I've never driven a cab for a living but I've spoken w/ cabbies about it, and it's not an easy job. A good cab driver knows the turf. S/he gets you to your destination safely and efficiently... and doesn't rip you off or make you feel creeped out. Over time, failure to meet these criteria has resulted in licensing and regulation. The licensing requirements also provide a barrier to entry. So "official" cab services have evolved an ecosystem of sorts. And a skilled, hard-working driver can make decent, but not great, money. Here's a Huffington Post article that asserts some numbers for both Uber and traditional cabbies:
Now along comes Uber. Cool business model. Flexible price structure. Apps that get a ride to where you are when you need it. Disruptive to the old order. If you know what you're doing, you can use Uber to get around conveniently. If I understand it right, the Uber system addresses, using the clout of the company, some of the good cab requirements (e.g. they'll monitor their drivers).
But Uber disrupts an existing ecosystem... a system that lots of licensed, chartered drivers depend on for their livelihoods. While tech types typically revel in so-called "disruptive technologies," I worry that Uber spells the demise of yet another low tech job. I mean, shouldn't there be something between fast food workers and cube dwellers? So I can see both sides of this. There's not a simple answer to the problem.
...but I have a hard time getting all that excited about hydrogen powered vehicles. Yes, their tailpipe emissions are much more benign than those of hydrocarbon eaters. But it's still a matter of going to the gas station to fill up, still immense corporate-controlled infrastructure. And you really don't want to spill any liquid H2 on your shoes.
This is exactly my worry. Say you choose to comply. How can you safely produce your phone? "All my information is on my phone, officer. May I put my hand in my pocket to retrieve it?" Even that may not work in the absence of properly curated incident recordings.
A set of ethical precepts needn't be absolutely perfect (Goedel's theorem would suggest that's not too likely anyway, right?) to be useful. People, by-in-large, know what's ethical and what's not. Problems arise when rationalization rears its head.
Do you, for example, have some close friends? People you'd trust with the keys to your home? People you'd allow to take care of your child? If so, I suspect you're a person of reason & decency... i.e. pretty darned ethical.
Given that, I suspect that you and two or three of those friends could develop a very good set of ethical precepts. Now, put several such teams together, let them work independently, and see what they come up with. Work from there.
Again, it won't be perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth attempting – especially if the alternative is an advanced AI that's devoid of ethics.
...on the circumstances of the plot. Say you're writing a story about a dystopian future in which the plutocrats have their foot firmly planted on the population's neck. In such a future, technical & social changes will be meted out according to the rulers' priorities.
For example, in today's world, we see a significant difference between rates of cultural change in (historically) open societies versus those that have solidly established oligarchies.
And what about colonized worlds? Say you have a colony on a planet that's inhabitable but not particularly valuable from an exportable resource point of view. Say the colonists develop an agrarian society. Perhaps they maintain some contact w/ other worlds but they haven't the financial clout to keep up w/ technology so their recapping the past 200 years of western development. Yes, they "get" the science, but science w/o technology isn't often developed into rapid culture shifts.
So while I can imagine stories for which Stross' premise is valid,I don't think all stories -- even modern stories -- have to feature societies unfathomable to 21st century minds.
MC Glaviano
Vacationing, yes, that's not in the cards as far as current science knows.
But detecting life! Now that would be something!
And (somehow) detecting sentient beings would be a game-changer.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a "pick up fee" (exact term may vary) in US cities too. It's not unique to Paris.
I've never driven a cab for a living but I've spoken w/ cabbies about it, and it's not an easy job. A good cab driver knows the turf. S/he gets you to your destination safely and efficiently... and doesn't rip you off or make you feel creeped out. Over time, failure to meet these criteria has resulted in licensing and regulation. The licensing requirements also provide a barrier to entry. So "official" cab services have evolved an ecosystem of sorts. And a skilled, hard-working driver can make decent, but not great, money. Here's a Huffington Post article that asserts some numbers for both Uber and traditional cabbies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Now along comes Uber. Cool business model. Flexible price structure. Apps that get a ride to where you are when you need it. Disruptive to the old order. If you know what you're doing, you can use Uber to get around conveniently. If I understand it right, the Uber system addresses, using the clout of the company, some of the good cab requirements (e.g. they'll monitor their drivers).
But Uber disrupts an existing ecosystem... a system that lots of licensed, chartered drivers depend on for their livelihoods. While tech types typically revel in so-called "disruptive technologies," I worry that Uber spells the demise of yet another low tech job. I mean, shouldn't there be something between fast food workers and cube dwellers? So I can see both sides of this. There's not a simple answer to the problem.
...but I have a hard time getting all that excited about hydrogen powered vehicles. Yes, their tailpipe emissions are much more benign than those of hydrocarbon eaters. But it's still a matter of going to the gas station to fill up, still immense corporate-controlled infrastructure. And you really don't want to spill any liquid H2 on your shoes.
This is exactly my worry. Say you choose to comply. How can you safely produce your phone? "All my information is on my phone, officer. May I put my hand in my pocket to retrieve it?" Even that may not work in the absence of properly curated incident recordings.
A set of ethical precepts needn't be absolutely perfect (Goedel's theorem would suggest that's not too likely anyway, right?) to be useful. People, by-in-large, know what's ethical and what's not. Problems arise when rationalization rears its head.
Do you, for example, have some close friends? People you'd trust with the keys to your home? People you'd allow to take care of your child? If so, I suspect you're a person of reason & decency... i.e. pretty darned ethical.
Given that, I suspect that you and two or three of those friends could develop a very good set of ethical precepts. Now, put several such teams together, let them work independently, and see what they come up with. Work from there.
Again, it won't be perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth attempting – especially if the alternative is an advanced AI that's devoid of ethics.
Dang it. I meant to post the above as me... rather than anonymously. Sorry.
...on the circumstances of the plot. Say you're writing a story about a dystopian future in which the plutocrats have their foot firmly planted on the population's neck. In such a future, technical & social changes will be meted out according to the rulers' priorities. For example, in today's world, we see a significant difference between rates of cultural change in (historically) open societies versus those that have solidly established oligarchies. And what about colonized worlds? Say you have a colony on a planet that's inhabitable but not particularly valuable from an exportable resource point of view. Say the colonists develop an agrarian society. Perhaps they maintain some contact w/ other worlds but they haven't the financial clout to keep up w/ technology so their recapping the past 200 years of western development. Yes, they "get" the science, but science w/o technology isn't often developed into rapid culture shifts. So while I can imagine stories for which Stross' premise is valid,I don't think all stories -- even modern stories -- have to feature societies unfathomable to 21st century minds. MC Glaviano
Vacationing, yes, that's not in the cards as far as current science knows. But detecting life! Now that would be something! And (somehow) detecting sentient beings would be a game-changer.