|
I don't necessarily have a problem with automation either. My concerns about autonomous cars and stuff like that has less to do with the technology itself than the attitudes about them. If automation/A.I is a hammer, then Silicon Valley tends to see everything as a nail. There's nothing these days that they don't seem to want to automate or run with robots. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems to me that the zeal for technology like autonomous cars often outpaces serious efforts to identify and combat the consequences of that technology. I used the Internet of Things as an example in the unpopular opinions thread. Silicon Valley was bullish to connect everyday devices to the Internet several years ago. Now we have wifi-connected refrigerators and cars, which has made life easier in a lot of ways. But we're also dealing with those everyday appliances getting hacked, being used as surveillance devices, etc. It may not be possible to think of all the ways a new technology might be misused or go wrong. But Silicon Valley tends to be very long on hype about how wonderful and perfect autonomous cars will be, and they gloss over the possible consequences until the technology is already released. That's a mistake that could cost us dearly in the future if we don't correct it.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:If automation/A.I is a hammer, then Silicon Valley tends to see everything as a nail. There's nothing these days that they don't seem to want to automate or run with robots. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems to me that the zeal for technology like autonomous cars often outpaces serious efforts to identify and combat the consequences of that technology. To the extent that automation constitutes a social problem, that's the government's problem to handle. Which it should, and we should be pushing for more effort on that, but what people need to deal with a changing economy, like retraining or moving stipends or unemployment benefits, it mostly doesn't make any sense for tech companies to be providing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:If automation/A.I is a hammer, then Silicon Valley tends to see everything as a nail. There's nothing these days that they don't seem to want to automate or run with robots. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems to me that the zeal for technology like autonomous cars often outpaces serious efforts to identify and combat the consequences of that technology. I think that generally is the case, for everything. Look back in history and see all the hosed up ways people used electricity or x-rays or whatever before they knew better. The human race is really really bad about inventing new things and then taking years to figure out the right way to use them. It's not good that it's that way. People literally died from shoe-fitting fluoroscopes and it's hard to say "well some human lives are just the cost of progress", but people haven't really figured out a way to introduce new things and instantly know everything about them and how they should be used and there isn't really a good system anyone has invented for that yet. Like it's a thing you can minimize and make laws to lower the impact. But sometimes there is just no way to know what is a good idea till you try. Shoe fitting x-rays are a super good idea till enough time passes and your feet fall off. It's probably not possible to introduce anything and guarantee no bad outcomes. You gotta just have a society with the right safety nets and protections to do what we can to minimize the damage, and make sure once bad things are caught that they are taken seriously. But there is probably no way to promise bad things won't ever happen. No one can promise that about anything, especially something new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I keep seeing people bring this up and it's like the dumbest thing. Making companies work more efficiently/productively is how markets are supposed to work. And not even in the "negative but inevitable side effect" sense, this is a good thing. I mean even a communist government would still desire to automate the poo poo out of everything it could. No, tech companies just do their best to dodge taxes and undermine any attempts to regulate business practices that are against the society’s best interests, and since said companies do their damndest to capture regulators who are ostensibly meant to be tackling these social issues, that makes them at least a little responsible for where society is headed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think that generally is the case, for everything. Look back in history and see all the hosed up ways people used electricity or x-rays or whatever before they knew better. The human race is really really bad about inventing new things and then taking years to figure out the right way to use them. True. I don't expect empty promises that nothing will ever go wrong, or for Silicon Valley to try to figure out all the possible ways that technology can go wrong. That's an unreasonably large request to make of them. At the same time, though, I think Silicon Valley has been moving so fast with getting autonomous cars into everyday use that they've glossed over the consequences of that technology (and others). Elon Musk (I think it was him) saying that people who are concerned about self-driving cars "want people to die" is an especially obnoxious and irritating example. Rather than explaining the ways in