Thanks! Was it the book or the idea that made you give up reading it (and if it's the latter, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it).
From a legal standpoint, it will be really interesting to see how the responsibilities for this technology will be determined. Is it the software that is responsible for the car's behaviour, or is the driver still expected to keep an eye out and thus still responsible for what the car may do? Will different states and countries respond differently to this? It almost reminds me of scifi movies, where we need to make laws to govern AI's responsibilities. But I'm not versed enough in law to research something as complicated as this will be. What I'm more interested in (and more capable of actually saying something meaningful) are the grave implications such a technology can have on our car-dependant societies. Especially in America, the most car-dependant nation in the world. How is [insert anything car-related] going to change because of this? Could this lead to a decentralised public transport system, one that abandons trains and subways in favour of train-like self-driving cars? Assuming this will be expensive at launch, what will the socio-economical consequences be? Will this fuck our sustainability goals even more, or is this gonna boost electrical cars even more? For more than a hundred years, our average commuting time has stayed roughly the same: will this continue, or will people work more in their car, only appearing in the office an hour per day for a meeting? Maybe minivans become mini-workplaces. Will cabs still exist? How will this affect logistics? When will we trust these cars enough to hand over our lives to lines of code? What is love, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more? I could go on like this for hours. I'll definitely try to get my thesis on this subject, which I'll have to arrange in eight months or so. I'm not entirely free in my decision. Maybe I should go for a PhD so I can be the first expert in this new area. You never know. Not just disappointment: deaths will happen because of bad nation-wide legislations handling tech like this.veen, am_Unition - I enjoyed your conversation greatly. It's interesting the perspective you both bring to it; I gave up on The Age of Context halfway today so I come at it from the perspective of someone who has had "the Internet of Things" shoved down their throat for a day and a half.
I can't think of any other public/private system in which the interplay between a large, financially-motivated monopoly and a basic human right is so primed for strain.
In the US, at least, we have a Supreme Court that thinks HBO is broadcast over the air. Expecting a nuanced understanding of machine vision, GIS, LIDAR limitations in fog and the value of a pothole map is a pathway to disappointment.
It was the breathless, uninformed cheerleading for the death of privacy. It was the utter certainty that Google Glass was as disruptive a technology as personal computers and if the authors couldn't explain why, it wasn't a failing of their assertion it was just something you'd have to take their word for. It was the slavish adulation for tech for tech's sake, rather than for its ability to solve problems. It starts with a foreword in which an author derides a hotel for not having theater tickets, dinner reservations and a cup of cocoa waiting for him even though he tweeted the hotel's name, his desire for theater tickets, dinner reservations and a cup of cocoa from his plane. It's just a tedious book by tedious people who turned an important subject into utter tedium. Worse, rather than give a broad overview of the subject with positives and negatives, the authors served as moutpieces for anyone who would sit down for an interview with them. It's a sloppy and pointless book. Exactly my point, and exactly what I was trying to convey. Apologies if that wasn't clear. My point about the legal issues is that they're going to be a cast-iron bitch to settle in a fair and beneficial way, which means there are going to be a million different ways the cookie can crumble. I think the world would benefit from an exploration of the implications of a transportation system where key components are locked behind a paywall on a server remote from the vehicle or owner. That's something new under the sun. I don't think you need to be a legal scholar to dig into it - I think you need to be able to look at the impact of a couple different outcomes from a couple different controversial points and then draw some historical parallels in order to get attention. Consider how the destruction of railroads affected the economy of small towns in the United States, or the rise of the Interstate freeway system. The rest of your hypotheticals are totally en pointe. Someone with a Ph. D in, say, "Transportation Information Systems" will be able to write their own paychecks in the next 20 years. Bank on it.Thanks! Was it the book or the idea that made you give up reading it
What I'm more interested in (and more capable of actually saying something meaningful) are the grave implications such a technology can have on our car-dependant societies.
Maybe I should go for a PhD so I can be the first expert in this new area. You never know.
Sounds to me like someone liked his Google Now a bit too much and went on an extrapolating spree. On the one hand, I think predictive knowledge is a really cool feature, and I can envision a future where information is handed to you as soon as you want to know it. I like Google Now, and wish it would work better; it was of great use to me when I flew to Hong Kong, as it has a card with all your flight information. But on the other hand, it's just that: a cool feature. I don't think it is a good foundation to build information technologies on. It is, however, a nice interactive display of information. I think that that book of yours didn't get that right, especially with that hotel example. It was trying to imagine an IT world based around predictive knowledge, instead of seeing the tech for what it's worth: a nice representation of knowledge, a layer on top of current systems. Good way to phrase it. It's exactly why I was disappointed to find out that Google didn't use real self-driving. I don't want my car to be dependant on an external, locked system. There was a great article a while back here, about who owns place. With Google's head start in the mapping business (and to be fair, their maps are the best both cartographically as well as aesthetically), they have a very dominant place in the mapping business. Currently, there are good alternatives, but imagine a similar dominant force in a market with a much higher bar for entry: the radar equipped AI batallions of tech that are Google cars. I'm writing this from a train, sitting only meters from a very capable operator who could be replaced by AI far easier than any car envirnoment. Yet I'm happier that it is just a person. Sidenote: I can't wait to see what Germany thinks of this. They've been the only country to question Google's ethics with streetview. Might be a smart move to do more with GIS. It is already quite up my alley. I wish ArcGIS was up Adobe's level of refinement, though. The thing with this subject is that there is a fairly large chance that a proper Google prototype will never make it to the production stage, simply because states or countries might not allow it. It took crazy ol' California to try it out, after all. Besides, it might face similar perception problems that planes have now: as soon as one crashes, it makes the news. A bad start can halt the development of this tech for decades, easily. If I may extrapolate, that is.It was the breathless, uninformed cheerleading for the death of privacy.
I think the world would benefit from an exploration of the implications of a transportation system where key components are locked behind a paywall on a server remote from the vehicle or owner. That's something new under the sun.
Bank on it.
I think it's worth looking into. For that matter, it might be worth reading the book. As I said, they only reported on people who talked to them, and they were rosy as fuck; that said, they talked to Ford, which apparently plans on consolidating down to economy, luxury and mid-size cars that are going to be largely differentiated by software. My problem with "the Internet of Things" is that it used to be called "telemetry." Telemetry is valuable - it gives you instrumentation for things you need to know. 'The Internet of Things' is predicated on putting sensors on shit and then figuring out how you're going to use them. It's the wrong approach, in my opinion; not everything that sucks power needs an IP address. Somethings definitely benefit though. GM wants to call it "the Industrial Internet" and observes that if telemetry improves the efficiency of their aircraft engines by 1%, it'll save airlines three billion dollars. That's a very different discussion than the "smart fridges" that are generally talked about by breathless tech evangelists after every CES.