Post: #26

I would make bets on how long until manually driven cars are illegal on public roads, not the reverse.

No more speeding, no more drunk driving, no more running down pedestrians. That means lighter vehicles, less fuel consumption, and less damage to streets. Once the cost flips, the reverse is going to become the hard sell. Combining different sensors together (what Google's car does) means the computer can "see" a lot better than any human could. These things aren't driving by webcam.

Post: #27

(09-09-2013 09:40 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  I think before implementing self-driving cars they should start with truly self-driving long distance trains. I know there are a few metro systems that are driverless, but haven't heard about any long distance driverless trains. Making a train driverless must be miles easier than a vehicle that needs to go on a public road. Walk before you try to run.....

This has already been in testing and is very possible today.

Thing is, there are only two guys on a train hauling the equivalent of over 400 semis, so you're really not saving that much.

The railroads would still love to do it, but I don't see it happening due to not only the unions, but also the public perception and grade crossing accidents, suicides, etc.

The smarter, and more efficient, thing to do would be to get more of those trucks off the road and on trains.

Post: #28

Airplanes can takeoff fly somewhere and land by themselves. It is really hard to have a computer drive a car. Talked with MIT DARPA car guy, it ain't easy dealing with the randomness of other drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and crap roads. Think of the decisions per second over the middle of the ocean in an automated jet and the decisions per second of a city bus driver. Only way it would currently work is dedicated roads and we already have them we call em railroads. I'd love an auto car, hop in and be driven to my destination, reading, drinking, screwin. Of course the other problem with auto cars no more speeding/DUI revenue state gov'ts would go broke without that money

Post: #29

From a technical perspective, building a self-driving car or truck is not difficult. Self-driven vehicles which are safer than human-driven are going to be here very soon, if they don't already exist.

The more interesting question is how the world will react to the declining relevance of human labour. Low-skill factory jobs aren't coming back, driverless cars are here, fast food is on the brink of digital order takers becoming economical. Mining, oil and agriculture are becoming more capital intensive over time. What's left for anyone with a sub-100 IQ?

The standard optimists line is that as technology replaces human labour, we can all become programmers. Uh-huh.

Long-term, here are the options:

1) Genocide and mass murder on a completely unprecedented scale.

2) Virtual reality. Video games and sex bots for a sterilized cognitive underclass.

3) Make-work projects. Someone above mentioned a guaranteed minimum income, which is a fine idea except that the fastest way to destroy a man is to give him a check for doing nothing. Work is ennobling. We would need to subsidize the cognitive lower classes, while also giving them bullshit work to do, and convincing them that it's not bullshit.

Most ancient civilizations left behind massive, intricately-built structures that seem to serve no earthly purpose. Maybe they were a bit more advanced in their own way than we give them credit, and stumbled on a solution for keeping the masses from revolting and/or descending into sloth.

Post: #30

(09-10-2013 11:19 PM)Frost Wrote:  From a technical perspective, building a self-driving car or truck is not difficult. Self-driven vehicles which are safer than human-driven are going to be here very soon, if they don't already exist.

The more interesting question is how the world will react to the declining relevance of human labour. Low-skill factory jobs aren't coming back, driverless cars are here, fast food is on the brink of digital order takers becoming economical. Mining, oil and agriculture are becoming more capital intensive over time. What's left for anyone with a sub-100 IQ?

The standard optimists line is that as technology replaces human labour, we can all become programmers. Uh-huh.

Long-term, here are the options:

1) Genocide and mass murder on a completely unprecedented scale.

2) Virtual reality. Video games and sex bots for a sterilized cognitive underclass.

3) Make-work projects. Someone above mentioned a guaranteed minimum income, which is a fine idea except that the fastest way to destroy a man is to give him a check for doing nothing. Work is ennobling. We would need to subsidize the cognitive lower classes, while also giving them bullshit work to do, and convincing them that it's not bullshit.

Most ancient civilizations left behind massive, intricately-built structures that seem to serve no earthly purpose. Maybe they were a bit more advanced in their own way than we give them credit, and stumbled on a solution for keeping the masses from revolting and/or descending into sloth.