which computer-driven cars could help society, or allaying people's fears and concerns, Musk chose to just build up a straw man so that he could knock it down by accusing people of taking pleasure in others' deaths. Am I saying that Silicon Valley should halt all research and production of autonomous cars, or that R & D should be subject to democratic debate? Of course not. They should absolutely continue to innovate. But the Valley also needs to get out of its tech bubble. Self-driving cars aren't necessarily the self-evident cure-all that they've made it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:At the same time, though, I think Silicon Valley has been moving so fast with getting autonomous cars into everyday use that they've glossed over the consequences of that technology (and others). Like what though? In practical terms what should they be doing that they aren't? As far as I know there has been no deaths due to fully autonomous cars and last I looked like one high profile death attributed to driver assist technology that was shared responsibility between user error and software failure. As of yet it seems like the driving technology doesn't have a risk profile outside the range of any other car part. In the future if they do a bad job there might be a lot of danger, but what should they be doing now? They can't realistically lower their death count lower than near zero. What can they do at this moment better about risks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:At the same time, though, I think Silicon Valley has been moving so fast with getting autonomous cars into everyday use that they've glossed over the consequences of that technology (and others). Elon Musk (I think it was him) saying that people who are concerned about self-driving cars "want people to die" is an especially obnoxious and irritating example. Rather than explaining the ways in which computer-driven cars could help society, or allaying people's fears and concerns, Musk chose to just build up a straw man so that he could knock it down by accusing people of taking pleasure in others' deaths. this is such utterly reactionary drivel. you can change the nouns and it works for anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like what though? In practical terms what should they be doing that they aren't? As far as I know there has been no deaths due to fully autonomous cars and last I looked like one high profile death attributed to driver assist technology that was shared responsibility between user error and software failure. As of yet it seems like the driving technology doesn't have a risk profile outside the range of any other car part. In the future if they do a bad job there might be a lot of danger, but what should they be doing now? They can't realistically lower their death count lower than near zero. What can they do at this moment better about risks? Software error is one of the things that worry me. Autonomous cars are fine in relatively short-term tests, but how will the software and hardware hold up over months and years of use? Another concern is hacking. We've all seen the reports of wifi-connected cars that are prone to hacking, or children's devices with Internet connectivity that can be used for surveillance. I know that you're never going to create something that's completely invulnerable to hacking and tampering, but peace of mind when you sit in a device traveling at 70 mph down the interstate is important. The next great war may not be fought in conventional terms, but in the cybersphere, if that's a word. Finally, I'd like for Silicon Valley to acknowledge, internally, that they're asking for society to make a major change.I can't speak for everyone, but it's not enough for me when they just quote traffic fatality statistics and accuse skeptical people of being Luddites. Are there actions that can be taken in the shorter term to help prevent roadway deaths? Maybe we can step up driver education and enforcement of traffic laws. It's not going to prevent all the deaths on the road, but it's an intermediate step we can take before autonomous driving become a mainstream thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is such utterly reactionary drivel. you can change the nouns and it works for anything. Doesn't your own criticism fall to your own critique?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Software error is one of the things that worry me. Autonomous cars are fine in relatively short-term tests, but how will the software and hardware hold up over months and years of use? Your concern is one of ignorance, you fear it because you don’t understand it. The tests being run are more comprehensive than the training an average driver goes through. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Another concern is hacking. We've all seen the reports of wifi-connected cars that are prone to hacking, or children's devices with Internet connectivity that can be used for surveillance. I know that you're never going to create something that's completely invulnerable to hacking and tampering, but peace of mind when you sit in a device traveling at 70 mph down the interstate is important. The next great war may not be fought in conventional terms, but in the cybersphere, if that's a word. Nothing is hack/tamper proof but self driving cars aren’t remote control cars, the scenarios you imagine are fantasy. Again your ignorance is what makes you afraid of this. