3 ms·

Sure - but they've been working on the last 1% for years now. Nuclear Power plants are almost always over budget and over time, big misses. And they've built lo

Sure - but they've been working on the last 1% for years now. Nuclear Power plants are almost always over budget and over time, big misses. And they've built lots of them. Every piece of software ever built suffers from this issue to some degree. Elon Musk misses every deadline he ever sets. Something taking longer than initially thought shouldn't instantly set off alarm bells suggesting it won't ever get done.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Sure - but they've been working on the last 1% for years now. Indeed, and we aren't any closer compared to say 5 years ago. That is more or less my point: you can solve for some of this and then you are still left with a mountain more. And then at some point there is an even harder problem to deal with: how to ensure that fixing one problem won't regress one or more others.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  > Indeed, and we aren't any closer compared to say 5 years ago That's just flat wrong.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I evaluate tech for a living and I don't see us being closer in a way that moves the needle. Objectively, however long it will take to get to self driving we are 5 years closer, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not the state of technology is at a level where it will enable self driving to the point where a car will no longer have a steering wheel. Because less than that isn't going to cut it. And that may well require another leap of capabilities on the AI front, it might even require GAI. But you are entirely welcome to your own opinion, as I am to mine, but after watching the self driving industry since the 80's my timeframe is something like 25 years before fusion will arrive. There may be some intermediary 'artificial artificial intelligence' solution where when stuck a remote driver can take over. But that has its own set of problems and I don't want to set this up as a strawman.
    - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
      There are cars on the road now, driving without drivers. Google (and Cruise) have built cars without pedals or a steering wheel. The needle has moved.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Ok, let's see one drive through Amsterdam tomorrow morning at 9 am between two random zipcodes and house numbers. I'll bet you it can't do it. "Edge cases" indeed.
        danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        I'd take that bet at even money all day long. But, maybe it can't. It doesn't change the fact that they are materially closer than they were 5 years ago.San Francisco streets aren't a snack. There are hilly, narrow streets with cable cars, constant construction, homeless people wandering onto the street. It's real progress. Anyone around Mountain View, or SF will have seen the progress with their own eyes. It's not a theoretical debate.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > But, maybe it can't. But that's the whole point: if this were a reality there wouldn't be a maybe there. So thanks for making my point. "Materially closer" isn't the bar to cross the bar to cross is "It just works" which is for me what I'm getting at when I say that we are not 'closer', because it's a binary thing, arrival means 'it works' not that we have made some incremental change towards an ill defined goal. The 'it works some of the time or even most of the time' bar was crossed years ago, but it needs to work all of the time.
        danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        The question was if they are closer. Materially closer is closer? How would materially closer not meet the bar for closer?

jacquesm 5y ago

> Sure - but they've been working on the last 1% for years now. Indeed, and we aren't any closer compared to say 5 years ago. That is more or less my point: you can solve for some of this and then you are still left with a mountain more. And then at some point there is an even harder problem to deal with: how to ensure that fixing one problem won't regress one or more others.

danielmarkbruce 5y ago
> Indeed, and we aren't any closer compared to say 5 years ago That's just flat wrong.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I'm sorry, I evaluate tech for a living and I don't see us being closer in a way that moves the needle. Objectively, however long it will take to get to self driving we are 5 years closer, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not the state of technology is at a level where it will enable self driving to the point where a car will no longer have a steering wheel. Because less than that isn't going to cut it. And that may well require another leap of capabilities on the AI front, it might even require GAI. But you are entirely welcome to your own opinion, as I am to mine, but after watching the self driving industry since the 80's my timeframe is something like 25 years before fusion will arrive. There may be some intermediary 'artificial artificial intelligence' solution where when stuck a remote driver can take over. But that has its own set of problems and I don't want to set this up as a strawman.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    There are cars on the road now, driving without drivers. Google (and Cruise) have built cars without pedals or a steering wheel. The needle has moved.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Ok, let's see one drive through Amsterdam tomorrow morning at 9 am between two random zipcodes and house numbers. I'll bet you it can't do it. "Edge cases" indeed.
      - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        I'd take that bet at even money all day long. But, maybe it can't. It doesn't change the fact that they are materially closer than they were 5 years ago.San Francisco streets aren't a snack. There are hilly, narrow streets with cable cars, constant construction, homeless people wandering onto the street. It's real progress. Anyone around Mountain View, or SF will have seen the progress with their own eyes. It's not a theoretical debate.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > But, maybe it can't. But that's the whole point: if this were a reality there wouldn't be a maybe there. So thanks for making my point. "Materially closer" isn't the bar to cross the bar to cross is "It just works" which is for me what I'm getting at when I say that we are not 'closer', because it's a binary thing, arrival means 'it works' not that we have made some incremental change towards an ill defined goal. The 'it works some of the time or even most of the time' bar was crossed years ago, but it needs to work all of the time.
        danielmarkbruce 5y ago
        The question was if they are closer. Materially closer is closer? How would materially closer not meet the bar for closer?