What happens when you can automate soldiers?

Post: #31

(09-10-2013 10:57 PM)gfly Wrote:  Airplanes can takeoff fly somewhere and land by themselves. It is really hard to have a computer drive a car. Talked with MIT DARPA car guy, it ain't easy dealing with the randomness of other drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and crap roads. Think of the decisions per second over the middle of the ocean in an automated jet and the decisions per second of a city bus driver. Only way it would currently work is dedicated roads and we already have them we call em railroads. I'd love an auto car, hop in and be driven to my destination, reading, drinking, screwin. Of course the other problem with auto cars no more speeding/DUI revenue state gov'ts would go broke without that money

They would go broke over:

No traffic incidents,
No DUIs,
No accidents

Cities will probably use tolls to tax people coming into their cities or something. Perhaps a road tax at a local level.

Post: #32

(09-10-2013 11:19 PM)Frost Wrote:  From a technical perspective, building a self-driving car or truck is not difficult. Self-driven vehicles which are safer than human-driven are going to be here very soon, if they don't already exist.

The more interesting question is how the world will react to the declining relevance of human labour. Low-skill factory jobs aren't coming back, driverless cars are here, fast food is on the brink of digital order takers becoming economical. Mining, oil and agriculture are becoming more capital intensive over time. What's left for anyone with a sub-100 IQ?

The standard optimists line is that as technology replaces human labour, we can all become programmers. Uh-huh.

Long-term, here are the options:

1) Genocide and mass murder on a completely unprecedented scale.

2) Virtual reality. Video games and sex bots for a sterilized cognitive underclass.

3) Make-work projects. Someone above mentioned a guaranteed minimum income, which is a fine idea except that the fastest way to destroy a man is to give him a check for doing nothing. Work is ennobling. We would need to subsidize the cognitive lower classes, while also giving them bullshit work to do, and convincing them that it's not bullshit.

Most ancient civilizations left behind massive, intricately-built structures that seem to serve no earthly purpose. Maybe they were a bit more advanced in their own way than we give them credit, and stumbled on a solution for keeping the masses from revolting and/or descending into sloth.

Probably something more like this:



Prices go up, it becomes more expensive to get married and have children, population peaks and then declines until it reaches whatever balance it reaches. There is a post-homo sapien economy.

Post: #33

I don't know why people on here are so scared of:

1) People not having work
2) Subsidizing people to not work

If enough technology and wealth prevails over a society why not increase the resources given for "free" to people that do not have the ability to contribute to society?

If it became affordable for a society to have the underclass not working why have make believe work for them? Why care?

If everyone is given the funds to have:
Their own place with air-conditioning and heat
A flat screen TV
Internet with a computer
A smart phone
Free subsidy for entertainment and food

Yes it is an opiate for the masses, we all know it works. Many of us on the forum came from a background of being satiated by these things. It is a great weapon to keep an unmotivated underclass in its place. Those with will break free. If you truly believe in Libertarian virtues you believe no one is holding the underclass down but themselves. Then fine, let them eat cake and stay out of the way of the motivated.

Crime and unrest would be low. I believe achievement is in the DNA of some human beings and not in others. Providing this will not sway those with an inner desire to be better than those around them. For the rest it is a much better alternative than homelessness and thievery.

My battle plan for the Middle East for the longest time is not diplomacy or bombs. Just drop flat screen TVs, porn, air conditioning, entertainment, and junk food on them and I wager all the enraged have-not Muslims would rather jerk-off to HD porn and have a Mickey D's shake in an air-conditioned apartment rather than running around throwing rocks and grenades at people for fun.

This would be a society with little to no crime. People that are motivated will always be motivated and those that are can participate in chasing material wealth and achievement.

Someone posted young men with idle time are trouble.

Let's clarify this...for the ones with above the standard line of resources in Japan these idle young men are harmless Herbivores, in the U.S. they play WoW. Both jack off alot, both have a standard line of resources.

In the Middle East and parts of Africa they do not have these resources. Give them these resources they calm the fuck down.