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Finally, I'd like for Silicon Valley to acknowledge, internally, that they're asking for society to make a major change.I can't speak for everyone, but it's not enough for me when they just quote traffic fatality statistics and accuse skeptical people of being Luddites. Are there actions that can be taken in the shorter term to help prevent roadway deaths? Maybe we can step up driver education and enforcement of traffic laws. It's not going to prevent all the deaths on the road, but it's an intermediate step we can take before autonomous driving become a mainstream thing. I understand that you want tech bros to acknowledge your fears and soothe you. But there is no way short of going into deep technical explanation to prove why your fears are unfounded. Facts can’t change your mind, nothing that I can explain will make you feel better. However, you should rest assured that while the most vocal proponents are in Silicon Valley (Elon Musk) all car manufactures are investing a lot of time and money to make this safe and reliable. Regulations have improved safety drastically over the years, safety is the top concern, new technology is definitely held to the same or stricter standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Software error is one of the things that worry me. Autonomous cars are fine in relatively short-term tests, but how will the software and hardware hold up over months and years of use? Do you seriously think that autonomous driving technology is being pursued primarily for safety reasons? Silicon Valley doesn't care what you think, the first company that makes even a halfway passable ratfuck of a self driving car is going to make a fuckzillion dollars and that's that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Your concern is one of ignorance, you fear it because you don’t understand it. The tests being run are more comprehensive than the training an average driver goes through. I don't believe I ever said that anything was completely hack proof. Or that self-driving cars were remote control. I'm not sure where you're getting that at all. It's very convenient, though, that you condescendingly claim that I'm operating entirely out of "fear" (it's always wonderful when people can divine my intentions over the internet) but it's so complicated that I couldn't possibly understand. I mean...if this technology is so wonderful, why can't it be defended without the condescension and the accusations of "Luddite" coming out? That I don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I don't believe I ever said that anything was completely hack proof. Or that self-driving cars were remote control. I'm not sure where you're getting that at all. It's very convenient, though, that you condescendingly claim that I'm operating entirely out of "fear" (it's always wonderful when people can divine my intentions over the internet) but it's so complicated that I couldn't possibly understand. I mean...if this technology is so wonderful, why can't it be defended without the condescension and the accusations of "Luddite" coming out? That I don't understand. I didn't say you thought anything was hack proof, but you compared baby monitors (aka. IP cameras) with cars, and that just exemplifies the lack of information you have on the subject. The internet of things fears are also full of poo poo too, as far as I'm aware no appliances have been hacked, appliances aren't the largest attack vector by a long shot. The systems that have been "hacked" have been around for decades at this point (lovely wifi routers, set top boxes and IP cameras) and the reason they've been "hacked" is because these devices come pre-configured with default passwords, they haven't been exploited by any bug other than user ignorance. Cars don't have this problem, but even if they did they work in a fundamentally different way and aren't susceptible to the same types of attacks. Nobody said you were a Luddite, I'm just telling you that your fears are unfounded but you hear that as an attack on your character. Not everyone is an expert in technology, and even those of us who have worked in the industry aren't experts in all areas either. But the information is all out there and you can learn it yourself and understand why your fears are unfounded. Nobody is saying/implying its too complicated to explain except for you. I'm merely saying that I don't think it matters how much I go into detail on the aspects I'm familiar with because it will never be enough to convince you. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Autonomous cars are fine in relatively short-term tests, but how will the software and hardware hold up over months and years of use? Hopefully within the range of other car hardware. Since cars parts all already have failure rates and all cause some level of driver death each year. Failures of tires kill people. We never get it perfectly right. We just minimize the number to a level society finds acceptable. This doesn’t seem any different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I didn't say you thought anything was hack proof, but you compared baby monitors (aka. IP cameras) with cars, and that just exemplifies the lack of information you have on the subject. The internet of things fears are also full of poo poo too, as far as I'm aware no appliances have been hacked, appliances aren't the largest attack vector by a long shot. The systems that have been "hacked" have been around for decades at this point (lovely wifi routers, set top boxes and IP cameras) and