I don't think anyone, well maybe aviation software developers, are capable of programming such devices. It must be efficient, secure, fault tolerant... the list goes on. By contrast, today commercial software is expected to fail and security updates are routine that nobody minds. This would be disastrous when applied to such tech. Just imagine someone figuring out how to crash your visual cortex, inducing seizures and such.
Customers want walled gardens! Just look at cable bundles, it is clearly that bundles is the most popular choice by far. Also, customers want more commercials - just look at how popular are Super Bowl commercials are. It follows that Internet access should be bundled walled garden with auto-play video commercials inserted into browsing. This is what consumers want! Other internet is for dirty pirates and darknet hackers.
If humans were only capable of driving, then yes nobody should drive as it would be a bloody massacre every time. However, humans are also equipped with self-preservation override that is keenly polished throughout evolution. No such thing exists for AI, so it might not pause and reconsider prior to driving off the cliff.
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood.
But intelligence and consciousness are not fully understood
You will be hard-pressed to make a case that human intelligence is anything but a catastrophic failure and/or malfunctioning system by any rational standard. Insofar as applying this to driving - it is very easy to demonstrate that it is fault-prone, suboptimal even when functional, and full of glitches. If anything, such comparison supports my point.
I disagree that individual customers actually "want" what you describe and I highly doubt that when asked directly would make such choices. For example, I don't anticipate anyone would accept $5 discount to volunteer to sit in a cramped seat for any flight longer than an hour.
In this case emergence and not consumer choices that dictate the outcome. It is clearly against preferences of everyone who participates in flying. Call it prisoner's dilemma on a grand scale.
Preference for cheapest tickets at the time of purchase is driven by the lack of information or understanding of systemic consequences. As such, this is a case of market failure due to lack of informed choices.
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood. Just like back in college, you would create some cludge code without proper understanding of underlying concepts and sometimes it would work. However, this would never produce a robust system.
Flying is an awful experience these days because market drives price optimization above anything else. A lot of it is driven by "find cheapest" aggregators and "you must fly cheapest" corporate policies. This is actually not in the best interest of consumers. Actually, vast majority of consumers would be better off with slightly more expensive but consumer-focused service.
Security theater at the airports, outrageous fees, cramped seats, inadequate cleaning between flights. Why would anyone fly unless they absolutely had to?
Actually, this will mostly help people with gaps in employment. As a hiring manager it is fairly typical move to disqualify candidates that previously earned too much out of fear that they will leave shortly. Even if this is not the case and applicant is willing to take a pay cut to get any job.
This approach will stop all industry research on rare disease moving forward. This will have to be matched by government funding to public institutions doing similar research.
While this will be cheaper, it isn't THAT much cheaper.
Most scientific journals are published by for-profit organizations that in turn lock down submissions they publish with copyright. These publishers don't provide grant money to do research, they don't pay peer reviewers who are volunteers, they may pay something to the editor. This setup made sense back in the era of dead trees and snail mail. This makes no sense today with Internet.
Once we fix this problem, we can start fixing other problems. Such as reproducibility - if you don't have inbread editors it will be possible to publish confirmation or refutation of findings instead of "novel" research. If you don't have a paywall, non-academics will be able to access this mostly government funded research and actually flag bogus or wrong studies. If you don't have unaccountable editors deferring to the list of approved peer editors, then you will have critical questioning of the work instead of groupthink. Anyways, we should also always publish names of peer reviewers - they should too be held accountable for published work.
I am alarmed and distressed by a very inaccurate portrayal of developers in movies. First, fictional characters portrayed by actors have no neckbeards or notable lapses in personal hygene. Strike one against method acting. Second, actors portray these characters as able to maintain coherent conversation with female cast members. This is simply inaccurate. Third, there are no cats, piles of empty pizza boxes and mountain dew cans. All of these compound unfavorable stereotypes and mischaracterizations set expectations too high.
Aside from data centers and smart phones, why would power efficiency matter at all? I really don't care that my desktop now uses 75W to power CPU at max load instead of 150W it used to couple years ago. Thing is, parallelization is yet to deliver outside of few very specific circumstances - most computing tasks will still take about the same time if you double the number of cores.
