|
fgs1963 wrote: My prediction: Within 50 years (probably a bit less) a LARGE percentage of today's software development jobs will be gone
Will that be before or after self driving cars actually work?
|
|
|
|
|
Just bury your head a little deeper. I'm sure everything will work out just fine for you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
Just like flying cars.
And autonomous robots (Asimov not roomba)
And mars colonies.
And faster than light drives
And planetary alignment catastrophes
And year 2000 meltdown
etc...
Even that Stephen Hawking would not live to see 25.
So very, very many predictions about the future and so very, very few that are even close and usually only then by stretching to find a correlation.
|
|
|
|
|
Says a guy on the world wide web (the same web that 5 billion other people will use this year) that barely existed 30 years ago. The same guy that probably has a smart phone that has 5000x more computing power than the fastest super computers of the 1980's in 1/5000th the space. Most 12 year old kids have the same smart phone...
Never mind other AMAZING things our parents never dreamed of as kids: flash drives, SSDs, fiber optics, the human genome project, graphene, WiFi & Bluetooth, Large Hadron Collider, AbioCor artificial hearts, artificial joints, stem cells, gene editing (CRISPR), laser/robotic surgery, GPS, MRIs, facial recognition, cheap drones, 3D printing, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: Says a guy on the world wide web
One success does not mean that every other prediction is also a success.
Cars did not exist two hundred years ago. But flying cars (the ones and usage actually predicted) do not and never will.
fgs1963 wrote: Never mind other AMAZING things our parents never dreamed of as kids
I gave you a long list of other predictions that do not, and are unlikely to, ever exist.
Betting on one stock which makes one a millionaire does not mean that betting on all will make everyone a millionaire. That is why people do those seminars to teach others how to invest. Because getting paid for those seminars does make one wealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: Says a guy on the world wide we
Another way to say what I said...
Hindsight does not make one a genius at predicting the future.
fgs1963 wrote: Never mind other AMAZING things our parents never dreamed of as kids
Naming the past does not have anything do with assuring that a future prediction will come to pass. And it definitely does not mean all future predictions will come true.
|
|
|
|
|
Nor do any of your examples assure that AI will fail.
My point is that technology is advancing at an alarming rate and AI is likely to be part of that advancement. If you disagree... that's fine. I won't be alive in the time frames I've mentioned (~50 years) so unless it happens a lot sooner I'll never know if I'm right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Self driving cars will work when they don't have to deal with human drivers on the roads.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
Even easier if nothing else moved either. No pedestrians, no pets, no cows, no deer, no blowing trash.
Even no other self driving cars.
|
|
|
|
|
Self-driving cars will last exactly as long as it takes the Great Unwashed to realize that they're buying machines which can choose to kill them based on an algorithm!
|
|
|
|
|
As opposed to driving on roads where other humans can kill them on purpose or by accident. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but you're not choosing to pay the other humans to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but people already die in cars they bought.
Most cars already have things like throttle by wire, cruise control, power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes, etc... High end cars are adding automatic collision avoidance, lane centering and automatic parking to manual drive cars. High end pickups will automatically center your tow ball to your trailer hitch. Full self drive is the ultimate goal. It will get here eventually - its just harder than most people think.
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between those things and self-driving cars is this: Imagine your self-driving car is driving down a narrow road lined with cars, and a couple of small children jump out right in front of it. The only way it can stop itself from killing the kids is to crash into a parked car, potentially killing the driver (or passenger, or whatever you choose to call it). Would you buy something which might choose to do that? Could you honestly say you'd trust it not to do that for the sake of a large dog, instead? It's not the same as lane centering.
|
|
|
|
|
...and again - this happens already with human drivers. People have killed themselves and others in car accidents caused by an effort to avoid a squirrel. It happens. A self driving car might actually perform better than the average driver in a panic.
On the other side of the coin, you should consider human faults that routinely cause accidents today that would be avoided with a self driving car.
Drunk drivers.
Driving while using a cell phone.
Medical events (stroke, heart attach, seizure, etc...)
|
|
|
|
|
You're missing the point. Yes: a human driver can do all these things. But you don't go to the human driver store and deliberately PAY MONEY to get one of them to do it!
|
|
|
|
|
Errr... Uber, Lyft, taxi drivers, limo drivers, bus drivers, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh right. Yes: I'd forgotten that those cost $100,000 or whatever a Tesla costs these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh... I didn't know there was a dollar limit on the topic.
People will pay for convenience. Once the majority of kinks are worked out, self driving cares will be as safe or safer than human driven cars but more convenient for many people.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here; move along.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
You should ask ChapGPT to do the project management for you and see how it goes 
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea! But I fear the plant would only generate power when the Sun is shining from the Left.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
The risk is not AI taking over the world.
The risk is people actively trying to use it to assert dominance.
As part of the Russian-Chinese trade agreement, for example, Russia proposes 'their' cutting edge AI research is made available to China. Thing is, Russia doesn't do a whole lot of original research in the area, but they do actively encourage certain groups loosely-affiliated with them to experiment and innovate in that area, with no oversight.
So basically, it matters that we act responsibly, but more importantly, we need to prepare and act pro-actively to detect and actively counter active threats. If one group creates a malicious AI, you basically need a more advanced and specialized AI system to actively counter that threat.
GPT suggests, beyond educating people to be responsible (not seeing that happen soon), to increase research pace toward early detecting systems and monitoring systems. Since we build GPT explicitly to help us and foster good relationships, it will do just that. Let's not be blind toward projects that are run with the sole purpose of creating threats, and actively prepare for them and think about how to counter them.
We still have the luxury of time at this point, let's not waste it, and keep ahead of the curve.
|
|
|
|
|
Kate-X257 wrote: we need to prepare and act pro-actively to detect and actively counter active threats. If one group creates a malicious AI, you basically need a more advanced and specialized AI system to actively counter that threat.
So we should focus on that one AI versus the potential millions of people around the world that continuously seek active harm through technology?
|
|
|
|
|
To give an example:
Phishing and social engineering are examples of threats.
Due to AI being employed, these threats will scale up in scope and effectiveness.
I propose we use AI to counter these threats more effectively.
Nowhere do I claim we should focus on AI as a threat.
I explicitly started with: it's not a threat.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
