7 ms·

I am convinced that it takes another 100 to 200 years before we really have smart self driving cars. Maybe it will never happen as I think it will be much more

I am convinced that it takes another 100 to 200 years before we really have smart self driving cars. Maybe it will never happen as I think it will be much more likely that we have self flying drones before long before. Airspace being regulated heavily and thus much more predictable for a machine.

drcross 6y ago
What? 30 years ago we didn't have the internet. 100 years ago there was barely any electricity. Are you insane?
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  No need for the personal swipe!
officehero 6y ago
There is a push to upgrade road infrastructure with sensors so might be sooner. You're totally right about regulation though - engineers are only solving a "technical" problem, but what about the non-technical ones? Where is the brigade of lobbyists needed to get something like this through legal?
papito 6y ago
In 100 years the self-driving cars will be on Mars.
cercatrova 6y ago
100 to 200 years is a very long time. Look at the exponential nature of technology, and even deep learning. Only in 2012 had the image network reached 90% accuracy levels, and now we have all sort of networks for all sorts of things, including style transfer for videos.
- officehero 6y ago
  The big problem is that the populace do not understand statistics. As soon as a self driving car kills someone the witch hunt begins and the whole fleet needs to be retracted until investigation is over. Can your image network solve this problem?
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    It's like nuclear power. It just has to continue regardless of how many deaths since the number of deaths will be lower than other methods, in this case coal and fossil fuel deaths, and in the case of self driving, manual driving accidents.
    - erklik 6y ago
      and like nuclear power, it is the politics that will kill* it, not the technological progress. * - Yes, Nuclear is not dead, but is not being used anywhere close to the potential it has i.e. effectively dead.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  There's nothing to suggest technological growth will be exponential forever. It's just as likely we've gotten all the easy stuff the last century and now everything else is much harder.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    Maybe so, but there isn't much evidence of a slowdown while there is a lot of evidence of acceleration, such as time to new tech, re: hunter gatherer to agriculture to industrial revolution to information revolution to potentially genetic/biotech/AI revolution in the future.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight. False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer. We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.
      - satvikpendem 6y ago
        The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.
      - 6y ago
- deathanatos 6y ago
  Yes, like the other day I pointed Google Lens at a QR code! The AI dutifully recognized the QR code … as a QR code, and promptly searched the web for other pictures of "QR code".
ska 6y ago
I think humans are really poorly prepared to make accurate "100" year predictions. Otoh, we're pretty bad at 10 year ones too - the original self driving hype being a prime example. Lots of otherwise intelligent people fell into magical thinking there.

drcross 6y ago

What? 30 years ago we didn't have the internet. 100 years ago there was barely any electricity. Are you insane?

sillysaurusx 6y ago
No need for the personal swipe!

officehero 6y ago

There is a push to upgrade road infrastructure with sensors so might be sooner. You're totally right about regulation though - engineers are only solving a "technical" problem, but what about the non-technical ones? Where is the brigade of lobbyists needed to get something like this through legal?

papito 6y ago

In 100 years the self-driving cars will be on Mars.

cercatrova 6y ago

100 to 200 years is a very long time. Look at the exponential nature of technology, and even deep learning. Only in 2012 had the image network reached 90% accuracy levels, and now we have all sort of networks for all sorts of things, including style transfer for videos.

officehero 6y ago
The big problem is that the populace do not understand statistics. As soon as a self driving car kills someone the witch hunt begins and the whole fleet needs to be retracted until investigation is over. Can your image network solve this problem?
- cercatrova 6y ago
  It's like nuclear power. It just has to continue regardless of how many deaths since the number of deaths will be lower than other methods, in this case coal and fossil fuel deaths, and in the case of self driving, manual driving accidents.
  - erklik 6y ago
    and like nuclear power, it is the politics that will kill* it, not the technological progress. * - Yes, Nuclear is not dead, but is not being used anywhere close to the potential it has i.e. effectively dead.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
There's nothing to suggest technological growth will be exponential forever. It's just as likely we've gotten all the easy stuff the last century and now everything else is much harder.
- cercatrova 6y ago
  Maybe so, but there isn't much evidence of a slowdown while there is a lot of evidence of acceleration, such as time to new tech, re: hunter gatherer to agriculture to industrial revolution to information revolution to potentially genetic/biotech/AI revolution in the future.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That jump happened because of groundbreaking discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology. We are reaching the ends of that, though. Particle physics has been at a standstill for decades. Fusion power is still a pipe dream. Global warming continues to go on without a technological answer in sight. False AI promises are not evidence of anything. Nothing AI is doing now is genuinely artificial intelligence. Biotech? We still can't cure cancer. We are getting more and more evolutions and less and less breakthroughs. That, to me, is slowing down. That doesn't mean things won't get better - just not as quickly, or as thoroughly.
    - satvikpendem 6y ago
      The point is that it's unknown what will happen in the future. In 1889, the US patent office commissioner had said that we should close it, as "everything that can be invented has been invented."
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Of course no one can predict the future, that's true of anything. Not really an argument. We can only go by previous data - and previous data shows that we are anomalous, a tiny blip throughout time.
    - 6y ago
deathanatos 6y ago
Yes, like the other day I pointed Google Lens at a QR code! The AI dutifully recognized the QR code … as a QR code, and promptly searched the web for other pictures of "QR code".

ska 6y ago

I think humans are really poorly prepared to make accurate "100" year predictions. Otoh, we're pretty bad at 10 year ones too - the original self driving hype being a prime example. Lots of otherwise intelligent people fell into magical thinking there.