We haven't had any noticeable gains in computing for a long while. Other than SSD, nothing got notably faster or bigger. What is not clear to me if we hit diminishing returns or lack of competition allowed market leaders to sleep on laurels.
If this is diminishing return on hardware - then next area is software optimization. So far, most of our progress was carried by hardware. This is not going to be popular view among programmers, but default mode of operation is "how much resources do I have, lets use it all" in software engineering. There is no thought given to making it leaner and more efficient, because it used to be that hardware gains over time would make such effort moot. Well, there might not be any more notable gains. We will hit the next nm fab level, get 3D layout process in place and not have a good way to move forward other than occasional specialized optimizations (e.g. AES) acceleration). This might take a form of optional co-processors.
This would establish concept of degree revocation. I am willing to bet that the next step would be a form of tithe from all your earnings to universities to keep your degree in "good standing".
Compare that a reasonable external rate of return. Is it Invest this tuition into an index fund and have your daughter attend community college. Sure, lifetime earnings potential is lower but your return on investment is likely more than offset that.
Then there is a question of quality of life. I am not aware of any $200K+ job that would give even a smidgen of consideration to work-life balance.
The problem is special case cared out for student loans - in US you can't discard them in bankruptcy. This should be ruled unconstitutional. If you could discard them in bankruptcy, lenders will be forced to re-introduce risk analysis back into the system. Some loans will be declared too risky based on costs and job prospects for graduates from specific program at a specific institution. This will put pressure on universities to keep costs in check as it will be again possible to price out 'consumers' out of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone, well maybe aviation software developers, are capable of programming such devices. It must be efficient, secure, fault tolerant... the list goes on. By contrast, today commercial software is expected to fail and security updates are routine that nobody minds. This would be disastrous when applied to such tech. Just imagine someone figuring out how to crash your visual cortex, inducing seizures and such.
Customers want walled gardens! Just look at cable bundles, it is clearly that bundles is the most popular choice by far. Also, customers want more commercials - just look at how popular are Super Bowl commercials are. It follows that Internet access should be bundled walled garden with auto-play video commercials inserted into browsing. This is what consumers want! Other internet is for dirty pirates and darknet hackers.
/sarcasm
Are these the same people who rallied against the Gutenberg printing press?
You hold on to your grudges way too long.
This is actually valid counter point. Why flying works in EU and only in EU? Anywhere else, especially in US, it is a clusterf___.
If humans were only capable of driving, then yes nobody should drive as it would be a bloody massacre every time. However, humans are also equipped with self-preservation override that is keenly polished throughout evolution. No such thing exists for AI, so it might not pause and reconsider prior to driving off the cliff.
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood.
But intelligence and consciousness are not fully understood
You will be hard-pressed to make a case that human intelligence is anything but a catastrophic failure and/or malfunctioning system by any rational standard. Insofar as applying this to driving - it is very easy to demonstrate that it is fault-prone, suboptimal even when functional, and full of glitches. If anything, such comparison supports my point.
I disagree that individual customers actually "want" what you describe and I highly doubt that when asked directly would make such choices. For example, I don't anticipate anyone would accept $5 discount to volunteer to sit in a cramped seat for any flight longer than an hour.
In this case emergence and not consumer choices that dictate the outcome. It is clearly against preferences of everyone who participates in flying. Call it prisoner's dilemma on a grand scale.
Preference for cheapest tickets at the time of purchase is driven by the lack of information or understanding of systemic consequences. As such, this is a case of market failure due to lack of informed choices.
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood. Just like back in college, you would create some cludge code without proper understanding of underlying concepts and sometimes it would work. However, this would never produce a robust system.
The same idea applies here.
Flying is an awful experience these days because market drives price optimization above anything else. A lot of it is driven by "find cheapest" aggregators and "you must fly cheapest" corporate policies. This is actually not in the best interest of consumers. Actually, vast majority of consumers would be better off with slightly more expensive but consumer-focused service.
Security theater at the airports, outrageous fees, cramped seats, inadequate cleaning between flights. Why would anyone fly unless they absolutely had to?
