Last time I used the Windows version it pegged all my cores at 100% usage for some reason. The machine became unusable. Instead I used Codex with JetBrains Rider (doing a C# project) and it worked flawlessly.
Everything everyone is predicting has almost zero value. Nobody owns a crystal ball. Right now there could be someone working in a garage somewhere that could shake the entire LLM world to the core with a unique insight and innovation.
Think about the world before the 2017 "Attention Is All You Need" paper.
Did anyone predict that paper, what preceded and followed it?
Nope.
Same case now.
Maybe the word "prediction" is the problem; "guessing" would be better.
OK, what the heck. I'll make a prediction too:
You better buy SpaceX stock now. The way things are going in the US, the only way we build AI data centers at scale will be in space. Politicians have turned data centers into punching bags to be used to gain votes. We can't build power plants and people are being led to believe all kinds of things. Regardless of which, if any, are true or not, the rate of construction of AI data centers in the US is and will be seriously constrained by realities on the ground.
Have you chatted with Ai about the economics of space vs terrestrial?
Even if you believe they can get cost to launch 1KG down to 100 bucks... (current falcon heavy is $1550) you still have the problem with all those solar panels.
1GW of space AI requires... 1 GW of solar to power it.
Current manufacturers of space solar is 1-2 MW &.. space solar aint cheap. $100 per watt. They estimate each spacex will be 250 kW. So.. $25M just for the solar for each satellite. Yeah you can use less efficient / cheaper solar, but then your weight goes up.
Also... Ground AI datacenters haven't nailed down how quickly GPUs depreciate. Accountants claim 6 years while CRWV says it's longer and most realists say it's shorter. It's based on how quickly GPUs will improve. Which is QUICKLY.
In space you'll have to depreciate GPU, all supporting hardware including the satellite, electronics, solar panels, and launch costs. On the ground it's just the GPU & you can even sell the old one down.
ground based AI needs power. $FRVO is an interesting ticker if you believe in their technology. Just announced a deal with google yesterday.
It isn't going to be easy, of course. Yet, I do believe they will make it work.
One correction: SpaceX makes their own solar arrays. The cost is nowhere near what you quoted. Source: I worked for SpaceX for a few years.
Also, you can generate a lot more power in space per unit area due to not having the limitations created by our atmosphere and weather. It's continuous generation at 30 to 40 percent higher per-unit-area radiation. Generation on earth is roughly an inverted parabola (on a good day without clouds and weather) that, at best, if you integrate the area under the power curve, delivers 66% of the total equivalent energy say, a nuclear reactor, could deliver during the same period. So, once you increase radiation from about 1,000 W/m2 (impossible to achieve on earth due to weather and other realities) to 1,400 W/m2, 24/7, no weather, etc. The scenario quickly becomes vastly different.
Geothermal is very interesting, thanks for the ticker, I'll look into it.
All that said, I think the US (and Europe, if they care to survive) needs to have, as a top national priority, a massive program for the construction of nuclear power plants.
A few years ago, I ran through an analysis of power generation needs to convert our entire fleet of vehicles to electric power. That required at least doubling our power generation capacity. This was the equivalent of having to build 1,200 nuclear power plants, each producing 1 GW 24/7.
This is impossible to achieve with solar, or wind, or the combination.
So, even if we decide not to care one bit about AI data centers, we need to double our power generation capacity (and infrastructure to deliver it).
Add AI data centers to that equation and the number could easily climb another 600 nuclear power plants.
Here's the problem that a naïve conversation with an LLM will not uncover: Humanity and Politics.
Could we embark on such a massive energy-generation project? Yes, absolutely.
Is it realistic? Nope. Not even close.
In other words, we can do it but it is impossible...which sounds like an oxymoron until you consider that we have lots of examples of projects that are absolutely plausible that, once they contact political and government reality, quickly become impossible. The best-worst example I always grab is the California high speed train disaster.
No, not really. I know what you are trying to say, and I fully agree. We need to stop using "democracy" or "democratizing".
