31–40 of 106 posts
This chart should be rewritten in Rust.
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFTs, Theranos, AR, AI/ML, No/Low Code. "No Man's Sky" is also an interesting case study.
Not sure how AR, AI/ML or even No Mans Sky belong to the same list as NFTs. No Mans Sky has delivered on many things over time and chances are you used AI for something today even if you aren't aware of it. Maybe you mean AGI and how near in the future some promised it to be. AR is too early to even judge, with only Microsoft investing into it out of the reputable companies AFAIK.
While NMS did eventually get their act together, what they delivered on launch was very much not aligned with the expectations.
AI solutions are hyped because they are AI solutions, not because of what they actually deliver. It's not that it has no uses, but the promises do not match up with the reality. Often it's enough to solve an already previously solved problem with AI to generate hype around a product, even if the AI solution is strictly worse than what's already on the market.
I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculative until it’s not.
But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags. It’s unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve to undermine their group - whether it’s crypto or a social cause group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant one that don’t even deeply understand what they’re fighting for.
Why would having a technology as a part of group identity lead to utopian claims? Unless the group/technology feels threatened. Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
I'm a Linux fanboy too, but let's not fool ourselves. If Linux ever went "mainstream", then the amount of malware targeting it would rise precipitously. See: Android
I don't agree with the categorization of “full self-driving” as "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS". There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them. Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference. its more like "LEVEL 3:…
That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.
Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.
Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.
IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.
I don't agree with the categorization of “full self-driving” as "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS". There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them. Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference. its more like "LEVEL 3:…
Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day, much like they were equipped with street lamps and canalization in the previous centuries. Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The “self” part of “self-driving” no longer applies.
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”. I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculat…
I don't agree with the categorization of “full self-driving” as "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS". There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them. Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference. its more like "LEVEL 3:…
The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day, much like they were equipped with street lamps and canalization in the previous centuries. Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
> Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The “self” part of “self-driving” no longer applies.
I don't see how "helping beacons" for robots are unfair but street lights are not.