RoboCab: Driverless Taxi Experiment to Start in Japan(blogs.wsj.com)
blogs.wsj.com
RoboCab: Driverless Taxi Experiment to Start in Japan
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/10/01/robocab-driverless-taxi-experiment-to-start-in-japan/
5 comments
I think that basing your decisions on, with all due respect, gut feelings about the software development processes at Google and Toyota is still the wrong approach.
We need to have open testing environments - government / regulatory / whatever defined tests that tell us the systems under test are performing as expected. And have enough openness around the concepts such that VW style approaches to beating tests are .. Easier to find.
But interesting point about the development processes - something is there
We need to have open testing environments - government / regulatory / whatever defined tests that tell us the systems under test are performing as expected. And have enough openness around the concepts such that VW style approaches to beating tests are .. Easier to find.
But interesting point about the development processes - something is there
I don't think the statement about Toyota is a "gut feeling": http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer...
> with the auto-driving car carrying them from their homes to local grocery stores.
Maybe we should call it automobile.
Maybe we should call it automobile.
Isaac Asimov, when he predicted self driving cars in 1953, called them automatomobiles.
The story's good. Killer quote:
"We take it for granted now, but I remember when the first laws came out forcing the old machines off the highways and limiting travel to automatics. Lord, what a fuss. They called it everything from communism to fascism, but it emptied the highways and stopped the killing, and still more people get around more easily the new way."
http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/82060/20/Isaac_Asimovs...
The story's good. Killer quote:
"We take it for granted now, but I remember when the first laws came out forcing the old machines off the highways and limiting travel to automatics. Lord, what a fuss. They called it everything from communism to fascism, but it emptied the highways and stopped the killing, and still more people get around more easily the new way."
http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/82060/20/Isaac_Asimovs...
"Autoautomobile" is too clumsy, so how about "autocar"?
Later on, when they get really smart and start doing unmanned item delivery and shopping trips and passenger pickup all on their own, we can call them "robocars". Law enforcement robocars with weapon systems can be called "robocops" (or maybe "enforcement droids"?).
Later on, when they get really smart and start doing unmanned item delivery and shopping trips and passenger pickup all on their own, we can call them "robocars". Law enforcement robocars with weapon systems can be called "robocops" (or maybe "enforcement droids"?).
We'll probably end up calling them cars. Car itself coming from "horseless carriage".
Maybe should distinguish between levels of automation:
0-automobile: must be pulled around by external power source
1-automobile: provides its own locomotion
2-automobile: also provides its own navigation
3-automobile: also decides when it should be used (what trips to take, in what order)
0-automobile: must be pulled around by external power source
1-automobile: provides its own locomotion
2-automobile: also provides its own navigation
3-automobile: also decides when it should be used (what trips to take, in what order)
4-automobile: doesn't carry a person, goes on it's own sight-seeing trips.
That would be the Google street view car?
last time I saw one (at Kinkos) it had a human behind the wheel.
me: "hey! how many lenses!?"
him: "I cant talk about it."
me: "eh. how's the res?"
him: "I cant talk about it."
me: "ah. Can you say how far you drove today?"
him: "no"
me: "are they listening now?"
him: (jokingly) "maybe."really smart unmanned weaponized enforcement droids ... sounds a lot like the standard sci-fi drone.
When robocars and flying drones have converged into airdroids proper, they'll probably develop networked fleet intelligence for coordinated tasks and strategic planning. They'll be really useful then, with their aerial range covering all our airspace.
At that point I guess we can call them "Skynet" or something like that?
At that point I guess we can call them "Skynet" or something like that?
CGPGrey already named them autos, and I take his word on things like that. Ride your auto to work day!
I think this is fantastic for Japan. The only way a country moves forward is through innovation and self driving cars will help save more lives.
They will also put a lot of people out of work. Net positive in the long term but painful in the short term, and society hasn't shown a willingness to adjust (yet).
> people out of work
Yeah, like automobiles put farriers out of work, but it did not happen overnight, and people adjust and find new jobs. Like car mechanics. If more cars are constantly on the road, there will be a need for a lot of maintenance, etc... I'm not worried one bit even in the short term.
Yeah, like automobiles put farriers out of work, but it did not happen overnight, and people adjust and find new jobs. Like car mechanics. If more cars are constantly on the road, there will be a need for a lot of maintenance, etc... I'm not worried one bit even in the short term.
I'm worried in the long term.
The way I see it, automation destroys jobs for stupider people and creates jobs for smarter people. Ten jobs making widgets are replaced by one job as a widget robot repairman (and 0.001 of a job of a widget robot designer) and bam, we're making ten times more widgets. But the job of robot repairman is a more intellectually difficult job than the factory workers had in the first place.
Hundreds of years ago, 95% of jobs could be done with a two-digit IQ, because they were things like ploughing fields and herding goats. But we've been automating all the easy jobs and creating new, more fulfilling jobs, and getting richer in the process.