Democracy, in it's purest form, is about mob rule --majority rule, if you want to say it in a softer/kinder way. "Democratizing" means giving a mob control of the thing, it does not mean making it accessible to all at all.
Democracy is not about mob rule, it's about a dialog. Sure, sometimes it becomes heated argumentation and noise, but it's not so much about "ruling". Lincoln in his union address in 1860 said: "I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas."
"Democratization" in a sense is about making things accessible for discussions. "Dictatorship" is the opposing term - things get "dictated" by a single entity - person, political force or a corporation.
> Democracy is not about mob rule, it's about a dialog.
No my friend, Democracy is majority rule, which easily turns into a ruling mob. It has nothing whatsoever to do with dialog.
Also, your quote of Lincoln's address is taken completely out of context. He was talking about his opposition of the ideas of a faction of Democrats who were in favor of slavery and his support of the majority of Republicans who believed slavery was a moral, social, and political evil.
In other words, take the time to at least do some research before you try to use quotes in support of a failed conclusion.
Did you read the Greeks in school? Probably not. I recommend Plato's Republic. Both he and Socrates talked about the flaws of direct/pure democracy that would usually make it degenerate into mob rule.
In Republic Plato developed a hierarchy:
Aristocracy: Rule by the wise (my comment: a fantasy)
Timocracy: Rule by the honorable (my comment: another fantasy)
Oligarchy: Rule by the rich (my comment: a reality in many societies)
Democracy: Rule by the masses (my comment: glad we don't have this)
Tyranny: Rule by a despot (my comment: plenty of examples of this in history)
It took until the late 1700's for the idea of a representative democracy to actually take hold, with Alexander Hamilton being credited with the terminology.
So, "democratizing" means letting the masses have their way. It does not mean making things accessible to everyone, which is the hilariously or tragically ignorant way in which Silicon Valley tries to use the term. You see startups all the time say "we are democratizing <X>". Just how stupid are these people? They are saying we are going to let the mob have access and benefit from <X> not making it available to everyone.
In the context of Plato’s political philosophy the modern, casual use of the word "democratizing" completely ignores the historical and philosophical baggage of the root word democracy.
The irony is that modern society uses "democratize" as an undisputed positive term (meaning liberation and fairness), while the very philosophers who birthed western political thought used "democracy" as a warning label for instability and lawlessness.
A better term for what startups want to say would be "commoditizing": turning a specialized, elite resource into a public good or a widely available commodity; not "democratizing", which is an ignorant use of a term that means almost exactly the opposite.
I guess classical education has not been a part of schooling for quite some time. As a kid I did not necessarily enjoy reading the Great Books. As an adult, I can see how much damage has been caused by the abandonment of such valuable teachings.
Exactly, words do not carry their root's connotations as a permanent tax. 'idiot' used to mean "a layman, someone not holding office or lacking skill', or "a person not interested in politics"; 'nice' comes from Latin 'nescius', which meant "ignorant"; 'cretin' meant "Christian".
Democracy is not mob rule, and the Greeks agreed. They had a separate word for mob rule: 'ochlocracy'. Having two words means the Greeks did not treat them as identical. Plato and Aristotle argued democracy tends toward it, but they still have not treated it for a definition.
Bringing Plato here is kind of weird: The Republic is an anti-democratic aristocrat's argument, written by a man whose teacher was executed by an Athenian jury. Plato was born into the Athenian elite. His mother's family gave Athens tyrants whose regime killed something like 2000 citizens in less than a year. Plato initially was invited to join, he considered it, and pulled back when he saw what they did. He was part of anti-democratic coup. Citing him here for the word definition, is like citing Marx for the only definition of 'capitalism' - not exactly inaccurate, and might be even exactly correct, yet the context and connotation still matters - Plato took neutral-to-positive word and gave it a hostile reading, while Marx haven't even talked about 'capitalism' (he had "kapitalistische produktionsweise"), the actual term as we know it was popularized later.
