4 ms·

Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Br

by indescions_2017 9y ago

Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;)

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Things similar to the Wright Flyer are still allowed by default in the US in similar geographic areas. The weight limit under FAA regulation part 103 is lower - 254 pounds empty weight, rather than the Wright Flyer's 605 pounds empty weight - but material science has advanced since then, so the restriction isn't that severe. Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering others, well, it's your funeral". Source: I've halfway convinced myself to shell out the $10k or so for a motorized paraglider rig + lessons. Pretty much what I'd need to do is sign up for lessons, buy gear, and make sure I stay out of the way of big planes and protected wilderness areas. I don't technically need to sign up for lessons, but, well, it's my funeral.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  The funeral could cost more than the lessons...
- countryslicker 9y ago
  Tell that to people trying to fly any drone in the USA weighing more than 1 kg.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. I don't think the "permissionless innovation" theory is something to be applied in isolation. It only covers some aspects of human endeavour. The reason we're not all in flying cars right now are twofold: 1. Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface, since you need to expend additional energy to maintain altitude. 2. Humanity as a whole has proven beyond doubt that regular people are nowhere near responsible enough to safely operate regular cars, and the kind of accidents that happen on the roads every day would have much more disastrous consequences if they happened in the air. Self-driving tech might eventually solve 2., but we're not there yet today, so one can't blame governments for not allowing things that can not be done safely with today's technology. And even with 2. solved, the market still likely won't accept flying cars due to 1. A better/cheaper solution for vertical stacking of transport is the boring one[0]. > Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb for all the reasons covered under the search terms of "AI alignment problem", "AI control problem" and "unfriendly AI". > Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;) See: Copenhagen Suborbitals. If you want to experiment with aerospace, it's generally doable, though expensive due to the nature of the task (and the fact that the difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is only in payload). -- [0] - https://www.boringcompany.com https://www.boringcompany.com
- voidmain 9y ago
  > Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface Small aircraft get 10-20 mpg, and the world record is over 60 mpg. Energy efficiency might be a reason why ground transport would continue to exist, but I'm skeptical that it's the fundamental obstacle to "flying cars" And since there is a lot more space in the air than on the road, the "self driving" problem is probably much easier. It's true that the failure modes are a lot worse, not just for human error but for mechanical failures. But it's actually somewhat plausible to me that 100 years of unregulated innovation would have given us some kind of personal air transport. > With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb Yes. So of course AI development is pretty much the only thing in the world that isn't regulated at all. Does this increase your confidence in regulation as a social technology?

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

Things similar to the Wright Flyer are still allowed by default in the US in similar geographic areas. The weight limit under FAA regulation part 103 is lower - 254 pounds empty weight, rather than the Wright Flyer's 605 pounds empty weight - but material science has advanced since then, so the restriction isn't that severe. Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering others, well, it's your funeral". Source: I've halfway convinced myself to shell out the $10k or so for a motorized paraglider rig + lessons. Pretty much what I'd need to do is sign up for lessons, buy gear, and make sure I stay out of the way of big planes and protected wilderness areas. I don't technically need to sign up for lessons, but, well, it's my funeral.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
The funeral could cost more than the lessons...
countryslicker 9y ago
Tell that to people trying to fly any drone in the USA weighing more than 1 kg.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor. I don't think the "permissionless innovation" theory is something to be applied in isolation. It only covers some aspects of human endeavour. The reason we're not all in flying cars right now are twofold: 1. Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface, since you need to expend additional energy to maintain altitude. 2. Humanity as a whole has proven beyond doubt that regular people are nowhere near responsible enough to safely operate regular cars, and the kind of accidents that happen on the roads every day would have much more disastrous consequences if they happened in the air. Self-driving tech might eventually solve 2., but we're not there yet today, so one can't blame governments for not allowing things that can not be done safely with today's technology. And even with 2. solved, the market still likely won't accept flying cars due to 1. A better/cheaper solution for vertical stacking of transport is the boring one[0]. > Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb for all the reasons covered under the search terms of "AI alignment problem", "AI control problem" and "unfriendly AI". > Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;) See: Copenhagen Suborbitals. If you want to experiment with aerospace, it's generally doable, though expensive due to the nature of the task (and the fact that the difference between an orbital rocket and an ICBM is only in payload). -- [0] - https://www.boringcompany.com https://www.boringcompany.com

voidmain 9y ago
> Flying is much less energy-efficient than driving on a solid surface Small aircraft get 10-20 mpg, and the world record is over 60 mpg. Energy efficiency might be a reason why ground transport would continue to exist, but I'm skeptical that it's the fundamental obstacle to "flying cars" And since there is a lot more space in the air than on the road, the "self driving" problem is probably much easier. It's true that the failure modes are a lot worse, not just for human error but for mechanical failures. But it's actually somewhat plausible to me that 100 years of unregulated innovation would have given us some kind of personal air transport. > With strong AI this proposal is particularly dumb Yes. So of course AI development is pretty much the only thing in the world that isn't regulated at all. Does this increase your confidence in regulation as a social technology?