Google self-driving car pioneer wants to teach people how to face the future • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by pen2l » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #5

bsaunder wrote: 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…

> 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.

Can you please expand? I did not know of this

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

#22

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

Arrogant, as is typical of those with a financial stake in a particular version of progress. This guy is under the belief that his version of the future will happen and that it is his job to help others realise that truth. Technological progress may be inevitable, but that progress envisioned by any particular person is not.

Nanodegrees may seem a good idea, and they no doubt make sense financially to google, but that does not make them inevitable. People have been attending today's traditional schools since long before the Aztecs were even a thing (Cambridge 1200s). There is wisdom in those years. It may be time to change that wisdom, but it won't happen within a generation.

Self-driving cars seem likely but are not inevitable. All sorts of safety-enhancing technologies are dropped for apparently irrelevant reasons. Why do we sell cars that can break speed limits? Why do school buses not have seat belts? Why do planes still have error-prone pilots? Why are alcohol and cigarettes still a thing? Each of those have at some point been challenged by technological progressives who though their version of the future was unavoidable. Each was proven wrong. Only the arrogant assume the future.

fyi, anyone who thinks driverless cars are inevitable should look at the futurama exhibit of 1939. We were then going to have them by 1960. Then it was ford. Now it is google. I'll believe it when I see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_%28New_York_World%27s...

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

#23

Post by bduerst » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #11

This is not about humans vs machines, it is STILL, after all these centuries, about labor vs capital.

Pretty much. The massive automation that happened during early 20th century modernization sparked a unionizing movement with laborers. Kind of interesting that we don't see that level of organization now.

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

#24

Post by seiji » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

ericjang wrote: post #16

Even though the standard of living is raised for all humans, it seems like advances in AI and automation will drastically reduce the percentage of productive members of society, in spite of educational opportunity. Improving educational opportunities (a la Udacity) is a noble idea because it levels the playing field a bit (giving the underprivileged a chance), but the end result is the same - a small number of people…

but "esteem" and "self-actualization" are really important as well.

Many people fill those needs with banal things like drinking contests or sports.

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

#25

Post by d883kd8 » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:16 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #5

bsaunder wrote: 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…

> equity based social security or welfare payments

I seem to remember Bush II proposing this early in his first term. I was quite young at the time, but I remember some some stuff about "Ownership Society" and a scheme that boiled down to "let's take the social security money and invest it."

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

#26

Post by bduerst » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

bsaunder wrote: 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…

UBI isn't the answer - there are goods and services with income-elastic prices that will be just as out of reach with UBI as it was before.

A prime example of this is housing, which is why many government welfare programs stipulate what the delivered value can be spent on (food stamps, medicaid, etc.) as opposed to just open-ended income.

Is it perfect? No. With every massive government program comes bureaucratic overhead - but throwing it out for something without the overhead but potentially economically damaging side effects isn't the solution.

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

#27

Post by d883kd8 » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

ihsw wrote: 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…

I disagree. You are probably being downvoted out of disagreement. (d_-1?)

I'd like to thank you for contributing your perspective in this reasoned and impassioned advocacy for authoritarianism.

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

#28

Post by moe » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:42 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #22

Arrogant, as is typical of those with a financial stake in a particular version of progress. This guy is under the belief that his version of the future will happen and that it is his job to help others realise that truth. Technological progress may be inevitable, but that progress envisioned by any particular person is not. Nanodegrees may seem a good idea, and they no doubt make sense financially to google, but tha…

Self-driving cars seem likely but are not inevitable.

Yes they are inevitable.

All sorts of safety-enhancing technologies are dropped

Self-driving cars are not only a "safety-enhancing technology".

First and foremost they are a money-saving technology.

Over 4 million people are employed in the USA transportation industry[1]. 1.7 million of them are truck drivers[2].

Global logistics companies will save billions of dollars per year by upgrading their fleets to self-driving vehicles.

[1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

[2] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/he...

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

#29

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #28

sandworm101 wrote: post #22

Arrogant, as is typical of those with a financial stake in a particular version of progress. This guy is under the belief that his version of the future will happen and that it is his job to help others realise that truth. Technological progress may be inevitable, but that progress envisioned by any particular person is not. Nanodegrees may seem a good idea, and they no doubt make sense financially to google, but tha…

Self-driving cars seem likely but are not inevitable. Yes they are inevitable. All sorts of safety-enhancing technologies are dropped Self-driving cars are not only a "safety-enhancing technology". First and foremost they are a money-saving technology. Over 4 million people are employed in the USA transportation industry[1]. 1.7 million of them are truck drivers[2]. Global logistics companies will save billions of do…

My point: There are often seemingly irrational reasons why new technologies are not adopted. One can make all rational arguments only to have them fall down when it comes to implementation. It is arrogant to assume that one today can perfectly predict technology tomorrow. (I say perfectly because the OP references only a narrow range of self-drive tech, not acknowledging all the other options.)

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

#30

Post by iamcurious » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #15

iamcurious wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should the basic income given to residents of Manhattan be 2.5x what people in Wichita get? One of the main arguments of basic income, as opposed to unemployment benefits, is to reduce the bureaucracy involved. So the answer would be an empathetic 'no'. Hopefully, having a guaranteed income decoupled from location would push people to populate cheaper places. And thus, rent would get much cheaper overall.

> reduce the bureaucracy involved Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem. Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

>Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem.

See what unabridged said.

>Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

Giving people more money because the rent is more expensive where they live equates to giving more money to landlords. That is an even more terrible idea.

Besides, Manhattan isn't that good of a place to live. Specially when you aren't tied to the job market and can take more risks.