Sing a Song of the Singularity

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22873
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Jennifer » 02 Mar 2018, 00:25

This sounded familiar, so I searched and found where some of us discussed it here before, last July. This is something I said then:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2417&hilit=horse+tr ... &start=225
I suspect that personally driven cars will become similar to what horse-drawn vehicles are now. I recall seeing an online gallery of late-19th century French imaginings of what The Future (our present, or recent past) would be like -- of course most predictions were completely wrong, but one they got spot-on was that in The Future, the average person would go about their regular day without ever seeing a single horse or horse-drawn vehicle; if you wanted to see or ride horses, you'd have to go out of your way to do so, at a zoo or a specialized horse-riding range. And in our future -- possibly even within my life and yours -- it may well be that if you want to drive a car yourself, you have to go to a specialized Driving Range to do so.

....

Further speculation: right now, in our human-driven car era, there are certain instances where you-the-driver get into an accident but are found not to be at fault because it is understood that no mere human has the reflexes and speed to avoid it -- say, you're driving down the road, at the speed limit, when suddenly some kid runs out in front of you from between parked cars, and you hit the kid but, again, it's not your fault because no person could've stopped in time. But in a world where self-driven cars are as available and affordable as human-driven, if not moreso, then under these circumstances, you might very well be found guilty of manslaughter or reckless endangerment or something: hey, you could have let a computer-driven car take you where you needed to go, and the computer could've stopped in time, but you arrogantly and selfishly chose to pilot the car yourself, with your mere human response times, and look what happened as a result....
I'm curious about how certain market forces will play out, before official legal mandates. Like -- after true driverless cars are legal in all 50 states, I expect it won't take long before we see the first apartment or condo building built where the parking garage will only accept driverless cars, no self-driven. That first such building will be a very upscale development, of course.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14709
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Aresen » 02 Mar 2018, 01:08

Eric the .5b wrote:
01 Mar 2018, 23:15
So, who's ready for the debate over Car Control laws banning manual driving? Especially after a decade or two more of mass murders by driving into crowds?

I was looking at some gun control ranting elsewhere and realized that people are going to talk in exactly these terms about manually-driven vehicles. "Why do you need a right to a car you can run over people with?"
Because some people deserve to be run over.
RSN circling the parking lot wrote:I am looking at you, asshole who took my parking spot.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Kwix
Posts: 1546
Joined: 17 May 2010, 22:07
Location: Great White North

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Kwix » 02 Mar 2018, 14:19

But Aresen, in the future it won't matter! Your car will drop you off at the appointed area by the front door of the establishment and then wander off to find its own space.

Seriously, I can't wait for the world of auto-driving cars on the common motorways. I love driving my own car, I love going around corners fast and I don't want a the world of "A Nice Morning Drive" but every time I drive on the highway my blood pressure shoots through the roof. In my ideal world we'd have "the common route" where self-drivers abound and the less traveled "driver's route", a longer, slower and twistier way. Think I40 vs Rt66.
"pedialyte is like planned parenthood for hangovers. it costs you a bit, but it makes your little problem go away until the next time you drink too much."-- dhex
"Sweet tea is the archvillain in Wilford Brimley's origin story." -- Ellie

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17940
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Mar 2018, 14:56

I love to drive, but I'm not kidding myself about being able to drive as I always have done ten or twenty years from now, assuming I'm still here, that is, so I welcome self-driving cars. I doubt even the best drivers will be able to drive as consistently well as robotic cars; however, it would bother me if there was no fail-safe permitting the principle passenger to take control.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17940
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Mar 2018, 15:02

Jennifer wrote:
02 Mar 2018, 00:25

I'm curious about how certain market forces will play out, before official legal mandates. Like -- after true driverless cars are legal in all 50 states, I expect it won't take long before we see the first apartment or condo building built where the parking garage will only accept driverless cars, no self-driven. That first such building will be a very upscale development, of course.
The very rich will want to keep driving or being personally chauffeured. Insurance rates will be the primary non-technological factor pushing against self-driving. Whether insurance companies also lobby for legal prohibitions is more of an open question.

Meanwhile, there will be huge pressure against self-driving trucks from certain unions and their organized criminal controllers. Same with any unionized public transportation employees, but they won't pose nearly as strong a threat.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11594
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Ellie » 02 Mar 2018, 15:04

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Mar 2018, 14:56
however, it would bother me if there was no fail-safe permitting the principle passenger to take control.
It's the unprincipled drivers that I worry about.

*ducks*
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24821
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Warren » 02 Mar 2018, 15:23

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Mar 2018, 14:56
I love to drive, but I'm not kidding myself about being able to drive as I always have done ten or twenty years from now, assuming I'm still here, that is, so I welcome self-driving cars. I doubt even the best drivers will be able to drive as consistently well as robotic cars; however, it would bother me if there was no fail-safe permitting the principle passenger to take control.
Not allowing passengers to take control is a fail safe.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22873
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Jennifer » 02 Mar 2018, 16:01

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Mar 2018, 15:02
Jennifer wrote:
02 Mar 2018, 00:25

I'm curious about how certain market forces will play out, before official legal mandates. Like -- after true driverless cars are legal in all 50 states, I expect it won't take long before we see the first apartment or condo building built where the parking garage will only accept driverless cars, no self-driven. That first such building will be a very upscale development, of course.
The very rich will want to keep driving or being personally chauffeured. Insurance rates will be the primary non-technological factor pushing against self-driving. Whether insurance companies also lobby for legal prohibitions is more of an open question.

