3 ms·

Sure, but that is more of "reassignment of ownership of capital" and that makes it less likely and not more likely that such an endeavor will be funded (for pol

Sure, but that is more of "reassignment of ownership of capital" and that makes it less likely and not more likely that such an endeavor will be funded (for political reasons). Unlike say nuclear fusion (safe and practically unlimited energy at an order of magnitude previously unseen is worth the spend and most countries would bite I think), is self-driving worth hundreds of billions in expenditure? I don't know.

nebula8804 5y ago
>Sure, but that is more of "reassignment of ownership of capital" ha ha your phrasing is funny. It is more like "sudden unexpected reassignment of ownership of capital". >and that makes it less likely and not more likely that such an endeavor will be funded (for political reasons). Yes the powers that be are finally starting to slowly turn against the software people. You see Europe getting tired of them losing every last bit of the little value chain they have left. Meanwhile in the US, elites are getting tired of software empowering people other than themselves and are starting to make moves to try and put the genie back in the bottle. We saw all these tech CEOs being brought up in congress but all that it showed is that they still don't fully get how they have been robbed yet, just that they know that they have been robbed. If they manage to stop the software industry (a big doubt) yes I can see them putting a stop to self driving tech(although China seems determined to steam ahead no matter what). If they do manage to stop self driving that means they have also managed to kill a lot of the software industry as well and with that one of the last few paths to a solid comfortable middle/upper middle class life in this world. >Unlike say nuclear fusion (safe and practically unlimited energy at an order of magnitude previously unseen is worth the spend and most countries would bite I think), is self-driving worth hundreds of billions in expenditure? Now you are pulling an exact number out of thin air. Will it really be hundreds of billions in cost? When you talk about "hundreds of billions" you are talking about a noticeable chunk of the US's GDP and the complete GDP of most countries. Since when has software or even advanced AI research ever cost that much to develop? Don't get me wrong: I believe it will be in the billions or even tens of billions over many years, but this is a cost that that can be absorbed by the companies/government entities that are pursuing this and even tens of billions can be justified by the potential gains.
- rakejake 5y ago
  Maybe hundreds is too much but 100 billion spent over years is not necessarily an exaggeration. Google and Cruise together have spent like 20B to get to where we are right now (easily googled) which IMHO is not the 95% mark where the returns get much harder. The cars are heavily geofenced and need help from service personnel regularly. Correct me If I am wrong but getting to the point where humans are completely unnecessary is still a research problem. We need more research and more breakthroughs which costs a lot of money and is non-linear (you are not guaranteed results). It could very easily take 100B to get to a point where a car can ferry people anywhere they want with zero human assistance (no service personnel to guide out of traps etc). >Since when has software or even advanced AI research ever cost that much to develop? Since now? If software is eating the world, you should expect software research to also eat up a lot of money. As the low hanging fruit is picked, further gains are going to cost a lot more.

nebula8804 5y ago

>Sure, but that is more of "reassignment of ownership of capital" ha ha your phrasing is funny. It is more like "sudden unexpected reassignment of ownership of capital". >and that makes it less likely and not more likely that such an endeavor will be funded (for political reasons). Yes the powers that be are finally starting to slowly turn against the software people. You see Europe getting tired of them losing every last bit of the little value chain they have left. Meanwhile in the US, elites are getting tired of software empowering people other than themselves and are starting to make moves to try and put the genie back in the bottle. We saw all these tech CEOs being brought up in congress but all that it showed is that they still don't fully get how they have been robbed yet, just that they know that they have been robbed. If they manage to stop the software industry (a big doubt) yes I can see them putting a stop to self driving tech(although China seems determined to steam ahead no matter what). If they do manage to stop self driving that means they have also managed to kill a lot of the software industry as well and with that one of the last few paths to a solid comfortable middle/upper middle class life in this world. >Unlike say nuclear fusion (safe and practically unlimited energy at an order of magnitude previously unseen is worth the spend and most countries would bite I think), is self-driving worth hundreds of billions in expenditure? Now you are pulling an exact number out of thin air. Will it really be hundreds of billions in cost? When you talk about "hundreds of billions" you are talking about a noticeable chunk of the US's GDP and the complete GDP of most countries. Since when has software or even advanced AI research ever cost that much to develop? Don't get me wrong: I believe it will be in the billions or even tens of billions over many years, but this is a cost that that can be absorbed by the companies/government entities that are pursuing this and even tens of billions can be justified by the potential gains.

rakejake 5y ago
Maybe hundreds is too much but 100 billion spent over years is not necessarily an exaggeration. Google and Cruise together have spent like 20B to get to where we are right now (easily googled) which IMHO is not the 95% mark where the returns get much harder. The cars are heavily geofenced and need help from service personnel regularly. Correct me If I am wrong but getting to the point where humans are completely unnecessary is still a research problem. We need more research and more breakthroughs which costs a lot of money and is non-linear (you are not guaranteed results). It could very easily take 100B to get to a point where a car can ferry people anywhere they want with zero human assistance (no service personnel to guide out of traps etc). >Since when has software or even advanced AI research ever cost that much to develop? Since now? If software is eating the world, you should expect software research to also eat up a lot of money. As the low hanging fruit is picked, further gains are going to cost a lot more.