At some point though, which I think is right about now, we cross the point where less than 50% of the jobs can be done with a two-digit IQ. We no longer need manual labourers, we need people who can design and maintain robots. And the fact is that 50% of the population is of below-median intelligence and will have trouble doing these new jobs.
What do we do with all these people who are incapable of performing any worthwhile role? In the longer run perhaps we can genetically engineer people so that everyone can be a robot engineer. But in the meantime?
So yeah, I think it is a genuine problem we're going to have to face eventually.
The way I see it, automation destroys jobs for stupider people and creates jobs for smarter people. Ten jobs making widgets are replaced by one job as a widget robot repairman (and 0.001 of a job of a widget robot designer) and bam, we're making ten times more widgets. But the job of robot repairman is a more intellectually difficult job than the factory workers had in the first place.
Hundreds of years ago, 95% of jobs could be done with a two-digit IQ, because they were things like ploughing fields and herding goats. But we've been automating all the easy jobs and creating new, more fulfilling jobs, and getting richer in the process.
At some point though, which I think is right about now, we cross the point where less than 50% of the jobs can be done with a two-digit IQ. We no longer need manual labourers, we need people who can design and maintain robots. And the fact is that 50% of the population is of below-median intelligence and will have trouble doing these new jobs.
What do we do with all these people who are incapable of performing any worthwhile role? In the longer run perhaps we can genetically engineer people so that everyone can be a robot engineer. But in the meantime?
So yeah, I think it is a genuine problem we're going to have to face eventually.
> At some point though, which I think is right about now, we cross the point where less than 50% of the jobs can be done with a two-digit IQ. We no longer need manual labourers, we need people who can design and maintain robots. And the fact is that 50% of the population is of below-median intelligence and will have trouble doing these new jobs.
There's still tons of jobs where you don't high IQ to do. Shopkeepers, bartenders, and the whole artisan category where more qualification is required but not that much either (plumbers, bakers, farmers and the like). And it will be very hard to make them go away anytime soon (and probably not worth it even if it's possible). On top of that there's a resurgence of the value of handmade stuff vs industrial articles (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy for example) since richer people value stuff that's unique rather than what's cheap.
Again, just like every single time of Changes in History, people adapt.
There's still tons of jobs where you don't high IQ to do. Shopkeepers, bartenders, and the whole artisan category where more qualification is required but not that much either (plumbers, bakers, farmers and the like). And it will be very hard to make them go away anytime soon (and probably not worth it even if it's possible). On top of that there's a resurgence of the value of handmade stuff vs industrial articles (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy for example) since richer people value stuff that's unique rather than what's cheap.
Again, just like every single time of Changes in History, people adapt.
Even more important than low-IQ jobs, I think there are many jobs where EQ is a bigger factor - and EQ can be trained, unlike IQ. Jobs that involve caring for people, old and young, jobs that involve just being there and being a loving and understanding person, jobs that involve mediating between two parties that are having a dispute - basically, jobs where your main function is to give a shit and be able to show it even under difficult, dramatic circumstances.
We could use a lot more of those people who spend the time and energy to care about each other. I'm more worried about the fact that there's zero school/educational investment in EQ, than about the rising tide of "too low IQ to be able to work"...
We could use a lot more of those people who spend the time and energy to care about each other. I'm more worried about the fact that there's zero school/educational investment in EQ, than about the rising tide of "too low IQ to be able to work"...
I basically agree with your premise, but I think the fulfillment of your scenario will bring on a new age for humanity after a lot of upheaval. I would very much love to see this age, though I suspect it won't be in my lifetime.
I think the narrow view of what's coming is a simple basic income, but that term omits the societal seachange that it will kick off. Eventually life, comfort, and pleasure will become decoupled from an obligation to work, or at least labor. It could be seen as the end of labor, or a "right to flourish" that people will take for granted in a few hundred years. And once that threshold is crossed, I think the future of humanity becomes utterly unpredictable to all of us living in present times.
I think the narrow view of what's coming is a simple basic income, but that term omits the societal seachange that it will kick off. Eventually life, comfort, and pleasure will become decoupled from an obligation to work, or at least labor. It could be seen as the end of labor, or a "right to flourish" that people will take for granted in a few hundred years. And once that threshold is crossed, I think the future of humanity becomes utterly unpredictable to all of us living in present times.
When robots will be able to replace most of the jobs (which is not going to happen soon) the production of goods will increase and we will probably be able to afford a basic income or something like that. That would be a good times.
> we will probably be able to afford a basic income or something like that. That would be a good times.
