I have a feeling that once everything goes EV and autopilot, they will start phasing out regular cars or will make it more difficult to obtain the license.
This will be a gradual process. But probably getting a drivers license will become a lot less common for people over time. There won't be any need once cars drive themselves.
Insurance and liability become a lot simpler if you just don't touch the controls at all. There will be a clear split between people who don't drive and therefore are not liable and the remaining group that still drives and is causing most of the remaining accidents (and cost for insurers). That's going to inevitably get more scrutiny from everybody: insurers, authorities, occupants of self driving vehicles, other manual drivers.
This will probably be insurance driven. If you don't need to drive anymore, you don't actually need a license. And if you are not driving, you can't be held liable for damage caused by your vehicle. You'll still need insurance to cover any damage/harm your vehicle might cause but this will likely be quite cheap given autonomous cars are safer and on average don't really get involved in accidents. It's quite possible that eventually just gets folded into warranty terms for your car and covered by the manufacturer.
As manually driving increasingly becomes a choice rather than a necessity, your insurance for that might become conditional on you being current and proficient in the same sense that licensed pilots need to regularly do check rides to verify they can still safely operate a plane. Additionally, insurers might insist on you passing a regular health checks to verify that you are still fit enough to drive. Some countries already test elderly drivers but there are lots of elderly people with pretty serious health issues passing these tests as well. Expect this to get a lot more strict.
And it'll negatively impact all but the upper classes. Automakers would rather everyone use their autopilot taxi services for the higher profit margins, so autopilot EVs will be prohibitively expensive to outright buy.
There's a large percent of people who have their daily commute possible by public transport, but the weekend or odd trips are not well covered. A cheaper uber powered by self driving would cover the odd trips and save people the massive expense of owning a car.
The main problem I see with this argument is that I'm not sure how we get to a "cheaper uber" with fully autonomous vehicles.
A large percentage of rideshare drivers use the cheapest allowable vehicles and make minimum wage or less after expenses.
There is also the issue of who gets paid to clean the garbage passengers will inevitably leave in the autonomous vehicle (ask me how I know). Or worse, vomit or other hazardous bodily excretions.
Also, the autonomous car companies will have their vehicles coordinating to make it difficult for humans to drive, such as holding a long convoy with close following distance in a single lane.
The streets of the future are an unbroken conveyor belt of fast moving death machines; existing outside of a car or building will become illegal by lobbying "to keep people safe".
Definitely. They'll be like the obnoxious people on public transport who play music and videos out loud, people who don't give up seats to the elderly etc
V. Gluskov designed OGAS to help with planned economy but for whatever reason it got denied funding. Decades later we're trying to make AI do just that on global scale.
From WIKI:
In 2016, a book dedicated to OGAS was published in the US, entitled How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet, by Benjamin Peters, professor at University of Tulsa. Harvard University professor Jonathan Zittrain commented that the book "fills an important gap in the Internet's history, highlighting the ways in which generativity and openness have been essential to networked innovation".[15] A reviewer of the book at MIT wrote:[16] "Soviet attempts to build a national computer network were undone by socialists who seemed to behave like capitalists".
I understand why it's appealing for techies, but I feel like talks about importance of OGAS are very much blown out of proportion.
Not that the project didn't have merit on itself (we're talking about proto-internet, basically), but its potential role in planning is exaggerated. If anything, it's a pitch before MVP.
The issues were very much political (denied funding speaks in favor of that), not computational. You can't solve those with math and transistors.
Are you open to the other tasks this life requires or are you just looking for western comfort but in a place far from whatever you have now?
Living out here means dealing with real problems because there is no infrastructure. You need to know how to survive if that solar panels break and you need 2 weeks to get a new ones. What happens if the food delivery couldn't make it for one extra week because the one guy who flies that out is sick. Can you handle illness without medicine or a doctor for a few days. etc..
The people shown in this article live very differently then the starlink solar van campers who work in tech and glamp out in the Sierra Nevda on Saturday night.
I think a lot of people want the feeling of being in that sort of space without any of the hard parts. I personally would settle for being a few miles from the nearest person (maybe ten), a well-fenced-off property with a safe well, a good electric fence around it all, some weapons to protect myself, a couple of dogs, a handful of kittens, a place to store food, a good connection to the net (not starlink; I would settle for something a bit slower and terrestrial), some farm animals which procreate reasonably fast, and a decent diesel truck.
