4 ms·

We don't have to guess though, the fundamentals are there. It'll be safer. It'll be cheaper. How would it not happen? It doesn't seem bold at all to think peopl

We don't have to guess though, the fundamentals are there. It'll be safer. It'll be cheaper. How would it not happen? It doesn't seem bold at all to think people won't be driving manually in the future. Some trends will always hold true; cost of hardware goes down, capabilities of software goes up. I don't think anyone is saying it'll happen in 7.8 years, but as the HN group is aware, we've gotten much better at getting solutions to scale. There's a very real risk it'll happen faster than people can adapt. The people who's jobs will be first to be automated out are more likely living paycheck-to-paycheck. Those other, incremental, technological advances he compares against in the blog post took years for the labor force to adapt. How are we going to handle this?

moxious 10y ago
> Some trends will always hold true; cost of hardware goes down, capabilities of software goes up. That's not at all true, or at the very least, it requires a raft of other assumptions which may not hold, to all stay true, in order for the consequence to stay true. Like for example the cost of rare earth metals, good trading relationships between nations, and so on. > we've gotten much better at getting solutions to scale I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Scaling something like twitter is just in no way whatsoever equivalent to scaling something like self-driving cars. > There's a very real risk it'll happen faster than people can adapt. The people who's jobs will be first to be automated out are more likely living paycheck-to-paycheck. Those other, incremental, technological advances he compares against in the blog post took years for the labor force to adapt. How are we going to handle this? There is a risk, but there are risks of many things happening. My guess is that we're not going to handle this. Just as in software development we have the YAGNI principle, I don't think it's a good idea to make policy based on future predictions that are very cloudy at best. Sure, there's a risk it will happen, but there are actual problems here today demanding resources and time...
- stevens32 10y ago
  >That's not at all true, or at the very least, it requires a raft of other assumptions which may not hold, to all stay true, in order for the consequence to stay true. Like for example the cost of rare earth metals, good trading relationships between nations, and so on. Sure, those lines aren't monotonically decreasing/increasing but the trend isn't likely to reverse direction any time soon. >I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Scaling something like twitter is just in no way whatsoever equivalent to scaling something like self-driving cars. There'll definitely be a costly hardware buy-in for a lot cases, but some applications of AI might only need a camera - say, a replacement for a cashier at a grocery store. >There is a risk, but there are risks of many things happening. My guess is that we're not going to handle this. Just as in software development we have the YAGNI principle, I don't think it's a good idea to make policy based on future predictions that are very cloudy at best. Sure, there's a risk it will happen, but there are actual problems here today demanding resources and time... I think it's worth discussing because waiting for the bad outcome to happen before trying to handle it could be too little too late. Even if the percentage risk of an economic shock is low, the magnitude of the potential damage is high. The average pre-tax income of the bottom 50% has stagnated since 1980 at about $16,000 per adult [1] These people are more likely to live paycheck-to-paycheck and more likely to work jobs which might be targeted by automation. I think it's a recipe for disaster. [1] http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/PSZ2016.pdf http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/PSZ2016.pdf
- megablast 10y ago
  > I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Exactly, look at mobile phones, that took years to scale up. /s
marknutter 10y ago
I don't think you're taking into account the inevitable regulatory and legal issues that will slow or halt the progress of self driving trucks in the coming years. The moment a robot kills a family with young children on the road you will see policy banning their use show up in the halls of congress so fast it'll make heads spin.
- stevens32 10y ago
  I am, and I think the industry will have the safety numbers to back up any policy decision to the point where voting against it would seem negligent.
  - moxious 10y ago
    > I think the industry will have the safety numbers to back up any policy decision Why are you then confident that safety numbers will carry the day? When someone is killed by a driverless car, that's going to be an emotional issue, and the appetite for cold hard data may be limited. If safety numbers were really what people were after, it's hard to see how the US would have the gun culture that it does. Engineers put far too much faith in data, and it's why they're often so bad at politics. Look at the incoming president; what people want is frequently more important than what is.
    - stevens32 10y ago
      You're right, I'm projecting a level of reasonableness that may not be there. It will be an emotional issue, and it will probably be influenced heavily by how the media decides to play it out. Elon Musk is literally every millenial's hero, if it takes long enough that the voting population shifts heavily into that demo getting the support would be easy. But maybe not right now.
      - discreteevent 10y ago
        "literally every millennials hero". I'm afraid that's literally not correct.