'democracy' aside, "make accessible to all" is a long-established dictionary sense of 'democratize', it was never a Silicon Valley invention. And you're right - "representative democracy" only took hold in the late 1700s. The term's meaning moved after Plato. If democracy could shift from Plato's warning label to a thing Hamilton endorsed, 'democratize' could shift too.
I implore you, good sire (@robomartin), to unsaddle your high horse and let the language take its course - if people and times decide to give words different meaning, it most likely will happen anyway.
> Democracy, in it's purest form, is about mob rule --majority rule, if you want to say it in a softer/kinder way.
You're just parroting an old urban myth.
The terminus technicus for mob rule is ochlocracy [1]; democracy, per se, includes minority protections (i. e. if it doesn't then it isn't a democracy to begin with).
>democracy, per se, includes minority protections (i. e. if it doesn't then it isn't a democracy to begin with).
Democracy has nothing to do with minority protections. I don't understand you can say it per se includes minority protections. Democracy includes whatever enough people think it should include. If people don't want such protections then there is no need for them.
If a democratic society does not want to live side by side violent murderers and thugs they can agree on ways to deal with that minority group like killing them or imprisoning them.
> Democracy has nothing to do with minority protections. [...] Democracy includes whatever enough people [italized by me] think it should include. If people don't want such protections then there is no need for them.
You just proved my point by demonstrating your utter ignorance of the topic: Your three sentences encapsulate the textbook definition of ochlocracy (or laocracy), i. e. mob rule. Which, as already outlined, is not democracy.
I suggest you read some authoritative and up-to-date texts on democracy before embarassing yourself again.
>Your three sentences encapsulate the textbook definition of ochlocracy (or laocracy)
The textbook definition of ochlocracy is a small group of people taking justice into their own hands. That is not what I described in my post where I explained how they can come up with rules and processes and how to deal with things as opposed to having a mob deal with it.
> The textbook definition of ochlocracy is a small group of people taking justice into their own hands.
No, that's not the textbook definition.
That exchange has sadly run its course for me for I have no interest in reading tedious counterfactual clichés, especially not ones outside the scope of the thread's actual topic. One can only hope you embark on that suggested reading journey to better understand the emergence and evolution of (modern) democracy.
No thank you. I will not be reading about what I already understand. If you want to believe a different set of definitions feel free, but you will find that you are overcomplicating simple concepts.
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it.
From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt:
We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --for whatever reason; it does not have to be political-- do not agree with. Further imagine that the restrictions are different for each product, creating a virtual mine field of sorts.
Now imagine that every supplier adopts this philosophy over time; hardware, software, tools, components, fabricators, contractors, consultants, etc.
Well, very soon you will have to conclude that the only job you will be able to do is drive for Uber, if that.
The DoD/DoW is massive and massively multidisciplinary. They simply cannot afford to have vendors create no-go mine fields for them. It quickly becomes an unmanageable pain in the ass.
So, yeah, under those circumstances, I would not touch Anthropic with a ten foot pole duct-taped to another ten foot pole. It simply would not be a reasonable decision to work with them.
It's entirely reasonable for the USG to say "we don't want to use a product with guardrails". Plenty of people have gotten annoyed with Fable and done exactly that!
But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.
> But to prohibit anyone else from using it is a much bigger and more questionable step.
What do you mean? You and I are not prohibited from using Anthropic products unless we do work for DoD/DoW that collides with their usage restrictions.
If Domino's Pizza offered to deliver pizza to the Pentagon but declined in their terms of service to deliver pizza-box-shaped packages to Tehran, do you think it would be a fair and proportionate response for the DoD to ban anyone in the defense supply chain from ever ordering pizza from Domino's?
Every single person I've seen trying to defend the government's actions in this case has carefully elided the difference between "not awarding them a contract" (which would've been fine) and "using the law to try and destroy their business". The fact that almost nobody on the government's side has actually spoken honestly about the facts of the case makes it pretty obvious who is in the right and wrong here.
It is a security risk. That's the problem you create if you allow every single vendor from imposing their own rules. The contracts are not awarded because doing so would create a security risk.
