It's obviously something that the AI companies came up with to sell their product and here we are just using it like fucking sheep.
Really? AFAIK it was a joke phrase some individual came up with to gently mock the idea of "coding" without actually knowing what you're doing... and then (some) people somehow went ahead and adopted it as a serious idea anyway. (I wish those people luck, they are going to need it)
But even if they step out of the landscaping strip in the median 15 yards in front of the truck?
Stopping distance for a fully loaded semi at 55 miles per hour is 133 yards. If you step out in front of that truck 15 yards ahead, there's nothing the truck can do about it -- well, it could try to swerve, but it's anyone guess whether that would help or just makes things worse.
More importantly these trucks have Lidar. It has proven essential for safe self driving systems. Cameras alone are inadequate.
I'd go a little further, and say that any single sensor technology alone is inadequate, due to the amount of damage that occur after an unmitigated sensor failure. Multiple sensor technologies should be active at once, so that if (when!) any one type of sensor gets fooled, the others can override it and nobody dies.
With those self-driving SUVs but you've got the semi trucks and those things can easily kill and they can kill a lot.
My friend's cousin got rear-ended by a semi truck that didn't see the red light at the end of the off-ramp, or the car that was stopped at it. He was instantly killed, his car was crushed like a can.
It turned out the semi's driver had been on the road for 14 hours straight, and was not, shall we say, in a fully lucid state.
Would a self-driving truck have avoided this death? It's hard to say for sure, but we can probably at least say that its cognitive abilities wouldn't degrade over the course of a long day, due to lack of sleep.
I'm not saying the AR glasses will never exist, I'm saying that's a separate point from AI.
Did you read these comments or did you have the phone dictate everything? Why not have it dictate?
The point is that the "AI replaces phone" is a pretty silly take, because it would need something like the phone to operate, and whatever replaces phones would be able to deal with non AI usage in just a compelling way as AI usage.
The only way AI replaces phones is if it eliminates the demand for visual feedback completely. For "headless" usage, a phone can do that from a pocket just as well as some "only AI" device. The couple of attempts at such a device were utter failures because they were a strict subset of what a phone could do.
So of course AI won't replace handheld computers, some wearable device(s) will probably do it one day, but not because of AI.
Don't even have to argue about the quality of AI, just recognize that people will want to use a screen to interact with AI. It *might* displace a lot of 'virtual keyboard' interaction or complex UI interaction with natural language on the input side, but people will want the screen output even if AI is driving the visuals.
Now I'm imagining trying to play mobile games like you are talking to some DM back and forth audibly..
Except they were kind of right about laptops, most people have a full fledged laptop for 'big interaction', because the phone is fantastic and all, but when the interaction is too complicated, it's a nightmare.
In terms of 'AI' somehow displacing phones, it would only do so with some as-yet unseen AR glasses that could do the job without being hundreds of grams of gadgetry on your face, combined with maybe a smart ring to provide some sort of tactile feedback to 'virtual interfaces'.
This is all orthogonal to AI, AI isn't going to make a screen less desirable, whether on a phone or in glasses. If anything, AI makes some things demand screens even more. People don't want to *listen* to voicemail, they want to read a transcription because it is so much faster. Trying to 'skim' is only possible visually. People take voice feedback as a consolation prize, if they are driving or cannot actually look, or *maybe* for audiobook to enjoy the speaker's voice and casual pace for recreational story, but usually people want text to read for speed's sake. This is ignoring visuals which obviously demand screens.
I think it's an excellent case study in a company thinking of what sounds good for *them* rather than for the customer and the sort of failure that can happen after smelling your own farts that much.
Yeah, Windows core was ridiculous. They championed how they had a GUI-free experience, and then you boot it up and... GUI.
It was such a pointless exercise, and missing the point of why so many of the Linux systems didn't run a GUI. They thought the server admins just didn't want a start menu/taskbar. But they needed to actually still be GUI because applications still needed GUI to do some things. Linux servers not running GUI was mostly because the ecosystem doesn''t really need it, and that sort of ecosystem lends itself to a certain orchestration style. Microsoft failed to make that orchestration happen, just removed taskbar/start menu as more of a token gesture. They have *an* orchestration strategy, but it's just very different and also no consistency between first party and third party, or hell, much consistency among Microsoft first party offerings.
Ironically, ChromeOS is succeeding in select niches precisely because it is built around that "only web apps" use case. An utterly disposable client device because all applications and data are internet hosted. Windows 11SE fails in those niches because it goes too far into apps and the device actually mattering a bit more.
Of course, ChromeOS is a platform that institutions like schools love inflicting on people, but not really a choice people choose for themselves, and so not a lot of growth beyond that. So the result is people "growing out of ChromeOS" as they get out of school. Google hopes to change this by just tucking it all into Android and having at least some platform with residual relevance to a "grown up" computing experience.
But Windows 11SE has always been in a super weird awkward in-between. More 'capable' than ChromeOS in common usage, yet you could just get "real Windows" and run anything you like. The biggest problem is Microsoft didn't understand that lock-in to the Microsoft Store is not what would make them compete with ChromeOS, they just convinced themselves because that was the customer concept that would have been most profitable to them if they existed.
also, they'd be paying more taxes were they here legally, as would their employers.
BZZT! Wrong.
E-verify is purposely designed to fail, it is part of the system designed so that you don't get in any trouble for hiring illegal immigrants despite it being against the law. A business has a get-out-of-jail-free card by saying "hey we used e-verify".
I'm pretty certain a self-driving motorboat will be possible.
"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990