I see this as going down the path of subjecting applicants to public humiliation to apply for menial jobs.
This is what post-labor world looks like.
Actually, this will mostly help people with gaps in employment. As a hiring manager it is fairly typical move to disqualify candidates that previously earned too much out of fear that they will leave shortly. Even if this is not the case and applicant is willing to take a pay cut to get any job.
Old people vote, so good luck advocating common sense that 2 weeks of lifespan is not worth couple mil of other people's money.
This approach will stop all industry research on rare disease moving forward. This will have to be matched by government funding to public institutions doing similar research.
While this will be cheaper, it isn't THAT much cheaper.
If you can convince couple unaffiliated people in your field that this is decent-enough idea - then it is real science.
How do you convince that your code works? You have someone else to review it.
Most scientific journals are published by for-profit organizations that in turn lock down submissions they publish with copyright. These publishers don't provide grant money to do research, they don't pay peer reviewers who are volunteers, they may pay something to the editor. This setup made sense back in the era of dead trees and snail mail. This makes no sense today with Internet.
Once we fix this problem, we can start fixing other problems. Such as reproducibility - if you don't have inbread editors it will be possible to publish confirmation or refutation of findings instead of "novel" research. If you don't have a paywall, non-academics will be able to access this mostly government funded research and actually flag bogus or wrong studies. If you don't have unaccountable editors deferring to the list of approved peer editors, then you will have critical questioning of the work instead of groupthink. Anyways, we should also always publish names of peer reviewers - they should too be held accountable for published work.
This is public service. I hope they catch the wrong guy.
I am alarmed and distressed by a very inaccurate portrayal of developers in movies. First, fictional characters portrayed by actors have no neckbeards or notable lapses in personal hygene. Strike one against method acting. Second, actors portray these characters as able to maintain coherent conversation with female cast members. This is simply inaccurate. Third, there are no cats, piles of empty pizza boxes and mountain dew cans. All of these compound unfavorable stereotypes and mischaracterizations set expectations too high.
Aside from data centers and smart phones, why would power efficiency matter at all? I really don't care that my desktop now uses 75W to power CPU at max load instead of 150W it used to couple years ago. Thing is, parallelization is yet to deliver outside of few very specific circumstances - most computing tasks will still take about the same time if you double the number of cores.
We haven't had any noticeable gains in computing for a long while. Other than SSD, nothing got notably faster or bigger. What is not clear to me if we hit diminishing returns or lack of competition allowed market leaders to sleep on laurels.
If this is diminishing return on hardware - then next area is software optimization. So far, most of our progress was carried by hardware. This is not going to be popular view among programmers, but default mode of operation is "how much resources do I have, lets use it all" in software engineering. There is no thought given to making it leaner and more efficient, because it used to be that hardware gains over time would make such effort moot. Well, there might not be any more notable gains. We will hit the next nm fab level, get 3D layout process in place and not have a good way to move forward other than occasional specialized optimizations (e.g. AES) acceleration). This might take a form of optional co-processors.
This would establish concept of degree revocation. I am willing to bet that the next step would be a form of tithe from all your earnings to universities to keep your degree in "good standing".
13th amendment.
Not everybody is cut out for management either. I should know, I'm one.
At least you realize your membership in Dunning-Kruger club of management.
Disagree. 25% increase in student loans, means 25% increase in revenue for education providers. This is non-trivial growth.
Compare that a reasonable external rate of return. Is it Invest this tuition into an index fund and have your daughter attend community college. Sure, lifetime earnings potential is lower but your return on investment is likely more than offset that.
Then there is a question of quality of life. I am not aware of any $200K+ job that would give even a smidgen of consideration to work-life balance.
The problem is special case cared out for student loans - in US you can't discard them in bankruptcy. This should be ruled unconstitutional. If you could discard them in bankruptcy, lenders will be forced to re-introduce risk analysis back into the system. Some loans will be declared too risky based on costs and job prospects for graduates from specific program at a specific institution. This will put pressure on universities to keep costs in check as it will be again possible to price out 'consumers' out of the system.