We are talking about economic fairness between generations, which is indeed generally understandable by looking at the well-documented flow of money between generations.
Straw-man arguments are exactly why I just point to the data these days. Since you are apparently so good at logic, that is all the more reason why you should be looking at the data.
I have been talking about it for 15 years, and there is only one thing I have seen so far that is even going in the right direction.
What is that one thing?
I'm glad you asked. HTM is the first thing that I have seen that comes from the study of how intelligence works in connection to the physiological component.
The importance of the physiological component was first identified by Hermann Helmholtz, the founder of modern physiology. In the 1860s, he came up with a theory for studying any sense system, and basically created a modern aesthetic theory in order to study physiology. He described the aesthetic flow of information from the physical, to the physiological, to the psychological, and was the first to posit that proper psychology needs to interface properly with physiology, and that the philosophical error of ignoring the physiological component is what leads to problems in studying both psychology and physiology.
I found this while actually studying aesthetic theory to develop a proper descriptive music theory. In order to find anything on aesthetic theory, I had to read original sources going back centuries, and found that scientists back then spent a lot of time explaining their philosophical approach, because any major work involved the creation of a new scientific field, and this needed to be explained philosophically to be credible. So nearly all aesthetic theory is tied in with scientific work on the senses, and existentialist philosophy, and most of that is tied to destroying the philosophical error of mind-body duality, which, as you are probably guessing by now, is something that must be done for the field of Artificial Intelligence to make any sense at all.
To this day, the philosophical error of mind-body duality is still blocking a lot of Artificial Intelligence research. When you do not integrate your model of the mind with a model of the body, you can't get past one of the most famous philosophical errors going back thousands of years.
And this, of course, explains my skepticism that humans will be so easily replaced. It would first require a total defeat of the mind-body duality problem, and that has been a struggle dating back thousands of years. Even after it is defeated philosophically, it takes decades for this to produce its output on society. Historically, it takes about 50 years, and that is not limited by knowledge but by the speed that humans *forget*, meaning that people need to *die* for progress to happen. The ironic thing is that, as technology has increased modern lifespans, it has been harder and harder for real paradigm shifts to happen.
I mean, we in the US still can't get over our bad relationship with Russia, simply because not enough politicians have died of old age. The Baby Boomers are still afraid to hand over the reigns of the country. Sorry, I have a tendency to ramble off on tangents. I'll shut up now.
That's why it's good to have absolute numbers, like at census.gov. The National Academy has been citing the data for years with tons of insightful research into which policies are more or less fair. When you have absolute numbers, it is really easy to define fair and equal. Hint: it involves an equals sign.
This is the scientific way to measure fairness, as opposed to the political way of controlling the visibility of contexts to make an argument. Every question you raised rhetorically has a scientific answer that is waiting for you in data that is already freely available, and thousands of people research this, and no one listens to them. It is frustrating to see this. We need fewer lawyers and more scientists in politics.
The cruising aspect would be too much of a problem. Can't have a bunch of slow cars driving around. You could just have ZipCar allow cars to be parked in random spots, but only if someone else has agreed to take responsibility for it, otherwise you will have parking ticket issues. But anyway, there seems to be a lot of room for improvement without needing to have 100% automation. Maybe have ZipCar negotiate parking with the city, and a small fleet of people move ZipCars around to where demand is higher.
I think the 100% automation goal is basically a fundraising tactic, since you can tie valuation to the 100% automation assumption. But it is a lot further off than people think. Meanwhile, Amazon is going to be making real, incremental improvements, and not making a big deal about 100% automation, because they just automate what makes sense at any given moment. But Amazon is much more smooth at convincing people that they will be ahead in the end, without needing to trump up this 100% automation claim.
I think Uber thought that they could trump up 100% automation, and use the funds to leverage their way into China, and then realized that economic forces are greater than their imagination. Now they are getting hit with reality day after day. In software, we are used to being divorced from physical limitations, and it seems that Uber is a prime example of the software mentality going a step too far.
They are complaining because their employer is violating the law. Can people not do that anymore?
It is easy to seem entitled when claiming something entitled do you by law. The whole point of laws overriding contracts is because of the leverage problem Adam Smith pointed out in On The Wages of Labor, and continually reaffirmed by the problem of indentured servitude.
The founding documents of capitalism are public domain. Please read them. Then you will understand. These kinds of struggles have been a well-documented aspect of history for centuries. Scientific datasets have been available for centuries. I understand that people aren't generally educated in this history, but it is very easily accessible these days.
It gives me a sense of faith in humanity to see that the generation after me is asserting their rights.
That is all years away. Thank about it.
"Self-driving" is still going to be driver-assist for a very long time. They are still going to need "drivers" for years, and with the vast number of drivers out there, the politics of allowing vehicles to be driverless is going to be very difficult.
I am all for driver-assist technologies to optimize the base case, but a human will be handling edge cases much better for a long time, especially with driver-assist technologies to help. That is, the tech should optimize the physics problems, and the human should optimize the decision problems. I think a lot of people are going to feel that way for a long time, at least until the infrastructure is actually adapted for automation, rather than humans.
We already have vastly cheaper modes of interstate shipping and travel available in the form of trains, and if money were invested in high-speed rail instead, it would have a far better impact, because it would actually reduce the need for drivers, and be faster than trucks.
There are also a lot of delivery services, and it will take years for the porch delivery aspect to be automated. It is still far cheaper to have a human do that.