4 ms·

No, it isn’t. Perhaps in the short-term, but if you listen to Elon Musk compare it to like having elevator operators, it makes sense that computers will eventu

No, it isn’t. Perhaps in the short-term, but if you listen to Elon Musk compare it to like having elevator operators, it makes sense that computers will eventually do a much better job and humans will only introduce problems. https://www.zdnet.com/article/elon-musk-on-teslas-autopilot-in-a-year-a-human-intervening-will-decrease-safety/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/elon-musk-on-teslas-autopilot-...

close04 7y ago
Depends what you consider short term. Do you expect autonomous cars to get to human level in all conditions in the next 5 years? 10? 25? Most likely computers will become far better than humans at some point. But it may be far enough in the future that it doesn’t really contradict the point made above. Contrary to popular belief, “640K should be enough” isn’t the kind of statement meant to cover all eternity.
lm28469 7y ago
> if you listen to Elon Musk If you listen to Elon Musk we have fully autonomous cars every 2 years since 2015 and we'll have Mars cities in 2050.
- anchpop 7y ago
  A couple Mars colonies in 30 years doesn't really sound that optimistic to me
  - pjc50 7y ago
    How many moon colonies did we have 30 years after the moon landings?
    - melling 7y ago
      None, because we didn’t want to spend the money.
      - neuronic 7y ago
        If you look at what APOLLO has cost back in those days maybe then you'd understand why we didn't. Landing a few people and picking up a few rocks and taking a few selfies cost, inflation-adjusted for 2019, a whopping $288.1 billion [1]. This money was spent to "stick it to the communists" because they were winning at the space race (first man in space, etc...). We just happened to get a bunch of benefits along the way. The several more hundred billion that would have followed if we decided to build entire colonies - with a multitude of massive problems still not figured out today - would have been a hard sell over the decades it would have taken to construct. I mean just look at operating cost of MIR and ISS and that's in LEO... [1] http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/reconstructing-the-price-of-apollo.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/reconstruct...
        melling 7y ago
        Sure, I absolutely do understand the cost. You picked the largest estimate? Because there are many different numbers: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-Moon-Mission-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-Moon-Mission-cost The point is that it’s a matter of cost, and not a technical problem. The Apollo program was a “rush job” done in 10 years. Much of the technology had to be invented. There an interesting BBC podcast called 13 Minutes to the Moon for anyone interested in finding out more about the Apollo program: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2
        smileysteve 7y ago
        > If you look at what APOLLO has cost > inflation-adjusted for 2019, a whopping $288.1 billion When I was reading that, I was expecting a much higher number than the one I ended up reading. That's < the cash Apple has on hand, approximately as much revenue as they make a year. That's 1/2 of the annual U.S. military budget. It's 1/3 of a small portion of the 2008 bailout. === If you annualize that by the 10 years it was spent in, the only discretionary funding significantly less than that is Food and Agriculture.
    - Infernal 7y ago
      For that matter, how many moon landings did we have 30 years after the moon landings...
  - lm28469 7y ago
    It's insanely optimistic by every single metrics I can come up with. The only way I'd buy it would be to redefine "colonies" and "cities" as "10 guys in a 50 sq meters rigid tent who need constant supplies from earth and are 1 mistake away from death" aka the space station but on the ground. He's very good at PR moves, but sending a rocket to space and getting it back in one piece, which is very impressive, is nothing compared to actually going to mars, which itself is nothing compared to building a city on a planet where everything is opposed to human life. Tesla and Space X have a very high "hype factor", and sure they're probably the best at what they're doing, but he is insanely overselling it. Look at that timeline: https://www.inverse.com/article/51291-spacex-here-s-the-timeline-for-getting-to-mars-and-starting-a-colony https://www.inverse.com/article/51291-spacex-here-s-the-time...
- melling 7y ago
  Great comeback!! If this were Reddit, we’d be having shits and gigggles for the next several hours! Now back to a real discussion... Americans, for example, have about 6 millions accidents per year. Do you think humans improve the situation once computers become proficient at self-driving?

close04 7y ago

Depends what you consider short term. Do you expect autonomous cars to get to human level in all conditions in the next 5 years? 10? 25? Most likely computers will become far better than humans at some point. But it may be far enough in the future that it doesn’t really contradict the point made above. Contrary to popular belief, “640K should be enough” isn’t the kind of statement meant to cover all eternity.

lm28469 7y ago

> if you listen to Elon Musk If you listen to Elon Musk we have fully autonomous cars every 2 years since 2015 and we'll have Mars cities in 2050.

anchpop 7y ago
A couple Mars colonies in 30 years doesn't really sound that optimistic to me
- pjc50 7y ago
  How many moon colonies did we have 30 years after the moon landings?
  - melling 7y ago
    None, because we didn’t want to spend the money.
    - neuronic 7y ago
      If you look at what APOLLO has cost back in those days maybe then you'd understand why we didn't. Landing a few people and picking up a few rocks and taking a few selfies cost, inflation-adjusted for 2019, a whopping $288.1 billion [1]. This money was spent to "stick it to the communists" because they were winning at the space race (first man in space, etc...). We just happened to get a bunch of benefits along the way. The several more hundred billion that would have followed if we decided to build entire colonies - with a multitude of massive problems still not figured out today - would have been a hard sell over the decades it would have taken to construct. I mean just look at operating cost of MIR and ISS and that's in LEO... [1] http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/reconstructing-the-price-of-apollo.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/reconstruct...
      - melling 7y ago
        Sure, I absolutely do understand the cost. You picked the largest estimate? Because there are many different numbers: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1 https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-Moon-Mission-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-Moon-Mission-cost The point is that it’s a matter of cost, and not a technical problem. The Apollo program was a “rush job” done in 10 years. Much of the technology had to be invented. There an interesting BBC podcast called 13 Minutes to the Moon for anyone interested in finding out more about the Apollo program: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xttx2
      - smileysteve 7y ago
        > If you look at what APOLLO has cost > inflation-adjusted for 2019, a whopping $288.1 billion When I was reading that, I was expecting a much higher number than the one I ended up reading. That's < the cash Apple has on hand, approximately as much revenue as they make a year. That's 1/2 of the annual U.S. military budget. It's 1/3 of a small portion of the 2008 bailout. === If you annualize that by the 10 years it was spent in, the only discretionary funding significantly less than that is Food and Agriculture.
  - Infernal 7y ago
    For that matter, how many moon landings did we have 30 years after the moon landings...
- lm28469 7y ago
  It's insanely optimistic by every single metrics I can come up with. The only way I'd buy it would be to redefine "colonies" and "cities" as "10 guys in a 50 sq meters rigid tent who need constant supplies from earth and are 1 mistake away from death" aka the space station but on the ground. He's very good at PR moves, but sending a rocket to space and getting it back in one piece, which is very impressive, is nothing compared to actually going to mars, which itself is nothing compared to building a city on a planet where everything is opposed to human life. Tesla and Space X have a very high "hype factor", and sure they're probably the best at what they're doing, but he is insanely overselling it. Look at that timeline: https://www.inverse.com/article/51291-spacex-here-s-the-timeline-for-getting-to-mars-and-starting-a-colony https://www.inverse.com/article/51291-spacex-here-s-the-time...
melling 7y ago
Great comeback!! If this were Reddit, we’d be having shits and gigggles for the next several hours! Now back to a real discussion... Americans, for example, have about 6 millions accidents per year. Do you think humans improve the situation once computers become proficient at self-driving?