853 karma · joined November 10, 2016
It might sound weird and crazy, but it quite literally blew my mind at the time !
There is an argument for sure, about how many sensors is enough / too much. And maybe 8 cameras around the car is enough to surpass human driving ability.
I guess it depends on how far/secure we want the self-driving to be. If only we had a comprehensive driving test that all (humans and robots) could take and be ranked... each country lawmakers could set the bar based on the test.
If someone manages to replicate my pulsing blood vessels from my hand and trick the scanner, that would be fine. I would dispute the purchase, and the store would not even pull the camera footage, and just refund.
Amazon Go was not used to hold access to bank accounts or crypto wallets. I think it was a good technology and balance between convenience and security, for the purpose (grocery loyalty and payment).
A twin or even sometimes a relative (son and mother) can open an iphone and its banking apps using the facial recognition. That is more concerning to me than Amazon Go palm scanning for groceries.
Do I trust the entity that identify me using biometrics ?
Do I trust it with my biometric data ?
If I link a payment method, do I trust it with access to my payment details ?
With Amazon Go at WF, I was fine to let Amazon know and store my hand biometrics, and I was fine enough with Amazon know what I purchase at WF, as long as I had something back (loyalty program).
Scaling this though would negatively impact the trust. Maybe I do not want Amazon to know "everything" I purchase everywhere (even though Visa/MC/Amex already know it...)
I wish Amazon could sell the tech to someone more neutral and have it deployed more broadly.
As opposed to just wave your hand, to get your discounts, pay and get your points.
So when you wave your hand, you get your Prime discounts, you pay and you get your points. Just by waving your hand. No need to reach for a phone, an app, a card, scan a QR code, etc.
The tech had some advantages. I used it every time at WF. I liked it.
I get that it is fairly easy to use the app on the phone (although my WF has terrible reception, which is frustrating enough when I come to pick up packages), but waving your hand would still be faster.
When we have to reach for the phone, unlock it (with biometric), tap to open the Whole Foods app, and then present the phone to scan a QR code.
While it might be not much more, it is more than just show one hand.
So, in practice, I am not sure if that is truly a non-starter for "normies" and even some "techies". I already gave up on my face biometrics living in US.
I thought that the engineering team at Amazon did a great job with Amazon One. I wish someone could pick up the tech and carry on.
But... while all payment terminals are compatible to VAS and SmartTap, very few have the firmware and a POS that can make sense of it. So, in practice, beside Walgreens and maybe CSV, it is not much adopted.
Using your palm print (and actually blood vessels network) could be also more secure than tapping a card (NFC contactless).
I enjoyed using the technology. I did test other biometric payments like with face at the Intuit Dome in LA. But it felt more creepy and far less secure... as I was walking by some gates would open and some random person could enter as me... and possibly charge my linked payment. Using the hand with Amazon Go felt safer.
Wondering if Amazon would be willing to sell the technology, as I could see being deployed in lots of retail stores. The fact that it was made by Amazon, likely prevented to sell the technology to other retailers. Someone like Verifone, Ingenico or even a POS like Micros should go after the technology...
I guess it is true for us living in US, but lots of people live in places where it never goes below 0 Celsius (32 F). So I could see them arguing the same with a 0-50 scale.
> But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.
Probably, even though they might just get the coldest (-128 F -89 C) and hottest (134 F 56C) temperatures on earth, and scales it from 0-100 so everyone is covered.
Even if 100% automated, there might still be a residual cost to building as it needs energy (assuming than raw material is free). I do not think that because the building would be not free, it would allow human to compete (too slow, inaccurate, etc.)
Delivery should be automated.
Rent would obviously crater as building housing craters too (robots making it, materials being extracted and manufactured by robots too). But again, it would still cost something (energy at very least and assuming energy is not free).
So I suspect that even if 100% is automated, we would still need little money to pay for the basics (food, shelter).
Even if the cost for food and shelter is $1 per month, if there is no revenue, it is still too expensive, right ?
I am trying to understand the speed comparison between how fast the prices will go down, vs. how fast people will lose their jobs. If job loss goes faster than the price decrease, we might have a problem to solve.
Not sure to follow, machines need energy as input. So unless energy is free and unlimited, even if the machines run without people, there is a cost for the products. It is not free, even if that is 100% automated. At the very least you have to pay for the energy, if not for the raw materials.
> > And as we move to the "we automate everything" end of the spectrum, the number of jobs lost would increase, the taxes collected (VAT, income, capital gain, etc.) would decrease (assuming the current tax system) and yet people (employed or not) would still education, health care, social security (retirement). > But things would also cost less, in the same proportion.
Yes, things (material) and services would cost less. But still cost the energy to produce those things and services.
> Suppose healthcare is 20% of the economy, can't be automated, and we automate everything else. Then tax revenue goes down by 80%, but so do costs, so people only need 20% as much in government services or those services only cost 20% as much to provide.
Not sure why healthcare would not be 100% automated, but for the exercise, let's assume it still needs some people. Unless you also assume that unemployed people could get some ABI or SNAP from government (in US already 1 out 8 adult receives SNAP) to pay for food (cost less with 100% automation, but still cost the energy for fertilizer, tractors, transport, transformation), for shelter, etc. and pay for healthcare.
I am not sure if the gov lose 80% of its tax collection, it could sustain the population basic needs.