I don't know what analogy would drive the point home. Imagine a password management system where the people running the company have an ideology that leads them to believe that their system should not allow anyone to secure anything used in military applications. Well, that's a security risk. And no contracts should be granted. Cause and effect. There's no confusion here.
OK. I'm imagining such a password management system. I don't see why it makes sense for the government to ban Microsoft from using that company's password management system for Minecraft, just because Microsoft also happens to sell Microsoft Office to the DoD.
Years ago I used PostgreSQL under Django to drive an industrial test and inspection robotic cell (which I also designed and built) at a major technology company. It worked very well. PostgreSQL maintained machine state, path planning, sensor readings, faults, operator input, etc.
I wanted to see how far I could push that toolset. It worked surprisingly well. Django's capabilities meant such things as multi-user login pages, access controls and remote monitoring were very easy.
> 2 bare-metals with Linux, Postgres, HAProxy and PHP (or Python/Django) work perfectly fine for 99% of apps that businesses need.
I agree. Simple and effective.
I would add a third small machine to give HAProxy a third vote. The problem with only two machines is that, if communications between them fail, you don't want both believing the other died and doing the wrong thing. You could use that third machine for Postgres backups, which would be smart because Postgress replication is not the same as backup.
> I am still a firm believer in garbage in -> garbage out, AI is only as good as the abstractions and contracts you put in place for it.
Absolutely on point. I just completed the port of a industrial application written in Python using a sophisticated console-based UI to C# and Avalonia UI. This is my second major coding project using Codex.
The one salient element of the experience has been that, as I keep saying to anyone who will listen, AI still does not understand anything it is doing. It presents an amazing simulation of it, but, no, it does not.
Here's a simple example: The original application had a clean communications protocol implementation. A single file with a class that implemented every single command you could have the industrial controller issue to the hardware. Codex was explicitly told to replicate that in C#. It did, at first, but then it started to duplicate command processor code in the individual functional blocks throughout the application. Which means that, when a bug surfaced, you had to fix it in five different places.
Another example: The application has a highly customized table view. Once again, it was told to make that a component to reuse throughout the application. It did, at first, and then weird bugs started to surface that made it clear that it had reimplemented the table control in different areas of the application.
If you don't know what you are doing you will probably not pick-up or even care about some of these things. It is easier to whack-a-mole bugs with AI than to worry about code structure, efficiency, maintainability, future-proofing, scalability, etc.
I purposely decided not to look or touch a single line of code during this project to see what's possible and where the issues might be. I learned a lot and continue to learn. I think the next step is some sort of an agentic approach, maybe using OpenClaw (or whatever, I don't really know right now) to create a team with coding, supervisory and testing agents.
While the project got done significantly faster than it would have without AI (four weeks instead of probably 4 to 6 months), the process was just as intense as coding, just operating at a different level, micromanaging architecture and implementation.
It's one thing to be a free user...quite another to be an entitled free user.
This is precisely why I do not offer anything for free. I've been there and done it back in the iPhone 3 era with a dozen apps. Learned my lesson quickly. Never again. It was a nightmare. If the product isn't good enough for someone to pay for it (that could be direct user-paid or advertiser supported) it should not exist.
If your free tier is marketed as a free tier but really it's just "your first hit is free" like your crack dealer's marketing, then it's a fraud on the user, a scam to get you hooked and paying. I am not an entitled user for thinking a free tier designed to provide half the answer and make me pay for the second half is a scam from an evil corporation and to call that out.
Also, it is intended to be supported by ads, so it fits your ideal product description quite well despite being a scam.
> "your first hit is free" like your crack dealer's marketing
Oh, please.
Don't use it then. Simple.
Sign of entitlement: You get something of value for free, bitch about limitations and make-up bogus reasons to continue using the product without paying.
If it is of value, use it and pay for it. If it isn't, do not use it and you have nothing to worry about. You are bitching about having access to untold billions of dollars of infrastructure and a massive amount of work from people who have lives and families FOR FREE. Get a grip dude.