the reason they've been "hacked" is because these devices come pre-configured with default passwords, they haven't been exploited by any bug other than user ignorance. Cars don't have this problem, but even if they did they work in a fundamentally different way and aren't susceptible to the same types of attacks. Are these concerns unfounded? https://www.wired.com/2017/04/ubers-former-top-hacker-securing-autonomous-cars-really-hard-problem/ http://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-cars-hacking-ricks-2016-12 (This is more about confusing autonomous car software, but it shows how vulnerable they can be) https://blog.caranddriver.com/researchers-find-a-malicious-way-to-meddle-with-autonomous-cars/ I'm far from the only person who has these concerns: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/most-americans-fear-driverless-cars-will-be-hacked-survey-finds Despite what you said, I am persuadable on self-driving cars. Apart from concerns about the safety of these vehicles, I'd like to see less technological utopianism from Silicon Valley. Many engineers from there seem to have this naive belief that the Internet will make us free, that tech always works as intended, and is always used as they intended it to be used. If the past couple of years of Russian hacking and the co-opting of the Internet to serve neo-Nazi needs have taught us anything, though, it's that technology isn't always necessarily a force for absolute good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Squalid posted:it will be because of mistakes made by society rather than as an inevitable byproduct of technological progress. This should be obvious to anyone of a leftist leaning, as it is sort of the entire premise of Marxist thought that social inequality can be eliminated by restructuring our relationship to the means of production. Society and technology are not independent. What kind of technological level a society has heavily influences how a society is organized. For example, preindustrial technology heavily discourages democratically organized societies. Our current society was not just politely agreed upon by all members in the spirit of self-improvement. Labor had potential leverage over capital, organized and forced capital into giving it humane working conditions. If labor had no leverage, like in preindustrial times, this would not have happened, ever. In the same vein, saying that medieval societies should have just sat down and introduced some civil rights is incredibly naive. While it's theoretically possible, the technological conditions heavily discouraged it to the point where you can say that it was practically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Xae posted:It isn't though. Not during the Great Depression (I'm not saying that was a consequence of automation in agriculture). However the fact that a societal/political/economic process went a certain way for several hundreds of years (or even millennia) is by no means a proof that it will continue to do so forever. ElCondemn posted:There is no point in arguing with these people man, they've decided that automation is bad and their proof is that they feel fearful of the future. Also any discussion about changing society to resolve these social problems is met with even more ridicule. They pretend like reducing the work week or implementing systems like basic income are impossible to achieve even though we're moving that direction in many first world countries. That's bullshit. I was practically begging for a discussion about that. Nobody brought up the work week or UBI in the last 10 pages or so and certainly wasn't shot down for doing so. While they will probably have a positive effect, I'm neither convinced that they will solve the problem nor that the society is moving in that direction with sufficient pace. What major political parties in what countries talk about them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Our current society was not just politely agreed upon by all members in the spirit of self-improvement. Labor had potential leverage over capital, organized and forced capital into giving it humane working conditions. If labor had no leverage, like in preindustrial times, this would not have happened, ever. In the same vein, saying that medieval societies should have just sat down and introduced some civil rights is incredibly naive. While it's theoretically possible, the technological conditions heavily discouraged it to the point where you can say that it was practically impossible. If a past technology level makes a good life impossible and so does a future one can you name what year the apex of human civilization was and when we need to go back to make america great again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
The autonomous car supporters in this thread seem to be the ones taking the most statements out of context, posting in bad faith, making passive aggressive allusions and generally acting like condescending jerks. Just my observations from reading the last 10 pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