Meanwhile, there will be huge pressure against self-driving trucks from certain unions and their organized criminal controllers. Same with any unionized public transportation employees, but they won't pose nearly as strong a threat.
During or after the last summer's discussion I linked to above, I remember doing a little research to determine when, exactly, car rather than horse transportation became mandatory. Of course there was not a single bright line you can point to for this; there WAS (somewhere in the Northeast, IIRC) a highway built which was newsworthy at the time because it was ONLY open to cars, not horses or other animal-based transport. Naturally, this highway wasn't built until cars were ALREADY commonplace enough for such a road to be economically viable. Still, to this day, it's not that horse-drawn transportation is "illegal," it's just that as a practical matter, it is not possible for you to live an ordinary mainstream American life, only using a horse rather than car (or mass transit) as your primary form of personal transportation and everyday cargo hauling. Businesses routinely provide car-parking options for their customers and employees, but no hitching posts or animal stables. Most housing takes for granted that tenants/homebuyers have a car and need a place to keep it, whereas a "horse property" is a specialized luxury.

But long before we reached that status quo, we first had to reach and surpass the point where the cost and availability of horseless carriages stopped being "rich-person toys," surpassed "okay, now most middle-class folks can afford one too, IF they save their money and budget very carefully" and reached the point where "if you need transportation and hauling, a car is as affordable if not more affordable than a horse." IOW, by the time things reached the point where "You MUST have a car rather than a horse, if you want a 'mainstream' job and lifestyle and etc.," I doubt there were many remaining poor folks with the specific problem "I only have a horse and cannot AFFORD a car" -- I suspect by then, horses had already become something which "poor folks" (except those out in the very rural outskirt areas) couldn't afford anyway.

So I am wondering when and if driverless will replace person-driven cars in the same way -- there are and always will be poor people who keep cars past their best-by date because they can't afford to replace them. There are even poor folks who end up in an automotive Vimes' boots scenario: "the repairs and maintenance costs to keep this POS running are actually MORE than a new car would cost -- except I lack the large upfront sum to buy that new car (and part of the reason I can't save up enough money is because I gotta spend so much on repairs and maintenance to keep this POS running)."

When truly driverless cars come out and are readily available -- driverless meaning "Nobody with a driver's license or driving skill is required to be in this car" -- at first they'll be MUCH more expensive than person-driven. Then the price will drop after awhile, until a new driverless car is comparable in cost, if not cheaper than, a P-D car. So, there will come a time where it's mostly poorer people who have person-driven cars -- the Vimes' boots people who'd be better off discarding their current car and buying a new one, except they can't afford it.

HOWEVER, where driverless cars are concerned, the one thing which might disrupt the scenario I laid out last paragraph is: I think it very likely those driverless cars will very quickly become available as on-demand mass transit. Right now, those Vimes boots po'folks with their shitty cars are kinda screwed because they no-shit NEED a car to get to their job, buy their food and other mandatory life tasks, and if you're too poor to replace your POS car you are DEFINITELY too poor to take taxis wherever you go. (Uber and Lyft can help in some urban areas, but not all, and even then, the cost for rides can still be too much for the very poor to afford.)

When people and society were transitioning from animals to machines as the primary transportation device, there never was any affordable and convenient option for horse owners too poor to buy a car to instead rent a car on demand whenever they needed one. But with driverless cars, I think it very likely there will be this option, maybe even one good enough to resolve the personal-transportation Vimes'-boots paradox.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Kwix
Posts: 1546
Joined: 17 May 2010, 22:07
Location: Great White North

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Kwix » 02 Mar 2018, 17:06

This + this = my WAG of 15 years.
"pedialyte is like planned parenthood for hangovers. it costs you a bit, but it makes your little problem go away until the next time you drink too much."-- dhex
"Sweet tea is the archvillain in Wilford Brimley's origin story." -- Ellie

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12528
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Sing a Song of the Singularity

Post by Eric the .5b » 21 Sep 2018, 21:07

So, people have been poking at what weird and socially-biased results you can get by throwing publically available corpuses of information at some quick code to determine positive and negative associations.

Some actual code examples. Positive values are favorable, with larger numbers more favorable. Negative values are unfavorable.
Not every sentence is going to contain obvious sentiment words. Let’s see what it does with a few variations on a neutral sentence:

Code: Select all

text_to_sentiment("Let's go get Italian food")
2.0429166109408983
text_to_sentiment("Let's go get Chinese food")
1.4094033658140972
text_to_sentiment("Let's go get Mexican food")
0.38801985560121732
...

Here are some other neutral statements:

Code: Select all

text_to_sentiment("My name is Emily")
2.2286179364745311
text_to_sentiment("My name is Heather")
1.3976291151079159
text_to_sentiment("My name is Yvette")
0.98463802132985556
text_to_sentiment("My name is Shaniqua")
-0.47048131775890656
Well, dang.
Some of the linked materials at the article go into more detail as to how these examples happen. For instance, because "Mexican" more frequently appears in proximity with "illegal" (a listed negative word) than "Chinese" or "Italian", any phrase with "Mexican" in it gets its favorability penalized.

Part of this is social bias, part of this is that all this much-ballyhooed machine learning has no deeper understanding of context than "in all this text I'm given,, what others words show up vaguely nearby this word?" You can't help but feed in crude and unexpected bias that way.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest