is likely to do. That's just a small example. No one can think of every possibility and program every shape in the world, much less an understanding of it; so understanding will need to be inherent. Not just decision making, but understanding.
In a lot of places that would constitute blocking traffic and therefore be a moving violation.
They need to be able to determine the difference between a rabbit hopping across the street and a bouncing ball.. because a child may be running after the ball. A human would stop and so should AI.
It's more because the people who buy cars want some space on the road to use them.
You know what, the world would go on.
Uber drivers are starving.. therefore bombings shall continue.
People could walk
Obviously, this proves way too onerous for the special Uber generation snowflakes.
This is why the government regulates these services in the first damn place. Because once you step outside of an overall civic transportation solution, you're an opportunist.
But you have to do more than press a button to take the subway. So we can't have that. No method of transportation should be more complicated than an Apple device.
Or imagine there was a pen injector device that cost $4 to make, but the people who needed it had to pay $600 for it..
America has gotten full of people spouting bullshit economic dogma.
FIFY
Contracting may be an option, but the places in North America where you can have enough jobs to support you on it have shrunk big time. So yes you can contract, but then you don't have a choice of where to live. And you had better be healthy too, and preferably not have a family. And the hours.. when I was contracting, I was expected to work full time and on top of that there was all kinds of paperwork to do; and that was a dedicated gig. I didn't need to take people out and network in order to keep those jobs.
If there is a place n the world where you can have a relatively inexpensive house and general cost of living, no long commute so you can spend it with kids, and yet have a plethora of gigs to choose from so there is no worry of what the next one is I would like to know where that is.
Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.
I believe most humans really do want what is best for other humans, but capitalism most definitely does not. Furthermore, it rewards the few remaining that don't want what is best for others.
People will only switch to driving services if they are more the cost of Uber and cost much less than a taxi. Yet I think it is a reasonable assumption that taxis as we know today will be gone by then, so there will be nothing to hold the price of an automated driving service down and they may likely just fill the same niche. People keep saying that self driving cars will be cleaner because they will have sensors to detect when someone pisses in them but I'll have to see that to believe it. There will be no driver, but the car will be more expensive to purchase, operate and maintain so it will be a wash. I do agree with you on the point of the elderly but again, those people would then take taxi's today. The manual car will remain king, because it will be always be cheapest, and it will be there in your driveway to serve you with no waiting.
All we know is how many accidents Autopilot gets into in its perfect driving conditions; situations that humans probably have a low accident rate in anyway. Add to that the fact that ever Tesla driver is driving a brand new $60K vehicle, which most people would be more careful with. Also all of them have probably taken a big step back in how far they are willing to push the envelope since the Florida accident. When Autopilot can leave a person's driveway in a blizzard, deal with snow and ice, driving around snow clearing equipment and piles of snow in the road on the way without touchng the steering wheel once, then we will have an accurate comparison of safety.
But will they all be able to have two cars in their driveway? Will they all be able to have shelter?
There is such a sliver of time where a minor is old enough to go somewhere on their own in an automated car and when they can drive themselves, I don't think that use will be particularly relevant. Maybe between the years of 14 and 16, but that's about it.
I still say capitalism will get in the way of any benefit that automated cars may possibly bring. As long as they are more expensive than manual cars, people will prefer manual cars and we will never reach a critical mass required to be statistically relevant. The people on Slashdot may think the automated thing is cool and all and worth spending a bundle on, but most people won't see it that way. Either governments will have to subsidize most of the difference in cost, or the economy will have to send a whole lot of money to the middle class so that the difference in cost becomes less relevant to them.
Apple's off shore savings (yes I know they are not alone) are already hurting world economy. The removal of the headphone jack will funnel more money into their coffers that are not being returned to support society as it should. Therefore, I think maybe you are underestimating the harm that this might cause.
This requires having a career that carries you through your life, which no longer exists. I know many people in the generation before me that went to work for one company, got on a defined benefit plan, worked there for their whole career and now have a great retirement. That won't be in the cards for many of my generation.
The problem is, unless you are in a position where that particular difficult to attain skillset is being used you're not likely to know it exists, both politically and geographically. Even if you do know it exists, people who are less intellectually capable than you may be given training by their companies. So it really all devolves down to 'right place right time'.
This is exactly how I would have answered. Capitalism creates way more problems then it solves.
Kids DO learn logic. They talk about Venn diagrams and AND and OR and critical thinking issues. Programming is an application of logic that they don't need to learn logic.
Yeah I think out of high school someone who knows how to program would get a job, but there is no career there. That's worse than not having jobs because it gets them to their 30's at which point they will have difficulty switching to a career that they wlll continue to be able to grow in.