5 ms·
Yes, too much focus on AGI. We don't need AGI or self-driving to make a big leap. I want drone fleets that can roof a house or 3d print structures. Nanobots t
by erosenbe0 5y ago
Yes, too much focus on AGI.
We don't need AGI or self-driving to make a big leap.
I want drone fleets that can roof a house or 3d print structures. Nanobots to clear arteries and destroy cancer cells. These things will not need to pass the Turing test or even close.
- antupis 5y agoI just want cheap car where I can space out at wheel and it beeps when I have to continue driving.
- mellavora 5y agoIn Europe they call these things a "bus" or a "train". They are usually cheap, in Luxembourg all public transport is free. You get into it, and it takes you to the destination. You can space out all you like. Yes, it is slower than driving yourself, unless there is heavy traffic, but it tends to work well.
- jdbernard 5y agoThese are not comparable replacements for cars because of a litany of reasons unrelated to this thread. It's an old, tired conversation.
- cik2e 5y agoThe car beeps and by the time the driver returns to earth and figures out what the fuck is going on, it will almost certainly be too late. What you're really asking for is a car that predicts when it needs to beep. I'd imagine that in most of the serious situations, the maximum warning time will be shorter than the minimum spaced-out driver reorientation time. In fact, no meaningful scenario comes to mind where the car would want help but with a handful of seconds to spare.
- TomSwirly 5y agoOK, but the discussion is about "AI" - artificial intelligence. Do you call a white blood cell "intelligent"? Then why would you call a nanobot that destroyed cancer cells "intelligent"?
- erosenbe0 5y agoCollectively nanobots or drone fleets could demonstrate quite some intelligence or productivity, as insect hives do. It's a distributed form of AI.