hey if we could maybe try and get technical about the topic for a bit? I went down a youtube rabbit hole last night on Kuka robots. Some article mentioned tesla uses a vendor called Fanuc for what looks like the same thing (these like, multi-link standing-arm bots). Unfortunately trying to google any of this (or really anything these days) just results in pages of spammy 8th grade book report level text all with the same 3 youtube embeds. Can anyone share what the right terms are for these zig-zag-arm-bots? What the competitive landscape is, both in terms of people making them right now, and alternatives that might be out there? Are there any good sites, or youtube channels, or w/e that try to get past that "gee whiz higshchool science class buzzfeed video" level?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:The autonomous car supporters in this thread seem to be the ones taking the most statements out of context, posting in bad faith, making passive aggressive allusions and generally acting like condescending jerks. "Self-driving cars are bullshit, it's just a limited trial in one city!" "Self-driving cars are bullshit, they're only in sunny climes!" "Self-driving cars are bullshit, they're only in major cities!" "Self-driving cars are bullshit, they don't work in rural areas!" "Self-driving cars are bullshit, they're not in Myanmar yet!" "Self-driving cars have been around for over a decade now, what has the tech industry done recently??" Like we have here in D&D both posters arguing that self-driving cars are decades away, and also posters arguing that we've had "self-driving cars" for decades. Cicero fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:No, tech companies just do their best to dodge taxes and undermine any attempts to regulate business practices that are against the society’s best interests, and since said companies do their damndest to capture regulators who are ostensibly meant to be tackling these social issues, that makes them at least a little responsible for where society is headed.  It's a perfectly fine critique of corporations (although even then the government could crack down on those things if there was the political will), but you could say the same thing about telecom corporations or oil corporations or finance corporations or just about any corporation. It's not specific to tech. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:True. I don't expect empty promises that nothing will ever go wrong, or for Silicon Valley to try to figure out all the possible ways that technology can go wrong. That's an unreasonably large request to make of them. Yeah it'd be great if we could also attack that problem with transit and whatnot too, but you're always going to have some driving. quote:Am I saying that Silicon Valley should halt all research and production of autonomous cars, or that R & D should be subject to democratic debate? Of course not. They should absolutely continue to innovate. But the Valley also needs to get out of its tech bubble. Self-driving cars aren't necessarily the self-evident cure-all that they've made it out to be. Cicero fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's hyperbole to say that they "want people to die", but "are okay with people continuing to die" seems to be accurate. Traffic crashes are one of the top causes of death (might be #1 cause) of kids and young adults. I think it's hype to say people are okay with others dying. I really dislike how autonomous driving has been cast as the only possible savior for those who die on the road. I'm just not sure where we got the idea that the problem was so unsolvable that we had to turn to computers to "save" us. I know you're probably going to retort that humans are awful, hopeless drivers and will never get better. I certainly see my share of awful driving on the road every time I go somewhere. But I'm not convinced that there aren't other things we could try before we take this leap. What I mean is that what looks to be obvious in Silicon Valley may look differently in the "real" world. The Juicero is a textbook example of something that probably seemed like an ingenious bit of innovation in the Valley, but looked like an overpriced, overengineered piece of crap to the rest of us. It's very easy to get into bubbles of people who think exactly like you and lose perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:What I mean is that what looks to be obvious in Silicon Valley may look differently in the "real" world. The Juicero is a textbook example of something that probably seemed like an ingenious bit of innovation in the Valley, but looked like an overpriced, overengineered piece of crap to the rest of us. It's very easy to get into bubbles of people who think exactly like you and lose perspective. Juicero is an example of a funny thing that happened, not some magic proof that all technology is fake forever. There hasn't ever been an age without snakeoil. Beyond that, what are you even talking about? What does a grudge against silicon valley even have to do with self driving cars? Like is the fact there is even people you don't like working on something negate all work on it? If you are angry at silicon valley then just buy a self driving Hyundai or Toyota or something made by some other group instead of a tesla. White people in california aren't the only people on earth working on technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I think it's hype to say people are okay with others dying. I really dislike how autonomous driving has been cast as the only possible savior for those who die on the road. I'm just not sure where we got the idea that the problem was so unsolvable that we had to turn to computers to "save" us. I know you're probably going to retort that humans are awful, hopeless drivers and will never get better. I certainly see my share of awful driving on the road every time I go somewhere. But I'm not convinced that there