2 ms·

"[...] that can to the job better" is the key phrase here though. It's probably a bit misguided in the sense that, if the end-result further down the line is t

"[...] that can to the job better" is the key phrase here though. It's probably a bit misguided in the sense that, if the end-result further down the line is the "more machines than humans driving in the streets" (let alone zero humans), then it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead, rather than have machines try to work under infrastructure that is designed to be good for humans but bad for machines, and then try to "iteratively improve" under conditions that carry significant risk of injury. Brings Ford's quote on "faster horses" to mind. Imagine if we still required roads to be horse friendly, and expected our cars to go through mud and jump fences.

actionfromafar 3y ago
But the roads and cars were iteratively improved in a co-evolving way. Early cars with huge wheels could traverse cow-paths and mud and weren't very fast. (And you opened fences. :-)
- Draiken 3y ago
  Maybe it partially explains why cars hurt/kill so many people every single day? I agree with GP: automating everything and removing humans from the equation would be a much better solution. Unfortunately it's not practical because it's not profitable.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    Yes, its definitely a conspiracy and not because we can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure we have now.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      We can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure because it's not profitable. Getting humans to agree on something at scale larger than half a dozen is like herding cats. Money is catnip - it works well at aligning masses towards common goal.
idopmstuff 3y ago
> it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead Except iteratively changing the infrastructure requires political capital along with actual capital in the form of tax dollars. Self-driving cars can be built outside of existing infrastructure and paid for entirely with private funding. Changing infrastructure is a nice idea in theory, but the practicality of getting anything done in SF means that if you want progress, you should look to other options.

actionfromafar 3y ago

But the roads and cars were iteratively improved in a co-evolving way. Early cars with huge wheels could traverse cow-paths and mud and weren't very fast. (And you opened fences. :-)

Draiken 3y ago
Maybe it partially explains why cars hurt/kill so many people every single day? I agree with GP: automating everything and removing humans from the equation would be a much better solution. Unfortunately it's not practical because it's not profitable.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Yes, its definitely a conspiracy and not because we can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure we have now.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    We can barely manage the non-intelligent infrastructure because it's not profitable. Getting humans to agree on something at scale larger than half a dozen is like herding cats. Money is catnip - it works well at aligning masses towards common goal.

idopmstuff 3y ago

> it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead Except iteratively changing the infrastructure requires political capital along with actual capital in the form of tax dollars. Self-driving cars can be built outside of existing infrastructure and paid for entirely with private funding. Changing infrastructure is a nice idea in theory, but the practicality of getting anything done in SF means that if you want progress, you should look to other options.