> Meanwhile you still need people to be doctors and nurses but not other things, so more people become doctors and nurses.
Not sure why we need doctors or nurses ? Doctors are mostly a sensor + decision tree... that speaks to the patient. I could see doctors and nurses to disappear eventually. It might take longer for robots to do surgery, but it should eventually come. So the cost should drop. Drugs manufacturing should be 100% automated too. Lab work automated.
> This drives down wages there, but that's fine when the doctors and nurses are also paying 80% less for everything. And at the lower wages you can justify more work to be done. More people do medical research, doctors get to spend more time with each patient, etc. Soon everyone has a job again. Let's even consider the hypothetical where that can't happen. There are 8 billion people and only a million jobs. No other jobs are possible, somehow. How much are those million people going to get paid? Peanuts, because like everyone else they'd have negligible living expenses and they'd be in competition with 8 billion people for who would be willing to do it for the least amount of compensation. Their payment would be something like bragging rights, or all the slots would be filled by volunteers. But in practice we would never "run out" of jobs because the supply curve always intersects with the demand curve somewhere. If demand goes down then price goes down because there is higher demand at the lower price.
I guess the disconnect, for me the end of spectrum, is that all the products and services could eventually be 100% automated without human in the loop, expect for consuming the products/services. Those 100% automated product manufacturing or services, would cost energy (electricity basically) and raw material (arguably free, just need to pick it up on the ground using some energy). So, one machine would build everything and all services, with just energy as input. If energy is not free, then products and services would cost something. How people pay for product and services ?
I am wondering if we are touching on a human biological limitation. Human are adaptable and flexible, but there is a limit to that flexibility. Some sort of biological limit on how fast we can turn around.
The technology acceleration is increasing, and I am wondering if there would be a point where the technology would evolve faster than what human biology can comprehend.
1,000 years ago, anyone could pretty much build or fix the current technology (anyone could fix a cart). 50 years ago, a majority of people could build or fix the current technology (e.g. most could fix a car). this year, a limited number of people can build or fix the current technology (e.g. how many people can fix a self driving car?) 10 years from now, a very limited number of people if any could build or fix the current technology (e.g. explain how is AI doing this thing?)
If AI evolves at the same pace, and replacing labor (robots) and services (AI), I am not sure that human would turn around? How do you think we can turn things around ?
Education ? but we are reaching the limit already of how much technology we can teach in a student lifetime. Now we could argue, that one does not need a PhD in computer science to use AI, but eventually do we even need someone to use AI ? Would AI be cheap and pervasive enough that AI would drive AI would drive AI... why would you add a 20W analog brain in the loop ?
What activity would require human involvement ? Genuinely curious how the technology acceleration in general and AI in particular would affect the economy.
Yes, it took some time to go from manual/animal labor (energy used is food) to mechanical labor (mostly oil energy). And oil is more energy dense than food, and tractors are more powerful than horses. And bonus points for the oil, it allowed to build fertilizers to boost productivity per acre. So, yes eventually we just need 2% to do what what 95% used to do in farming.
AI is promising to do the same but in virtually all industries (manufacturing, services, healthcare, etc.) and in a way shorten span.
Work used to be labor (human/animal) fueled by energy (food) + intelligence (human) fueled by energy (food), then labor (machine) fueled by energy (oil/electricity) + intelligence (AI) fueled by energy (electricity).
IF work is mostly done by AI/machines fueled by energy. Then work's price is mostly a function of energy price (assuming materials can be extracted/transported/transformed is also a function of energy).
If energy becomes abundant and cheap, then there is no reasons to not let AI do the work.
But then what happens to the rest of us, how the economy keeps humming ?
If AI is so good that it can replace health and retirement care, then the price should fall to.
But basically, we would end up with AI and dark factories building gizmos to sustain and entertain humans and fixing them until they die.
I guess taxes at this point are irrelevant, AI could build new factories of factories, money would be useless.
We would need to find a way to give money to people so they can keep participating in the economy even though everything is cheap. If not UBI, we would need to find ways for the majority to do something that is not automated, and give them some coins in exchange.
For millennia the currency has been energy (human labor, then machines) and intelligence (human intelligence, then artificial intelligence). If energy and intelligence price goes down, and the amount of energy and intelligence increases, then what is left for humans to claim some reward/coins ?
Well, you still have to pay for the energy (to extract raw material and transform it into final product, and move final product into your hands). So unless we assume energy cost is 0 and raw materials are not scarce, the final product has a cost, and a price, now my understanding is that if everyone uses dark factories, the margin would go down, and so the gain per "company" would drop too, hence the limited tax base.
My guess is from the 2 ends of the spectrum that you listed, we are moving from "there is still work you need people to do, and then they do that, and still have jobs." to "we automate everything". And as we move to the "we automate everything" end of the spectrum, the number of jobs lost would increase, the taxes collected (VAT, income, capital gain, etc.) would decrease (assuming the current tax system) and yet people (employed or not) would still education, health care, social security (retirement).
If we do not change how we tax things, I do not see how we would sustain a society where the majority is materially (gizmos) rich, but financially poor (no job, no retirement, no social security, no education).
While dark factories keep producing high volume of gizmos for next to nothing...
I am curious how we can manage that transition, which I believe could happen way faster than politicians can move.