Live data from Hacker News

Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

rodneybrooks.com

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#151
post #96

Feels too self-congratulatory when he claims to be correct about self driving in the Waymo case. The bar he set is so broad and ambiguous, that probably anything Waymo did, would not qualify as self driving to him. So he think humans are intervening once every 1-2 miles to train the Waymo, we’re not even sure if that is true, I heard from friends that it was 100+ miles but let us say Waymo comes out and says it is 10…

Nonsense. If you spoke about self-driving cars a few decades ago you would have understood it to have meant that you could go to a dealer and buy a car that would drive itself, wherever you might be, without your input as a driver. No-one would have equated the phrase "we'll have self-driving cars" with "some taxis in a few of US cities"

The prediction is:

> First driverless "taxi" service in a major US city, with dedicated pick up and drop off points, and restrictions on weather and time of day.

Their 2025 analysis is: "This is unlikely to happen in the first half of this century."

The prediction is clear. The evaluation is dishonest.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo is the best driver I’ve ridden with. Yes it has limited coverage. Maybe humans are intervening, but unless someone can prove that humans are intervening multiple times per ride, “self driving” is here, IMO, as of 2024.

Does Wayne operate in heavy rain and any kind of snow or ice conditions?

The author specifically calls out that the taxi service needs not operate in all weather conditions or times of day.

> First driverless "taxi" service in a major US city, with dedicated pick up and drop off points, and restrictions on weather and time of day.

However, their analysis this year is that, "This is unlikely to happen in the first half of this century."

The prediction is clear. The evaluation is dishonest.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just not a solved problem yet. Human driving isn't a solved problem either; the difference is that when a human driver needs intervention it just crashes.

This is not about crashes. By all accounts, the Waymo cars are mostly fully self driving, I beleive even the article author agrees with that. This includes crash avoidance, to the extent that they can. The remote operation seems to be more about navigational issues and reading the road conditions. Things like accidentally looping, or not knowing how to proceed with an unexpected obstacle. Things that don't really hap…

Ok, but crashes are much worse than navigational issues or accidentally looping. It’s only status quo bias that makes us think driving is more solved if you get the accidental looping fixed before the crashing.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#155

>Individually owned cars can go underground onto a pallet and be whisked underground to another location in a city at more than 100mph. I'm curious where this idea even came from, not sure who the customer would be, it's a little disappointing he doesn't mention mag-lev trains in a discussion about future rapid transit. I'd much rather ride a smooth mag-lev across town than an underground pallet system.

Elon Musk promised to build this tech.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe some devs were probably replaced by AI, but not a large amount. I'm not even sold on the idea that there were any . The media likes to blame AI for the developer layoffs because it makes a much more exciting story than interest rates and arcane tax code changes. But the fact is that we don't need more than the Section 174 changes and the end of ZIRP to explain what's happened in tech. Federal economic pol…

But I see so many devs typing here saying how vital AI is to their writing code efficiently and quickly now. If that is true then you need way less devs. Are people just sitting idle at their desks? I do see quite a bit of tech layoffs for sure. Are you saying devs aren't part of the workers being laid off? >In 2024: At least 95,667 workers at U.S.-based tech companies have lost their jobs so far in the year, accordi…

Why would Jevon's paradox not apply to human labor?

I am not sure what I expect for software developers besides that the nature if the work will change but it is still too early to say exactly how. We certainly cannot extrapolate linearly or exponentially from the past few years.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#157
post #2

I like Rodney Brooks, but I find the way he does these predictions to be very obtuse and subject to a lot of self-congratulatory interpretation. Highlighting something green that is "NET2021" and then saying he was right when something happened or didn't happen, when something related happened in 2024 mean that he predicted it right or wrong, or is everything subject to arbitrary interpretation? Where are the bold pr…

"NET2021" means "no earlier than 2021". So, if nothing even arguably similar happened until 2024, that sounds like a very correct prediction.

Whether that's worth congratulating him about depends on how obvious it was, but I think you really need to measure "fairly obvious" at the time the prediction is made, not seven years later. A lot of things that seem "fairly obvious" now weren't obvious at all then.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#158
post #95

LOL about the last paragraphs: > Let’s Continue a Noble Tradition! > The billionaire founders of both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin had faith in the systems they had created. They both personally flew on the first operational flights of their sub-orbital launch systems. They went way beyond simply talking about how great their technology was, they believed in it, and flew in it. > Let’s hope this tradition continue…

How am I supposed to read this ? a thinly veiled hatred for Mr. Musk?

That's how I interpreted it, yes.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#159
> Their imaginations were definitely encourage by exponentialism, but in fact all they knew was that when the went from smallish to largish networks following the architectural diagram above, the performance got much better. So the inherent reasoning was that if more made things better then more more would make things more better. Alas for them it appears that this is probably not the case.

I recommend reading Richard Hamming's "The Art of Science and Engineering." Early in the book he presents a simple model of knowledge growth that always leads to an s-curve. The trouble is that on the left, an s-curve looks exponential. We still don't know where we are on the curve with any of the technologies. It is very possible we've already passed the exponential growth phase with some of these technologies. If so, we will need new technologies to move forward to the next s curve.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#160
On reading the negative commentary here on Rodney Brooks's post, I'm realizing that besides being a rambling article, it also assumes too much background from the reader. It isn't really understandable without knowing something about the author and about the business of robots.

Disclaimer: I worked for years building robots, several of these years with Rod. I assure you, when it comes to robotics and AI, he knows what he's talking about.

Here's my perspective. Also, he wrote his original predictions six years ago in a blog post [1], which is the basis for this latest post. If you don't have the time to read the old post, I provide a short summary from it about autonomous driving below, too.

1. Rod is not just an MIT professor emeritus and a past director of CSAIL. He has co-founded multiple robotics companies, one of which, iRobot, made loads of money selling tens of millions of consumer-grade autonomous robots cleaning floors in people's homes.

Making money selling autonomous robots is a very, very difficult thing. Roomba was a true milestone. Before then, the only civilian, commercially successful mass-produced robots were the programmable industrial arms that are still used in auto manufacturing. If the author sounds self-important, maybe that's why.

Yeah, he can get a little snarky sometimes when self-important CEOs run around with VC money in their pockets making tall claims and never being held accountable. That's just his style. Try to look beyond it. You might learn a thing or two.

2. The entire purpose of his annual "predictions" posts starting with [1] was to counter the hype and salesmanship about AI and robotics that's wasting billions of investment dollars and polluting the media landscape.

About autonomous cars, he believes that the core technology has been demonstrated in the 1980s, but that instead of using it, we have squandered the decades since then. For autonomous robots, the interaction with their surroundings is critical to success. We could have enhanced our road and communications infrastructure to enable autonomous cars. Instead, we have chosen to give money to slick salesmen to chase the mirage of placing "intelligent" cars on existing roads, continuing to neglect our civil infrastructure.

[1] https://rodneybrooks.com/my-dated-predictions/

Post reply on HN