moxious 10y ago

> Some trends will always hold true; cost of hardware goes down, capabilities of software goes up. That's not at all true, or at the very least, it requires a raft of other assumptions which may not hold, to all stay true, in order for the consequence to stay true. Like for example the cost of rare earth metals, good trading relationships between nations, and so on. > we've gotten much better at getting solutions to scale I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Scaling something like twitter is just in no way whatsoever equivalent to scaling something like self-driving cars. > There's a very real risk it'll happen faster than people can adapt. The people who's jobs will be first to be automated out are more likely living paycheck-to-paycheck. Those other, incremental, technological advances he compares against in the blog post took years for the labor force to adapt. How are we going to handle this? There is a risk, but there are risks of many things happening. My guess is that we're not going to handle this. Just as in software development we have the YAGNI principle, I don't think it's a good idea to make policy based on future predictions that are very cloudy at best. Sure, there's a risk it will happen, but there are actual problems here today demanding resources and time...

stevens32 10y ago
>That's not at all true, or at the very least, it requires a raft of other assumptions which may not hold, to all stay true, in order for the consequence to stay true. Like for example the cost of rare earth metals, good trading relationships between nations, and so on. Sure, those lines aren't monotonically decreasing/increasing but the trend isn't likely to reverse direction any time soon. >I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Scaling something like twitter is just in no way whatsoever equivalent to scaling something like self-driving cars. There'll definitely be a costly hardware buy-in for a lot cases, but some applications of AI might only need a camera - say, a replacement for a cashier at a grocery store. >There is a risk, but there are risks of many things happening. My guess is that we're not going to handle this. Just as in software development we have the YAGNI principle, I don't think it's a good idea to make policy based on future predictions that are very cloudy at best. Sure, there's a risk it will happen, but there are actual problems here today demanding resources and time... I think it's worth discussing because waiting for the bad outcome to happen before trying to handle it could be too little too late. Even if the percentage risk of an economic shock is low, the magnitude of the potential damage is high. The average pre-tax income of the bottom 50% has stagnated since 1980 at about $16,000 per adult [1] These people are more likely to live paycheck-to-paycheck and more likely to work jobs which might be targeted by automation. I think it's a recipe for disaster. [1] http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/PSZ2016.pdf http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/PSZ2016.pdf
megablast 10y ago
> I'd agree, but only for a very narrow set of "solutions". Exactly, look at mobile phones, that took years to scale up. /s

marknutter 10y ago

I don't think you're taking into account the inevitable regulatory and legal issues that will slow or halt the progress of self driving trucks in the coming years. The moment a robot kills a family with young children on the road you will see policy banning their use show up in the halls of congress so fast it'll make heads spin.

stevens32 10y ago
I am, and I think the industry will have the safety numbers to back up any policy decision to the point where voting against it would seem negligent.
- moxious 10y ago
  > I think the industry will have the safety numbers to back up any policy decision Why are you then confident that safety numbers will carry the day? When someone is killed by a driverless car, that's going to be an emotional issue, and the appetite for cold hard data may be limited. If safety numbers were really what people were after, it's hard to see how the US would have the gun culture that it does. Engineers put far too much faith in data, and it's why they're often so bad at politics. Look at the incoming president; what people want is frequently more important than what is.
  - stevens32 10y ago
    You're right, I'm projecting a level of reasonableness that may not be there. It will be an emotional issue, and it will probably be influenced heavily by how the media decides to play it out. Elon Musk is literally every millenial's hero, if it takes long enough that the voting population shifts heavily into that demo getting the support would be easy. But maybe not right now.
    - discreteevent 10y ago
      "literally every millennials hero". I'm afraid that's literally not correct.