aren't other things we could try before we take this leap. This has gone way beyond Silicon Valley though. Huge, conservative companies like BMW are going full in on autonomous driving technologies. AFAIK every large car company here in Germany is doing so. The job market for specialists is absolutely insane right now. We already have a very extensive public transportation system, low level of suburbanization and still car usage is high. I don't know what the alternatives to autonomous driving are supposed to be, if you want to lower accident numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I think it's hype to say people are okay with others dying. quote:I really dislike how autonomous driving has been cast as the only possible savior for those who die on the road. I'm just not sure where we got the idea that the problem was so unsolvable that we had to turn to computers to "save" us. I know you're probably going to retort that humans are awful, hopeless drivers and will never get better. I certainly see my share of awful driving on the road every time I go somewhere. But I'm not convinced that there aren't other things we could try before we take this leap. Second, even with tons of support for the above, you're going to have some driving. Just look at...the world. Even places with great transit (I live in Munich now and it's really fantastic) still have plenty of cars around. Third, why do we have to block on "trying other things" before taking a leap that will almost certainly radically reduce the numbers of lives lost? Over thirty thousand people die in the US every year in traffic crashes, how many lives do we have to continue losing while trying other things? What's the point even when there are also other advantages to self-driving cars anyway? quote:What I mean is that what looks to be obvious in Silicon Valley may look differently in the "real" world. The Juicero is a textbook example of something that probably seemed like an ingenious bit of innovation in the Valley, but looked like an overpriced, overengineered piece of crap to the rest of us. It's very easy to get into bubbles of people who think exactly like you and lose perspective. You're not wrong about bubbles, but I don't see how this applies to obviously very useful technology. Which there is plenty of coming from startups too, it's just that Juicero gets headlines (because it's so intensely stupid), while something useful but boring like FarmLogs doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I think it's hype to say people are okay with others dying. I really dislike how autonomous driving has been cast as the only possible savior for those who die on the road. I'm just not sure where we got the idea that the problem was so unsolvable that we had to turn to computers to "save" us. I know you're probably going to retort that humans are awful, hopeless drivers and will never get better. I certainly see my share of awful driving on the road every time I go somewhere. But I'm not convinced that there aren't other things we could try before we take this leap. i'm sorry but it looks like your case of facebook brain is terminal. there's nothing we can do. you should retreat from the internet to spend your remaining days with friends and family or pets or whatever just log off quickly please. for, ahh, your own good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's kind of like listening to conservatives talk about police killing black people. Yeah it's not an explicitly desired outcome (for most, anyway), but they're kind of indifferent to it because of other aspects of the issue. I don't think the Juicero invalidates the entire industry. I just think it's an example of how SV can be subject to hubris, and why we shouldn't necessarily always trust their hype. Just because SV is pumped about something doesn't necessarily mean it's the "right" thing. But yeah, what you say makes sense. Getting rid of driving altogether and boosting public transit isn't workable or desirable. The world is too structured around driving, and I highly doubt that the vultures currently running the US government are going to be willing to pony up transit when there are billionaires struggling to pay for their second houses and all. Count me as on board for autonomous driving. I hate driving anyway; mostly because of the other drivers on the road. I would love to get behind the wheel of one of these vehicles and try it for myself, but I live on the East Coast far away from big tech companies like Google.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Man I love self driving cars chat and how stimulating and different it is!Doctor Malaver posted:Nobody brought up the work week or UBI in the last 10 pages or so and certainly wasn't shot down for doing so. While they will probably have a positive effect, I'm neither convinced that they will solve the problem nor that the society is moving in that direction with sufficient pace. What major political parties in what countries talk about them? At least one party in my country is talking about UBI but considering our version of Islamic terrorists are dole bludgers (aka welfare queen) there is loving zero chance of any movement happening on it until the middle class starts really starving. In the long run I think ubi is counterproductive because it takes away what leverage the working classes have left and makes them serfs living at the mercy of the rich. The fact that this is a real thing that needs to happen really soon and people are barely talking about it at all is what makes me think we're hosed. Oocc and others in this thread have got this 'reeee you hate technology!!!!!' response if you say any of this poo poo is a bad idea which really fucks me off. I don't fear technology, I fear people and society. The technology will come and happen regardless of what anyone does but the total lack of foresight and planning is what's going to gently caress over most of humanity as everyone shrugs and casually accepts being owned by corporations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
