Hacker News Reader

Comment by abhianet | Hacker News Reader

IMHO autonomous driving systems still do not mix well with humans on the road. Could even say they are not compatible with each other. With how things have been going, soon we would have systems predicting behavior of human driver for safer driving. But by then, roads will have humans, systems predicting human behavior and systems released between the two without prediction.

View on HN

I am of a similar opinion. People have been talking about self driving cars for years, but for some reason as soon as people hear that Google is developing them its assumed they will be a reality in the near future.

Likewise there is lots of talk about automation of jobs, which in a way is happening, yet at the same time we seem to be working harder for more hours than 20 years ago.

With you until that automation thing. The reason we work harder is, most jobs are automated. The remaining ones are paid a lot, so they try to pack in as much as they can to make the whole process cheaper. They'll automate these jobs too as soon as they can.

Upshot: if you have a job, you're working harder because automation.

Thats a very simplistic view and you seem very sure of it. (Plus in the there are a lot more crappy McJob's, so your point about the remianing jobs being highly paid doesn't really seem true).

We haven't seen flying cars, and there is no expectation for them in the future despite what we all expected years ago.

Have read of David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules". As he correctly points out there is a hell of a lot more beurecracy and form filling for almost everything these days. That's a large part of where the extra work comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Utopia_of_Rules

Obligatory Graeber takedown links:

http://www.annleckie.com/2013/02/24/debt/

http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archi...

Did you even look at the link I posted? Those articles are both talking about his other book, not the one I was referring to.

So what: "falso in uno falso in omnibus" is a motto worth thinking about. If someone writes absolute hogwash in one book, how can you expect that anything he writes after that will have any trustworthiness?

How about not guessing and reading the statistics:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-tec...

The article is hardly conclusive evidence. It even says so for the last three paragraphs.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567289/driverless-truck-rio-...

From the article: "The big difference is that the mine setting offers a huge advantage that most companies can't match — there are no human drivers on the road."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com