I use it for work, extensively, and I gladly pay for the services from a number of AI providers. I would gladly pay double. It's the no-brainer of the century: I can do months of work in weeks or less for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per month.
I was talking to someone the other day who shares their Netflix account for four other families. Same thing, although, in this case, it's not entitlement, it's theft.
They are both versions of the tragedy of the commons in various ways.
Most of the stuff I use is free and excellent. Linux, Firefox, libreoffice, xcp-ng, bottles, steam, playnite, opnsense, docker, dockhand, immich, freshrss, obsidian, tailscale, calibre, caddy, docker, pi-hole, signal, audiobookshelf I could probably keep going for a long while. I'm very glad most good software creators I've come across do not have your mindset.
None of these things are free my friend. They probably represent tens of billions of dollars in development over years, decades in some cases.
You are missing the point entirely. Let's just take one: LibreOffice. This was a FOSS project from the very start. It is intended to be used as you use it. Even then, bitching about functionality and features would be entitled. In that case, if you don't like it, stop using it or participate in the development...for free, donating your time.
ChatGPT is NOT a free product. Yes, they have a free tier. And that's fantastic. We've all used it. But this is not a FOSS company. Bitching about their free tier isn't right. Again, that's being entitled. Why do they owe you more than they are giving you? They do not. If you want more, pay for it.
Or, you could buy a bunch of powerful computers and run an open weights model on your own hardware and have free intelligence to use as much as you want.
Oh, wait, that wouldn't be free, would it? You'd have to pay thousands for the hardware.
OK, wait, how about you do that and I use your self-hosted LLM's for free and then bitch about the lack of performance.
Yup. Entitlement. Always a reason for other people to owe the entitled and never a reason for the entitled to owe them anything. And this goes way beyond what we are talking about here, far and wide.
> I'm very glad most good software creators I've come across do not have your mindset.
Here's something else you do not understand. FOSS isn't free to create, not even close. Take something like Linux. I would be comfortable estimating that Linux has probably a development cost in the one-hundred billion dollar range. I would not be surprised if was way more than that. The massive number of people who worked on Linux over the decades have lives, families, homes, responsibilities, etc. The only way Linux happened is because they are otherwise employed and donate their time (with is fantastic, I did a lot of of that when I was younger, had time and less responsibilities) or someone is explicitly paying for them to work on Linux because of the benefits they might derive from it. The only "free" part about FOSS is that users of the software don't pay for it. Don't confuse that with all software having to function this way. Like I said, OpenAI is a business. It isn't your personal charity. If you want more, pay for it.
I have not paid a single cent for any of them. Many of them I'm even free to change it however I like and even release my version as a fork.
>Even then, bitching about functionality and features would be entitled.
If you think Linux or ANY of the software I listed would be nearly as good without users "bitching" I have several bridges to sell you. The alternative is to pay a whole bunch of people to test every aspect of the software to find bugs, missing features, minor UI quirks that could be tightened, etc. FOSS only works because of us "entitled" people writing git issues or contributing code when we know how to fix the issue.
Relevant. Star Trek is a post-scarcity society where people invent and create solely for the betterment of humanity. You know what else isn't "free" to create? Game mods. Yet I can go out there right now and download several hundred mods for any game that can be modded for free and most times without even a way to possibly pay the creator. I've also spent 100s of hours of my own time creating mods / helping communities on discord or reddit despite there never being a possible financial gain. I genuinely wonder what the software world / internet would be like if everyone were in it only if their time were compensated with money. Horrible place. We wouldn't be having this conversation right here right now that's for sure.
> America, the place where they will try anything except for building good public transportation, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.
This isn't a movie. It's real life. In the movies, sure, you can have a wizard reshape entire cities, power distribution, roads, sewers, potable water production and deliver, move entire neighborhoods kilometers away, move businesses, factories, airports, etc.
In the real world, once a city is well established, while your ideas might be commendable, they are simply not realizable. It's a fantasy. It will not happen. And this isn't because we are some kind of a horrible society who do not want these things. It's because reality. Nothing less. Nothing more.
