5 ms·
That sounds like a commercial acceptance bet rather than a technology one but yeah I would take the same bet. But I'd bet by 2031 driving a car will not be the
by leesec 5y ago
That sounds like a commercial acceptance bet rather than a technology one but yeah I would take the same bet. But I'd bet by 2031 driving a car will not be the peak of AI.
- pjmorris 5y agoSure, there are technological and commercial (and regulatory, and, and, and...) aspects to the bet. The thing I'm after in my car bet is that I'm using 'replaces humans at something that requires intelligence' as the bar to clear for what you describe as 'smarter computers in our life time.' Can you give a purer example of a bet that would demonstrate what you believe here?
- pjmorris 5y agoI take commercial acceptance as a proxy for the acceptance and practicality of artificial intelligence at the 'everyday' task of driving. I would take the absence of commercial acceptance as evidence that artificial intelligence is not up to the 'everyday' task of driving.
- fastball 5y agoMomentum is still a thing regardless of where the technology is. The current fastest production car in the world (and of all time) is an electric car, but most cars are still not electric. That doesn't mean gas cars are "better cars" than electric ones.
- gopalv 5y ago> I would take the absence of commercial acceptance as evidence that artificial intelligence is not up to the 'everyday' task of driving. The most interesting thing Tesla is doing to make "acceptable" FSD possible is to open an insurance company. So commercial acceptance is proxy for capability, but it is not immune to regulatory moat building (or alternatively, go the other way - like, force 80+ year olds to drive enhanced cars). There's some ways around it, but that problem isn't a technology one.