Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

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

#31

Post by ihsw »

d883kd8 wrote: post #27
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.

It's not authoritarianism, it's trust. We already trust large aspects of our lives to machines, it's time we take that trust to the next level.

If and when it happens, nobody will miss having to manage large fleets of container ships that currently move hundreds of millions of dollars of goods per day.

If and when it happens, nobody will miss having to manage large fleets of trucks, vans, and cargo planes that currently move hundreds of millions of dollars of goods per week.

If and when it happens, nobody will miss having to find and drill for oil and nat-gas.

If and when it happens, nobody will miss having to raise and slaughter farm animals.

If and when it happens, nobody will miss having to tend to land for our apples and oranges.

Freedom of movement will diminish, in exchange we will achieve riches nobody ever dreamed of.

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

#32

Post by JoshTriplett »

criddell wrote: post #6
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…

> 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?

> How about a ceiling as well? What's an equitable spread?

In no possible way up to you to decide, thankfully.

It's one thing to say "nobody should go hungry or live on the street"; we could argue about the most efficient way to go about achieving that, but it's not an unreasonable statement. It's quite another thing to say "you're not allowed to be too successful or we'll steal it from you".

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

#33

Post by JoshTriplett »

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…

> However, this whole "people need more skills" and "we need more jobs" meme feels like a losing fight with reality.

In the long-term, sure: if we can successfully build an AI smarter than humans, it's unlikely any job will survive. But at the same time, no job will need to; there's a balance there. Planning for a post-scarcity economy makes sense, but the plans that work in such an economy don't necessarily work when scarcity still exists.

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

#34

Post by loup-vaillant »

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…

If World War 2 counts as "social unrest", I'd say Einstein got à point.

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

#35

Post by davidcgl »

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…

Nanodegrees may seem a good idea, and they no doubt make sense financially to google

Google doesn't own Udacity.

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

#36

Post by StavrosK »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #33
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…

> However, this whole "people need more skills" and "we need more jobs" meme feels like a losing fight with reality. In the long-term, sure: if we can successfully build an AI smarter than humans, it's unlikely any job will survive. But at the same time, no job will need to; there's a balance there. Planning for a post-scarcity economy makes sense, but the plans that work in such an economy don't necessarily work whe…

> But at the same time, no job will need to

Why? Because this AI, which is basically just people smarter than us and getting smarter by the day, will decide that its only purpose in life is to serve its idiot masters?

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

#37

Post by StavrosK »

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…

This is completely off topic, but this is the first time I saw someone say "pique" when they meant "peak".

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

#38

Post by JoshTriplett »

StavrosK wrote: post #36
JoshTriplett wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, this whole "people need more skills" and "we need more jobs" meme feels like a losing fight with reality. In the long-term, sure: if we can successfully build an AI smarter than humans, it's unlikely any job will survive. But at the same time, no job will need to; there's a balance there. Planning for a post-scarcity economy makes sense, but the plans that work in such an economy don't necessarily work whe…

> But at the same time, no job will need to Why? Because this AI, which is basically just people smarter than us and getting smarter by the day, will decide that its only purpose in life is to serve its idiot masters?

Because if we build it correctly, it won't be a person at all, and won't have a value function orthogonal to our own. Building something that can self-improve and solve problems doesn't mean we need to build something that has independent will, motivation, or values. And it's a lot safer not to.

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

#39

Post by yazaddaruvala »

criddell wrote: post #6
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…

> 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?

Governments shouldn't provide money. The ideas behind basic income are to ensure the majority of people are one step higher on the hierarchy of needs.

That said, it would be best for governments to provide free safe housing, heat, sanitation, food, water, communications (fast internet and telephone), medical care (including preventive care through gym memberships and such), and high quality accessible education, certification.

The reason I don't like basic income: while in comparison it's a lot easier to budget, it's also a lot harder to keep up to date, or keep geographically relevant. It's harder to find efficiencies, like Soylent for food or improving gyms, hospitals, schools. Its easily abused, money can buy guns or heroin, it doesn't always get used for food. Meanwhile, food in a world where food is free can only feed you and your family.

Post reply on HN