It would indeed be good times, but even if we are able to do so, will we be willing? There are a lot of things to sort out economically, politically, societally, psychologically, etc
For example, if it is "fair" for society to take 50% of the earnings of the class who owns all the robots, is it also fair for that class to ask (just for example) that those earnings aren't spent perpetuating a lifestyle of another class who tends to not shower, sleep on the sidewalk, pee in stairwells, yell at people on the sidewalk, etc. And if it's an underlying mental illness problem, then that person is taken off the street and treated, against their will if necessary?
This is just a simple contrived example, you can imagine all sorts of your own scenarios across the spectrum of human activity, add in cultural variances and issues of international immigration for extra fun.
But in all of these, if what is asked of group (a) is ok, but what is asked of group (b) is considered a "violation of their basic human rights" (or whatever), which I expect will be the case (see current day Europe), I think this utopia is much further away than many think.
It would indeed be good times, but even if we are able to do so, will we be willing? There are a lot of things to sort out economically, politically, societally, psychologically, etc
For example, if it is "fair" for society to take 50% of the earnings of the class who owns all the robots, is it also fair for that class to ask (just for example) that those earnings aren't spent perpetuating a lifestyle of another class who tends to not shower, sleep on the sidewalk, pee in stairwells, yell at people on the sidewalk, etc. And if it's an underlying mental illness problem, then that person is taken off the street and treated, against their will if necessary?
This is just a simple contrived example, you can imagine all sorts of your own scenarios across the spectrum of human activity, add in cultural variances and issues of international immigration for extra fun.
But in all of these, if what is asked of group (a) is ok, but what is asked of group (b) is considered a "violation of their basic human rights" (or whatever), which I expect will be the case (see current day Europe), I think this utopia is much further away than many think.
Which isn't necessarily an issue for Japan.
They have an ageing population, declining birthrate and an aversion for immigration.
They actually need robots do the menial tasks in society since no human is going to be around to do it.
They have an ageing population, declining birthrate and an aversion for immigration.
They actually need robots do the menial tasks in society since no human is going to be around to do it.
> They actually need robots do the menial tasks in society since no human is going to be around to do it.
If you imagine robots are going to show up and clean the streets in Japan you are in for a massive disappointment. This kind of things will never happen on time for when they need it, and Japan is not known to be the most innovative country they used to be anymore. They lost it about 20 years ago.
If you imagine robots are going to show up and clean the streets in Japan you are in for a massive disappointment. This kind of things will never happen on time for when they need it, and Japan is not known to be the most innovative country they used to be anymore. They lost it about 20 years ago.
Of all the things that could be automated on roads garbage collection and street cleaning seem ideal. They operate at slow speeds, have far fewer edge cases e.g. cars aggressively cutting in and out and people already move out of their way when they come by.
And you don't want to dismiss Japan's (a) technology ability and (b) commitment to robotics. Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba lead the world in many sensor technologies in particular visual that would be relevant to cars, robotics and other automated systems.
Most importantly their culture is more conducive to it, case in point the robot run hotel:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/japanese-hotel-run-by-...
And you don't want to dismiss Japan's (a) technology ability and (b) commitment to robotics. Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba lead the world in many sensor technologies in particular visual that would be relevant to cars, robotics and other automated systems.
Most importantly their culture is more conducive to it, case in point the robot run hotel:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/japanese-hotel-run-by-...
Yeah, I was just picturing this in my head. What a great idea for a robot. Sure enough: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&es...
Oh? Care to share your crystal ball?
Self driving vehicles will not show up overnight. The road to 100% penetration will be a long one, with many intermediate steps. I'd say as low as ~20 but as high as 75 year time frame.
100% will probably never happen. 99% maybe.
Perhaps for recreational use, yes. But I would assume that humans will be a hinderance on the road system and would far increase the possible accidents. Self driving vehicles will be able to 'cluster' and travel, literally, as fast as they can. I don't see any human keeping up with that.
Yes, we should strive for a world where no-one has to work.
>The only way a country moves forward is through innovation
Military conquest works pretty well, as does being located on top of valuable natural resources. What is the purpose of spouting such a platitude?
Military conquest works pretty well, as does being located on top of valuable natural resources. What is the purpose of spouting such a platitude?
A very successful military conquest of 1920–1940s did not exactly help Japan in the long run. Neither did it work for Spain in 1500s.
I hate to hijack this thread even further, but: losing WWII helped Japan immensely in the long run.
This is ridiculous. They were already a powerful country before WWII, they would have become way more powerful by now if they had not got involved in WWII the way they did. They got massively destroyed and it took them a very long time just to rebuild the country.
I guess you never heard about the broken window parable.
I guess you never heard about the broken window parable.
They might arguably have become a more powerful country, but I don't think that necessarily equates to being better off. After renouncing (being forced to renounce) war as a mechanism of policy, Japan has enjoyed seven decades of peace and the fastest rise from bombed-out shithole full of malnourished kids to the second largest economy in the world with one of the highest standards of living.