The other reality is that we can't build anything here any more. My favorite thing to point to is the California high speed train project. I think it has been over a decade now and at least 10x over what they promised it was going to cost. I don't think we have a single mile of usable track built, much less moving trains.
The other one is the Los Angeles International airport's automated people mover (SkyLink) which is indefinitely delayed and $1 billion over budget. The project started in 2019...and we are still waiting for it to be usable. Oh, and it's just 2.25 miles of low speed overhead monorail (I think) track like they have in Las Vegas (might be a different design).
So, like I said, I love your ideas, but, in the real world, they are fantasy. Sorry.
You say it can't be done, but it's literally happened several times before. The most recent being when we built all these urban highways.
It turns out you don't actually need to tear up sewers and electrical infrastructure to run bus routes. Who knew. Density can change when you change zoning laws.
Busses. I rode on a public bus once while visiting Columbus Ohio.
I knew a bus ride was in my future and I'd not done that before, so I asked questions of the various people I know who live there.
Not one of them had ever had a ride on the bus in the city they call home, or knew how the bus worked, and all of them made a point of telling me that they were sure that it would be filthy and awful somehow.
The COTA website didn't set clear expectations for a new rider and wasn't very helpful.
I eventually posted on the local subreddit asking for direction, and got exactly 1 useful response out of many non-useful responses.
I don't know if it's just a Columbus thing or what, but it seems clear from this experience that folks there hate the bus. Is there a place in the US where they're appreciated?
(Anyway, other than having to walk mile or so to get from the airport to the nearest bus stop because WTF, things went perfectly fine. I had a great chat with some random dude who was waiting a different bus. My bus showed up exactly when Google Maps predicted, I had exact change ready, and the transfer ticket for the next bus on my route was easy to deal with. They were clean, comfortable-enough, and I was the only rider.)
Your experience isn't uncommon. Lots of cities in the US have pretty limited transit, and a lot of the people in those cities don't use it. It's usually seen as a last resort kind of thing for those who can't get private transportation, as opposed to just yet another option.
It seems that Columbus has one today, but they didn't back when I needed it in 2021 or so.
(Need is relative, I suppose. I don't mind walking and I pack light; I was able to spend a couple of weeks out of town with a backpack that counts as just a personal item; getting to the bus stop wasn't a big deal for me.)
> The most recent being when we built all these urban highways.
What? Clarify please, because if you are going back to the 1950's/60's/70's you are talking about a very different country. Today all all of that you are talking about would solidly fit in the "fantasy" category.
You must not be from Los Angeles. Come drive our highways for a few months. I've had better experiences in third world countries.
> to run bus routes
That only works in certain locations and do absolutely nothing for the largest sources of traffic. Nothing.
Just like carpool lanes, which area massive joke on us: nobody carpools to use those lanes, so the traffic reduction they deliver, expressed as a percentage and rounded to the nearest integer is, zero.
The US, in general, was not built for the kind of mass transport Europeans are used to. And that will never happen here. In the US, self-driving cars will be our solution to the problem. Give it about ten years and we are really going to start to see adoption and the benefits of it. In a sense, virtual mass transit using existing infrastructure. That might work, slowly, but it could work.
In ten years I hope that the only human-drivable cars I will own will be my race cars, which get towed to the track. Everything else should be electric and self-driving to a large extent.
Oh, yes, and I want to ride a Joby multicopter hailed using Uber to go to the major airports from local verti-ports. Driving in Los Angeles absolutely sucks.
> Oh, yes, and I want to ride a Joby multicopter hailed using Uber to go to the major airports from local verti-ports.
And you think I live in fantasy land.
> if you are going back to the 1950's/60's/70's you are talking about a very different country.
So in just a few decades we managed to radically change the way people moved and lived. Which was an extremely radical change from how everyone lived and moved just a few decades before that. And yet somehow that's just impossible to ever happen again.
It seems like if we have the political will to change how we move, we can change how we move at least on the scale of a few decades. It wouldn't happen overnight, I agree, but it's not like it couldn't ever happen.
