SpaceGazelle wrote:

Roujin wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Trains are the one form of transport that I think will run much better with as little human involvement as possible. Cannot wait for them to go fully robo.

Also while I'm here, it's clearly cars. Cars being autonomous is going to save way more lives and reduce traffic and make everyone happier when you can just get in the car and chill out/do work/whatever instead of punching your steering wheel.

It's a way off with cars yet. They can drive pretty well in small numbers but it'll take a lot of communication between all the cars to make it work well, and that makes it vulnerable to hacking.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

They'll need to talk to a main sever and each other. You need to protect against server failures to avoid chaos should things go wrong. Imagine if a server router was hacked or just glitched? The chaos would insane. In the same way you can't just rely on cars to communicate only with each other.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

That's debate has been done tbh, and the results vary per country, but as one engineer put it, it's always a matter of just slamming the brakes on anyway.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

But it's already being implemented, at a council near you. These cars are on the roads right now. They need permission and they get them. And that's just the research ones. Anyone can buy a Tesla. They're already saving lives too. Environmental concerns are more pressing right now, and automation can help address this, but it'll take time. Not that it isn't going at bullet speed already.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

You get a cheaper insurance quote if your car has an autopilot feature. That's not Allah. Tesla cars are expensive to insure for all sorts of reasons but autopilot is not one of them.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I'M WRONG!

In 1981, a computer scientist from Stanford University named Doug Lenat entered the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, in San Mateo, California. It was a war game. The contestants had been given several volumes of rules, well beforehand, and had been asked to design their own fleet of warships with a mythical budget of a trillion dollars. The fleets then squared off against one another in the course of a weekend. “Imagine this enormous auditorium area with tables, and at each table people are paired off,” Lenat said. “The winners go on and advance. The losers get eliminated, and the field gets smaller and smaller, and the audience gets larger and larger.”

Lenat had developed an artificial-intelligence program that he called Eurisko, and he decided to feed his program the rules of the tournament. Lenat did not give Eurisko any advice or steer the program in any particular strategic direction. He was not a war-gamer. He simply let Eurisko figure things out for itself. For about a month, for ten hours every night on a hundred computers at Xerox parc, in Palo Alto, Eurisko ground away at the problem, until it came out with an answer. Most teams fielded some version of a traditional naval fleet—an array of ships of various sizes, each well defended against enemy attack. Eurisko thought differently. “The program came up with a strategy of spending the trillion on an astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility,” Lenat said. “They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink. And what happened is that the enemy would take its shots, and every one of those shots would sink our ships. But it didn’t matter, because we had so many.” Lenat won the tournament in a runaway.

The next year, Lenat entered once more, only this time the rules had changed. Fleets could no longer just sit there. Now one of the criteria of success in battle was fleet “agility.” Eurisko went back to work. “What Eurisko did was say that if any of our ships got damaged it would sink itself—and that would raise fleet agility back up again,” Lenat said. Eurisko won again.

Eurisko was an underdog. The other gamers were people steeped in military strategy and history. They were the sort who could tell you how Wellington had outfoxed Napoleon at Waterloo, or what exactly happened at Antietam. They had been raised on Dungeons and Dragons. They were insiders. Eurisko, on the other hand, knew nothing but the rule book. It had no common sense. As Lenat points out, a human being understands the meaning of the sentences “Johnny robbed a bank. He is now serving twenty years in prison,” but Eurisko could not, because as a computer it was perfectly literal; it could not fill in the missing step—“Johnny was caught, tried, and convicted.” Eurisko was an outsider. But it was precisely that outsiderness that led to Eurisko’s victory: not knowing the conventions of the game turned out to be an advantage.

“Eurisko was exposing the fact that any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation of reality,” Lenat explained. “What the other entrants were doing was filling in the holes in the rules with real-world, realistic answers. But Eurisko didn’t have that kind of preconception, partly because it didn’t know enough about the world.” So it found solutions that were, as Lenat freely admits, “socially horrifying”: send a thousand defenseless and immobile ships into battle; sink your own ships the moment they get damaged.