Live data from Hacker News

Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

economist.com

1–10 of 60 posts

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#2
I agree with the premise that machines will increasing exceed our capabilities (and are improving quicker than we are). This seems so obvious as to be not debatable.

I also think there are a lot of merits to online-education and Udacity seems to have the right general idea. On-line education needs to be more engaging and entertaining than simply videos and online collaboration.

However, this whole "people need more skills" and "we need more jobs" meme feels like a losing fight with reality. In fact this push for increased human skills seems like it will only widen the gap between the uber skilled and the 99%. In our current economic model, this seems like increased pain for most of us.

IMHO it would be much better if we could stop this denial. We need to pivot our economic system towards a basic income model. I think a much better strategy would be for us to start focusing our best and brightest on full automation of our needs and basic wants so that we can provide most essential services to people with minimal human and resource cost.

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#3
post #2

I agree with the premise that machines will increasing exceed our capabilities (and are improving quicker than we are). This seems so obvious as to be not debatable. I also think there are a lot of merits to online-education and Udacity seems to have the right general idea. On-line education needs to be more engaging and entertaining than simply videos and online collaboration. However, this whole "people need more s…

I agree with that. Not sure if the basic income is THE solution, I didn't think about it too much, but I agree with everything else.

People don't need jobs, they need money. Jobs are the only legal way to get money but money is the issue, not jobs.

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#4
> To the extent we are seeing the beginning of a battle between artificial intelligence (AI) and humanity, I am 100% loyal to people.

Perhaps I'm just jaded or cynical, but fuck people.

We, as a species, are the greatest threat to ourselves, and we are our greatest asset. An individual may be brilliant, and and large groups congregating together into governments that empower hundreds of millions of individuals may be the greatest feat our species has accomplished, but there is just so much instability across a wide spectrum of life.

We, as a species, are approaching the limit of what 7B people on this planet are capable of. Globalization is piquing and revolutionary growth will pique with it, and maintaining the rate at which we grow will be accomplished by broad-sweeping reforms with the end-goal being tearing down inefficiencies -- starting with economic.

We, as a species, absolutely can bring a first-world quality of life to everybody, so why shouldn't we?

We, as a species, absolutely can cooperate and govern on a global scale, where such cooperation is codified into law, so why shouldn't we?

The answer is that we don't want to because we can't handle giving up control to those other people because they don't have our best interests in mind.

How do we face the future? By letting go of our ill-conceived notion that we are fit to govern ourselves in the current manner, and accept that operational control of various aspects of humanity (eg: supply chain management, namely natural resource allocation and food distribution) will be automated, and as such outside of the purview of human judgement.

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#5
post #2

I agree with the premise that machines will increasing exceed our capabilities (and are improving quicker than we are). This seems so obvious as to be not debatable. I also think there are a lot of merits to online-education and Udacity seems to have the right general idea. On-line education needs to be more engaging and entertaining than simply videos and online collaboration. However, this whole "people need more s…

Many great scientists (Einstein amongst them) get into trouble when they veer into Economics. Einstein predicted social unrest from massive unemployment due to productivity improvements. Productivity improvements help people in aggregate.

The question here is will a small subset of the world accrue all the benefit from the AI productivity improvement? One answer is basic income, presumably based on taxation of the rich. Is another answer some kind of universal ownership scheme of the companies creating the AI? I'm not advocating government ownership of business (this rarely ends well) but perhaps some way for the government to give shares in index funds in lieu of basic cash payments? Essentially equity based social security or welfare payments in lieu of some portion of the cash payments. I haven't thought this fully through yet, but it does allow some aspect of shared upside. (My sense is there will be a lot of shared upside anyway, similar to how we all benefit from free maps and search)

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#6
post #2

I agree with the premise that machines will increasing exceed our capabilities (and are improving quicker than we are). This seems so obvious as to be not debatable. I also think there are a lot of merits to online-education and Udacity seems to have the right general idea. On-line education needs to be more engaging and entertaining than simply videos and online collaboration. However, this whole "people need more s…

> We need to pivot our economic system towards a basic income model.

So putting a floor on what people get each year seems like a pretty good idea. How about a ceiling as well? What's an equitable spread? 10x? 100x? Should the basic income given to residents of Manhattan be 2.5x what people in Wichita get?

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#7
post #4

> To the extent we are seeing the beginning of a battle between artificial intelligence (AI) and humanity, I am 100% loyal to people. Perhaps I'm just jaded or cynical, but fuck people . We, as a species, are the greatest threat to ourselves, and we are our greatest asset. An individual may be brilliant, and and large groups congregating together into governments that empower hundreds of millions of individuals may b…

> We, as a species, absolutely can bring a first-world quality of life to everybody, so why shouldn't we?

Not with the current lifestyle and the given ressources.

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#8
post #4

> To the extent we are seeing the beginning of a battle between artificial intelligence (AI) and humanity, I am 100% loyal to people. Perhaps I'm just jaded or cynical, but fuck people . We, as a species, are the greatest threat to ourselves, and we are our greatest asset. An individual may be brilliant, and and large groups congregating together into governments that empower hundreds of millions of individuals may b…

Better the devil you know.

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#9
post #2

I agree with the premise that machines will increasing exceed our capabilities (and are improving quicker than we are). This seems so obvious as to be not debatable. I also think there are a lot of merits to online-education and Udacity seems to have the right general idea. On-line education needs to be more engaging and entertaining than simply videos and online collaboration. However, this whole "people need more s…

Many great scientists (Einstein amongst them) get into trouble when they veer into Economics. Einstein predicted social unrest from massive unemployment due to productivity improvements. Productivity improvements help people in aggregate. The question here is will a small subset of the world accrue all the benefit from the AI productivity improvement? One answer is basic income, presumably based on taxation of the ri…

Russia tried that. When the USSR ended, they gave every one vouchers to bid for shares of state owned companies. The little people had no idea what they were doing and got screwed brutally. It created many of the ridiculously wealthy Russian oligarchs you see today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

Re: Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future

#10
post #7
post #4

> To the extent we are seeing the beginning of a battle between artificial intelligence (AI) and humanity, I am 100% loyal to people. Perhaps I'm just jaded or cynical, but fuck people . We, as a species, are the greatest threat to ourselves, and we are our greatest asset. An individual may be brilliant, and and large groups congregating together into governments that empower hundreds of millions of individuals may b…

> We, as a species, absolutely can bring a first-world quality of life to everybody, so why shouldn't we? Not with the current lifestyle and the given ressources.

Not with the current technology and the given resources. Most of the biomass on the planet lives happily in its means. We need to think like that. That means building with carbon, not metal.
Post reply on HN