4 ms·

AGI sounds neat because the hype says that it will solve all human problems at once. That's obviously fake and wrong, but so is the idea of solving current huma

AGI sounds neat because the hype says that it will solve all human problems at once. That's obviously fake and wrong, but so is the idea of solving current human problems with current tools.

hodgesrm 3y ago
> That's obviously fake and wrong, but so is the idea of solving current human problems with current tools. There are easily stated problems like "Reduce US car accidents by 50%" that should be solvable with AI as it stands today. This seems like a useful and achievable goal that would save money and lives. I've never understood why full self-driving was the problem most people chose to solve instead. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
- oneayy4 3y ago
  this is how you know the AI moment is not real. its all marketing for the likes of capitalistic shit like Tesla and self-driving as its some kind of savior for humanity instead of some marketing gimmick for some car dealer. like bro trains exists.
- c_crank 3y ago
  Solving some percentage car accidents with AI requires a law or a common agreement by car companies to put AI in cars. That's an investment of time and money that isn't going to solving some other problem. Everything is a trade off, and some problems simply come with the territory of being human. The appeal of self-driving is usually just financial.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Solving some percentage car accidents with AI requires a law or a common agreement by car companies to put AI in cars. No, it doesn’t require a law or a common agreement, it just requires the absence of a law preventing it and salable benefit in a competitive market. Cf., computer vision and other AI components for lane keeping, throttle control, and automatic braking, which is “solving some percentage of car accidents with AI”.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > There are easily stated problems like “Reduce US car accidents by 50%” that should be solvable with AI as it stands today. IF you really want to solve that, that’s an urban design problem that doesn’t take AI at all; it isn’t solved because there is insufficient desire to solve it, not because of technology. But as far as AI-use-in-cars goes… > This seems like a useful and achievable goal that would save money and lives. I’ve never understood why full self-driving was the problem most people chose to solve instead. In the space of auto safety technology it’s not. Driver assistance short of full self-driving is much more widely deployed, and continuously improving, by far more automakers than FSD. Full self-driving gets the media attention because its dramatic and showy.
  - hodgesrm 3y ago
    True, I should properly say that the publicity and a lot of SV focus went to full self-driving. Thank goodness people are actually pushing the less glamorous topics. That said, it would be great to see more public focus on solving problems like keeping bikes and pedestrians from being run over. In my town there's a lot of talk about the issue but it's not been backed up by initiatives that actually change the numbers. (Which are bad.)
- gWPVhyxPHqvk 3y ago
  > "Reduce US car accidents by 50%" That's not something that needs AI at all. That's a political problem, and the solutions are not ones that Americans like.
- gen220 3y ago
  FSD frees up a massive chunk of attention-hours per human in the US, attention-hours that you would presumably spend hooked into ads on various entertainment platforms that ultimately drip into Big Tech's money funnel. Incentives explain the goal.
- twelve40 3y ago
  > Reduce US car accidents by 50%" that should be solvable with AI as it stands today uh... how?? aside from obvious non-starters like reducing US car usage by 50% because that's not going to happen (not today anyway)

AGI sounds neat because the hype says that it will solve all human problems at once. That's obviously fake and wrong, but so is the idea of solving current human problems with current tools.

hodgesrm 3y ago

> That's obviously fake and wrong, but so is the idea of solving current human problems with current tools. There are easily stated problems like "Reduce US car accidents by 50%" that should be solvable with AI as it stands today. This seems like a useful and achievable goal that would save money and lives. I've never understood why full self-driving was the problem most people chose to solve instead. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

oneayy4 3y ago
this is how you know the AI moment is not real. its all marketing for the likes of capitalistic shit like Tesla and self-driving as its some kind of savior for humanity instead of some marketing gimmick for some car dealer. like bro trains exists.
c_crank 3y ago
Solving some percentage car accidents with AI requires a law or a common agreement by car companies to put AI in cars. That's an investment of time and money that isn't going to solving some other problem. Everything is a trade off, and some problems simply come with the territory of being human. The appeal of self-driving is usually just financial.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Solving some percentage car accidents with AI requires a law or a common agreement by car companies to put AI in cars. No, it doesn’t require a law or a common agreement, it just requires the absence of a law preventing it and salable benefit in a competitive market. Cf., computer vision and other AI components for lane keeping, throttle control, and automatic braking, which is “solving some percentage of car accidents with AI”.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> There are easily stated problems like “Reduce US car accidents by 50%” that should be solvable with AI as it stands today. IF you really want to solve that, that’s an urban design problem that doesn’t take AI at all; it isn’t solved because there is insufficient desire to solve it, not because of technology. But as far as AI-use-in-cars goes… > This seems like a useful and achievable goal that would save money and lives. I’ve never understood why full self-driving was the problem most people chose to solve instead. In the space of auto safety technology it’s not. Driver assistance short of full self-driving is much more widely deployed, and continuously improving, by far more automakers than FSD. Full self-driving gets the media attention because its dramatic and showy.
- hodgesrm 3y ago
  True, I should properly say that the publicity and a lot of SV focus went to full self-driving. Thank goodness people are actually pushing the less glamorous topics. That said, it would be great to see more public focus on solving problems like keeping bikes and pedestrians from being run over. In my town there's a lot of talk about the issue but it's not been backed up by initiatives that actually change the numbers. (Which are bad.)
gWPVhyxPHqvk 3y ago
> "Reduce US car accidents by 50%" That's not something that needs AI at all. That's a political problem, and the solutions are not ones that Americans like.
gen220 3y ago
FSD frees up a massive chunk of attention-hours per human in the US, attention-hours that you would presumably spend hooked into ads on various entertainment platforms that ultimately drip into Big Tech's money funnel. Incentives explain the goal.
twelve40 3y ago
> Reduce US car accidents by 50%" that should be solvable with AI as it stands today uh... how?? aside from obvious non-starters like reducing US car usage by 50% because that's not going to happen (not today anyway)