TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Okay, so that's through OnStar, and how many cars have that?
How many other cars have remote access to their operations? Again, the problem isn't self-driving, but external access to operations.
The people motivated by commercials where people are running from bears saying "Start my car" to their watches don't realize that the same technology can cause that car to stop, also by someone outside of the car.
Conversely, there is nothing that requires a self driving car to have external access to its functionality. My non self driving car has access to traffic information without giving any ability for an outside influence to shut down the car.
Endgame422 wrote: This is an interesting video that dives into the implications of self-driving cars. Professional drivers like duk will only be the first set to go with this new age of automation. Soon enough humans will be more expensive and less efficient then machines for nearly every job. By 2050 I imagine more then 1/3 of today's jobs will be automated.
I think 2050 for 1/3 of jobs is way pessimistic/optimistic (depending on your point of view.)
I think 2025 for 2/3 of jobs is more like it.
No matter what you do, there is already a machine that can do it. Maybe not a machine currently available on the open market, but a machine at least in the research & development phase.
When I was a kid, there were science fiction writers that talked about a world 500 years in the future completely run by robots. Then the microcomputer revolution happened, and people started talking about a totally automated world 100 years in the future. Then Kurzwell published Spiritual Machines and people started talking about 50 years. It hasn't been 17 years but already it looks as if we're half-way there.
Stock traders don't trade stocks any more. Travel agents don't plan itineraries any more. Actuaries don't calculate probabilities any more. There are still people with those job titles, but they are vestigial organs, organic talking heads serving the computers that have replaced them.
I revisit this subject every now and then, and what blows me away the most is how far we are ahead of the timescale that was proposed the last time I read about it.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
The bit that makes a difference is quality control.
I'm an engineer. Sometimes we run the number by hand as per the good ol' days, but we always input the design into computer models and analyse. My job a fair proportion of the time is to look and the model and know its right. Thats the only bit that humans still do better, spotting the fundamental input mistakes. (And I'd argue the conceptual stage of design too, but thats a different argument)
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:The bit that makes a difference is quality control.
I'm an engineer. Sometimes we run the number by hand as per the good ol' days, but we always input the design into computer models and analyse. My job a fair proportion of the time is to look and the model and know its right. Thats the only bit that humans still do better, spotting the fundamental input mistakes. (And I'd argue the conceptual stage of design too, but thats a different argument)
Input mistake- it's "it's", not " its".
What kind of engineering do you specialise in?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Ha. It is a bad habit. I used to do it all the time, but now I consciously avoid trying to be a pedantic asshole because nobody likes that guy.
I wasn't gonna point it out until I saw your editing of Wing's post, so I figured you should be taken down a peg.
-TG
Fair play, although I didn't edit his post- you replied to his edit of my post.
It was the bit about "spotting fundamental input mistakes" in his post that made it irresistible.
I would like to know more about his engineering work though.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