Yeah all of that plus a wife. I want to be relatively alone not solitary. I have that setup right now. About 30 minutes from a major city, 30 acres, remote work and my wife and kid. Kid goes to a good school, we go out to nice dinners on the weekend, I make tech big bucks but it’s a farm life other than that.
I grew up in post-USSR state and living in those conditions was part of my childhood. I understand the limitations. I'm just tired of city life and all property has been sold by my parents. I would be okay living 50 miles away from a major city like a lot of folks do here in Texas. My initial comment was perhaps a little ambitious, but I'm not a hermit. The issue is, living out in the country is probably more expensive than my current situation.
I tried to get a job back then but never could. Its wild to read to me that it was 'sink or swim' back then. Nobody wanted to hire a junior. So I never became a SWE and it was my passion since 14. Now I just don't care and too much time has passed.
Yes, I did Physics, Geometry infront of the committee to explain my answer. Language course was written under a dictation, one mistake would cost you a point out of 5. So you had to be flawless on everything, spelling, punctuation, structure, etc. I aced my physics and language, but got a C (3) in geometry, I fumbled on one question.
That's how my school did it even for high school courses. End of the year exams were infront of the committee. Same thing, you pull a ticket and have few minutes to prepare the answer. I aced physics course, that was a proud moment but credits didnt transfer when we moved overseas...
I'm going to get some push back on this but this is my steak night... I buy fillet and throw it in the over for 10 minutes or so, then I cut it up and thrown on the pan with regular butter, salt, pepper and its enough. It gets seared in butter to golden brown and still tender inside. Everything takes about 5 minutes of actual work, 20 if we count the prep and oven heating. My simple go to dinner now, and I got tired of eating medium rare all the time just to keep it "right". Coincidently, it doesnt work with regular sirloin, it gets tougher and not as pleasant as fillet.
I'm a hobbyist, what am I missing? LLM gave me a new spark. I never managed to get a SE job so some weekends I tinker around with LLM for small personal projects and it helps me learn more.
I think that’s the difference. Using LLMs to learn how to write interesting code, I hope, would be welcomed. I’m not confident that’s true though, reading some of these comments.
I don't think anyone is learning to code by using LLMs.
We learn a craft in two ways: by watching other people do something, and by doing it ourselves. I've learnt many crafts in my life, to the extent that I've produced useful or enjoyable output: programming, wood working, gardening, cooking, baking. I read loads of books, but nothing you read in a book makes much sense until you do it yourself. If you read a book on wood but never pick up a saw then you might as well be reading fiction.
Programming has always been a bit more difficult because we can't really watch someone else do it. Sure, you can watch someone use their tools, but programming really happens in the head, and you can't watch that. So you very much have to just do it yourself, and read.
When you use an LLM you're not watching it do anything, except output text at a very high words per minute. And you're certainly not doing it yourself. So how can you be learning? I actually don't think I've learnt a single thing since starting to use LLMs and it seems that way for colleagues too. They're producing code they never could have written before, but they don't understand it. They aren't learning.
> I read loads of books, but nothing you read in a book makes much sense until you do it yourself
Yeah, totally agree. Same is true for LLMs. These models have all the information. I use it like an interactive text book. If I just let it do the coding, I don’t learn. When I want to learn something, I type it in; I run cargo. I will ask the LLM “what the hell does that mean”, and then I’ll fix it. That’s not I how I produce code these days, but that’s how I learn. I dont ship code that I don’t understand, and if I don’t understand it, or I’m even suspicious, then I go on a learning binge.
How I used to learn was to wait for a sale on udemy and buy like the top 10 courses on whatever it was. One would be useful. Two might have useful sections. Seven would be garbage. I don’t need that now.
I’ve learned tons since I started using LLMs. They’re an amazing tool for learning as long as you use them like that. Ask it questions about things you don’t understand. Verify the answers. Don’t have them do everything for you. Figure out where to push back on what they’re producing.
When I learned to code, learning from existing code was a big part of it. One difference now is you can produce custom code to learn from.
I’m starting to think the biggest skill we need to teach people in this new age is how to learn and how to research. If you already know how to do that well, LLMs are a fantastic addition to the toolbox. If you don’t, then you’re stuck with a tool that’s going to replace your skill instead of augment it.
Like I said, you can ask an LLM about wood all day but if you don't pick up a saw you won't learn to make anything. I do, of course, use LLMs for research and learning, but I'm specifically talking about learning to program. LLMs can't cut the wood for you, but they can write your program for you. If you can resist and just use them to learn then sure, but you've got to do something yourself.
reply