Now China has risen, and overtaken Japan in economic and military terms, and it's a good case in point: certainly more powerful than Japan as a nation, but you can't breathe the air, you don't have rule of law, you can't vote, or even reproduce as you might see fit. Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving.
My point was that Japanese militarist totalitarianism, awful and evil as that was, ended up being a shortcut to a level of peace and prosperity that is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
Now China has risen, and overtaken Japan in economic and military terms, and it's a good case in point: certainly more powerful than Japan as a nation, but you can't breathe the air, you don't have rule of law, you can't vote, or even reproduce as you might see fit. Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving.
My point was that Japanese militarist totalitarianism, awful and evil as that was, ended up being a shortcut to a level of peace and prosperity that is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
On the other hand, China did have the equivalent of losing a war and living under a foreign imposed rule, which was the aftermath of the Opium Wars. The result was about 60 million deaths, mostly due to the breakdown of law and order.
Due to that, Chinese are probably a bit wary of benevolent Europeans/Americans running their country for them. The current regime has huge problems, but it is stable and not completely oblivious to the wellbeing of ordinary people.
Due to that, Chinese are probably a bit wary of benevolent Europeans/Americans running their country for them. The current regime has huge problems, but it is stable and not completely oblivious to the wellbeing of ordinary people.
Your comments about China are just flat out wrong.
You can breathe the air in 99% of the country. It's really just Beijing and some of the more industrial areas that have a problem. And guess what China has and is continuing to make huge inroads to fix this. And it's hardly the only place in the world where there is a pollution problem.
You can vote in China. It's just a hierarchical system so you vote at the lower levels whose representatives in turn elect representatives further up the chain. It's a different system but there are major electoral problems in all countries e.g US (gerry-mandering) or Europe (lots of parties fighting to form coalitions).
And yes there is a one child policy. But I would argue that (a) this is/was necessary and (b) it is a policy ahead of its time. We all know the world's resources can't sustain a certain number of people.
You can breathe the air in 99% of the country. It's really just Beijing and some of the more industrial areas that have a problem. And guess what China has and is continuing to make huge inroads to fix this. And it's hardly the only place in the world where there is a pollution problem.
You can vote in China. It's just a hierarchical system so you vote at the lower levels whose representatives in turn elect representatives further up the chain. It's a different system but there are major electoral problems in all countries e.g US (gerry-mandering) or Europe (lots of parties fighting to form coalitions).
And yes there is a one child policy. But I would argue that (a) this is/was necessary and (b) it is a policy ahead of its time. We all know the world's resources can't sustain a certain number of people.
I remember that air quality in Tokyo was quite bad in 1960s: http://metropolitantokyo.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-pollution-...
This is more of a sign of a still-industrial economy, as opposed to a post-industrial one.
This is more of a sign of a still-industrial economy, as opposed to a post-industrial one.
A few corrections :
> but you can't breathe the air yes you can, air is not polluted in ALL of China.
> you don't have rule of law frankly examples in Western democraties where the powerful beat the small guys are numerous. And look at DMCA and shit like that constantly used with abuse.
> you can't reproduce as you might see fit. you can now have more than 1 kid, if that is what you were referring to. This changed since last year if I remember correctly. And on top of that in the countryside many folks have several kids but don’t declare them.
> Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving.
If you actually talk with Chinese people, they are actually very happy with the amount of progress most have seen in their lifetime.
> but you can't breathe the air yes you can, air is not polluted in ALL of China.
> you don't have rule of law frankly examples in Western democraties where the powerful beat the small guys are numerous. And look at DMCA and shit like that constantly used with abuse.
> you can't reproduce as you might see fit. you can now have more than 1 kid, if that is what you were referring to. This changed since last year if I remember correctly. And on top of that in the countryside many folks have several kids but don’t declare them.
> Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving.
If you actually talk with Chinese people, they are actually very happy with the amount of progress most have seen in their lifetime.
So you would prefer living in China without DMCA over a Western country?
Have you lived in China ? It ain't as bad as all the articles make it out to be. I would not want to live there forever, but if I have to choose between the US and China for example, I'd choose China as a first destination anytime.
> ...as does being located on top of valuable natural resources.
Tell that to Africa.
Tell that to Africa.
Military conquest doesn't work in a long run because enslaved people are very unmotivated. Economical conquest works much better. Natural resources are limited and not very profitable except for oil and gas.
This immediately came to mind when I read this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o
So I thought the "Robot Taxi" on the side of it was just a slightly weird name for a Japanese taxi company.
That is cool that self-driving cars are taking off here, too.
However, I must admit that the whole Toyota software development practices scandal will make me think twice before getting in a Japanese self driving cab. I would rather be stuck at a green light while my googlecar is confused by a fixed gear bicyclist, than in a robotic taxi suffering from unknown "process death" events in its untestable assortment of dozens of interweaved subsystems…