3 ms·

You realize Waymo uses remote pilots, right? https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ Disclosure; I attempted

You realize Waymo uses remote pilots, right? https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ https://www.wired.com/story/phantom-teleops/ Disclosure; I attempted to patent this idea before they were public with it, because I know the autonomous claims are baloney, and there was an obvious way to look like it wasnt baloney. I also just spent two weeks driving an Audi A-8 around Germany; most advanced 'autonomous' technology there is in a production car supposedly.

candiodari 8y ago
I would expect nothing less, actually. This seems a very reasonable to provide an "out" for the AI. Are you really going to assert that autonomous control doesn't exist unless there is no option at all for it to call for help ? Your link says it itself: "This is a backup system for moments when the car isn’t sure what to do, so it comes to a safe stop on its own and calls for help." The article likens it to elevators. Because elevators all of them "have operators". Really. Behind a phone line. Would you really argue elevators don't move by themselves at the direction of a customer, but only move at the oversight of a remote operator ? Because that's one of those things that's technically true ... and yet so wrong it's almost ridiculous. Now of course self-driving tech isn't quite up to elevator level of reliability yet. Also I'd like to point out that even under those circumstances, people would still lose their jobs. Because it'll allow 1000 trucks to be controlled by, first 200, then 100, then 10, then 1 drivers. Even if 80% lose their jobs, truck driver will stop being a significant percentage of employment, and if it was one company it is now the biggest employer in more than 70% of all US states. As in, I hear you, and very interesting article, but it doesn't seem to change anything in the discussion.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  You're really persistent in your beliefs, I'll give you that. I suppose I am too; filling out those patent forms was a lot of work. Query: why do you think the military doesn't have any autonomous ground (or air) vehicles? Military virtually always has the most advanced tech; unlimited budget -lots of motivation for supply lines which run themselves and can't be shot at, lots of reasons not to expose expensive soldiers to fire, and very little care for stuff like safety. Yet, somehow they have no such things. I wonder why that is?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    They don't have remote control supply lines either, and those we can certainly make, which you seem to agree with ... so I must say I don't know. I have consulted for the military, and frankly I was amazed that there seems to be no correlation between intelligence and rank. Especially some lieutenants were incredibly smart but several colonels ... I wouldn't trust them with tying their own shoelaces. This resulted in extremely smart and well organized groups trying to work with complete morons. And I must say, that results in a pretty stupid whole. The damage the idiot groups inflict is not compensated by the better parts of the organization. Not in logistics. Not in radar operation (where I consulted). Not in organizing the cafeteria. It seems to me that it is utterly impossible to get fired for incompetence in the military. So they keep working with total idiots, even promote them. What I'm saying is that it's the military. They have awe-inspiring gear. They have some very smart people (they pay consultants in some areas very well, so the truly do have incredible people that are such a pleasure and inspiration to work with). They also have some incredible idiots at every point on the rank ladder. And occasionally they decide on policies so incredibly stupid they are equally awe-inspiring, because the idiots do much more damage than smart ones can fix. I don't believe it is reasonably possible to predict what the military will do. Especially when it comes to policy.

candiodari 8y ago

I would expect nothing less, actually. This seems a very reasonable to provide an "out" for the AI. Are you really going to assert that autonomous control doesn't exist unless there is no option at all for it to call for help ? Your link says it itself: "This is a backup system for moments when the car isn’t sure what to do, so it comes to a safe stop on its own and calls for help." The article likens it to elevators. Because elevators all of them "have operators". Really. Behind a phone line. Would you really argue elevators don't move by themselves at the direction of a customer, but only move at the oversight of a remote operator ? Because that's one of those things that's technically true ... and yet so wrong it's almost ridiculous. Now of course self-driving tech isn't quite up to elevator level of reliability yet. Also I'd like to point out that even under those circumstances, people would still lose their jobs. Because it'll allow 1000 trucks to be controlled by, first 200, then 100, then 10, then 1 drivers. Even if 80% lose their jobs, truck driver will stop being a significant percentage of employment, and if it was one company it is now the biggest employer in more than 70% of all US states. As in, I hear you, and very interesting article, but it doesn't seem to change anything in the discussion.

scottlocklin 8y ago
You're really persistent in your beliefs, I'll give you that. I suppose I am too; filling out those patent forms was a lot of work. Query: why do you think the military doesn't have any autonomous ground (or air) vehicles? Military virtually always has the most advanced tech; unlimited budget -lots of motivation for supply lines which run themselves and can't be shot at, lots of reasons not to expose expensive soldiers to fire, and very little care for stuff like safety. Yet, somehow they have no such things. I wonder why that is?
- candiodari 8y ago
  They don't have remote control supply lines either, and those we can certainly make, which you seem to agree with ... so I must say I don't know. I have consulted for the military, and frankly I was amazed that there seems to be no correlation between intelligence and rank. Especially some lieutenants were incredibly smart but several colonels ... I wouldn't trust them with tying their own shoelaces. This resulted in extremely smart and well organized groups trying to work with complete morons. And I must say, that results in a pretty stupid whole. The damage the idiot groups inflict is not compensated by the better parts of the organization. Not in logistics. Not in radar operation (where I consulted). Not in organizing the cafeteria. It seems to me that it is utterly impossible to get fired for incompetence in the military. So they keep working with total idiots, even promote them. What I'm saying is that it's the military. They have awe-inspiring gear. They have some very smart people (they pay consultants in some areas very well, so the truly do have incredible people that are such a pleasure and inspiration to work with). They also have some incredible idiots at every point on the rank ladder. And occasionally they decide on policies so incredibly stupid they are equally awe-inspiring, because the idiots do much more damage than smart ones can fix. I don't believe it is reasonably possible to predict what the military will do. Especially when it comes to policy.