I like the irony of the contrast of the two boogiemen. First the global elite are going to grow so powerful they can wave their hand and kill us all and there is nothing we can do to stop it because they control everything and someone needs to stop them. Second all the hothead startup riffraffs are bad because they are nobodies and they start companies that kill entire industries and they don't even follow regulations and someone needs to stop them. It seems like pretty much any system where a person makes any sort of decision falls into the trap that humans are sin cursed from birth or whatever and no human should ever be in charge of anything directly. Which is a thing that is going to be possible soon. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I don't think the Juicero invalidates the entire industry. I just think it's an example of how SV can be subject to hubris, and why we shouldn't necessarily always trust their hype. Just because SV is pumped about something doesn't necessarily mean it's the "right" thing. This is the straw-est of strawmen, this is like your grandma on facebook level of arguing, please stop. I'm really tempted to unpack this and describe how stupid every single word is but it's not worth the effort, do some introspection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I don't think the Juicero invalidates the entire industry. I just think it's an example of how SV can be subject to hubris, and why we shouldn't necessarily always trust their hype. Who even fell for their hype? It was a product that was available for less than a year and apparently sold like maybe 500 units. You can say it shouldn't have sold any and investors investing at all means someone fell for it, but the base concept of making a juicer keurig isn't insane if someone made it work, which they just didn't and instead ran a scam. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
I think the juicero invalidates the entire tech industry, just throw the whole thing in the trash and go back to basics
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:hey if we could maybe try and get technical about the topic for a bit? Industrial robotic arms have been around a good while, they don’t have any special name they’re used in all sorts of applications. They’re good for any precision movement that requires multiple axis of movement, they’re so ubiquitous nowadays they span pretty much every industry. The latest I’ve read is that someone is trying to turn the tech into a home chef.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Industrial robotic arms have been around a good while, they don’t have any special name they’re used in all sorts of applications. They’re good for any precision movement that requires multiple axis of movement, they’re so ubiquitous nowadays they span pretty much every industry. I've heard some work is happening on using them in clothing production too, an industry very ripe for automation since it still rests on mostly manual labor, which is unfortunately also has rampant exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The latest I’ve read is that someone is trying to turn the tech into a home chef.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Industrial robotic arms have been around a good while, they don’t have any special name they’re used in all sorts of applications. They’re good for any precision movement that requires multiple axis of movement, they’re so ubiquitous nowadays they span pretty much every industry. Attach a spiked dildo to one and you've replaced the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I like the irony of the contrast of the two boogiemen. Slap on some BS about people saying it's no bodies in SV and badda Bing badda boom OOCC is the smartest guy in the room again. You just keep fighting that straw man won't you. That last quote, just lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Industrial robotic arms have been around a good while, they don’t have any special name they’re used in all sorts of applications. They’re good for any precision movement that requires multiple axis of movement, they’re so ubiquitous nowadays they span pretty much every industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Tasmantor posted:Massive contrast there. People are pissed that the world is changing in ways that affect them and they get no say in it because money does what it wants. Then you sleep The contrast is that the people that have some sincere belief that large businesses and billionaires are all in the next 20-30 years going to go galt and move to elysium leaving us to die in a holocaust and then use their total ownership of everything and government capture to prevent the earthbound villagers from just opening their own stores and stuff. And those same people apparently thinking the government needs more power to shut down companies that are rivaling the big boys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:07
|
|