> Everything else should be electric and self-driving to a large extent.
This ultimately doesn't really deal with some of the big immediate and local issues though in crowded urban environments: traffic (due to low density of vehicle utilization) and land use/parking. We still end up sacrificing massive expensive public spaces for parking, we still end up with massive traffic issues with the amount of road space required per traveler, etc.
I've lived in some of the most sprawly places in the country, trust me I know it's not entirely just "buy busses and it'll figure itself out". But things can change, and judging by history things will change. The way people move, live, and work in a lot of the US will probably be pretty different in 30-40 years than what it looks like today. Things already look different today than what they did 20 years ago for a lot of metro areas.
> So in just a few decades we managed to radically change the way people moved and lived. Which was an extremely radical change from how everyone lived and moved just a few decades before that. And yet somehow that's just impossible to ever happen again.
You must be a software guy. Moving atoms is very different from typing words into this textbox. Also, in the US, the 1950's to 1970's was a very, very different time. That was probably the peak of our industrialization phase. You had millions of men who came back from WW2 ready to work all kinds of jobs, an industrial based that had exploded due to WW2, massive entrepreneurial drive at every level and the ability to get shit done without the nonsense that kill even the most basic projects today.
Yes, a few decades can change things radically. In the decades since the period you use as the reference for this fantasy the US, Europe and other nations have deindustrialized to an alarming degree and China has become the world's factory. We make nothing here. To be able to to things you have to make things. On top of that, our political system has welcomed bat-shit-crazy ideologies, like the current push for down-right socialism/communism who's only recorded history is the destruction of nations.
So, yeah, yours is a fantasy. This is not the United States of the 1950's, 1960's or 1970's, not by a large margin.
To understand things at this level you need contact with reality. I've you've never tried to get a non-trivial project done in the real world, moving atoms, not bit, I can see how waving a magical wand and thinking we can do what was done five to seven decades ago might be possible. It is not. I've been in manufacturing my entire life. I assure you this is not the 1950's.
> This ultimately doesn't really deal with some of the big immediate and local issues though in crowded urban environments
Sure, but that's a different problem, isn't it? What we can change --over time-- is the relationship between where people work and where they live. If you take the greater Los Angeles area, the massive concentration of job centers in centralized "hubs" as I call them is tragically destructive. You have people driving into these hubs from every possible angle and you end-up with shit like the 405 freeway being a parking lot all day, every day.
This isn't about public transportation. It's about politicians being politicians (which I use to mean: incompetent) wasting decades of valuable intelligent planning. In the town I live in they absolutely refuse to grant permits for the kinds of job magnets that would have people from this town work here. As a result, if you are unfortunate enough to not have found work in this area, you are eating a one to two hour commute every day.
So, if you want to solve the housing and congestion problem, you need a long term intelligent planning policy that will incentivize businesses to build in areas that will reverse some of the flows.
To use a company I am very familiar with, SpaceX, just look at where they are in Los Angeles. It's probably one of the worst locations one could choose. And like that, probably hundreds of large employers in that area and a few miles north, south, east and west. A good policy would have looked at the concentration and created intelligent plans to incentivize companies to find locations that would balance flows and spawn new housing developments surrounding these centers of employment.
Instead of doing that, what you end-up with over time are companies leaving for other states where they have more favorable financial climates as well as the ability to, in some cases, build what they need and where they need it.
Moving atoms isn't easy. Some things we can do. Others we cannot. Public mass transportation is not likely to be some thing that will take over the US. Exceptions here and there, sure. I've completed non-trivial construction projects that don't even begin to approximate the zoning and political complexity of the kinds of things you are talking about, and every single one of them has been an expensive nightmare purely because our system has devolved into something that prevents progress rather than encouraging it.
Note that I am not at all opposed to the image you paint. I have travelled and worked in European and Latin American cities where public transport is wonderful and love it. I am just being realistic about who we are and we can actually accomplish in the US. We can't build a single new nuclear (or whatever) power plant while China is building a hundred. That should tell you something.
This is a lot of words to ultimately agree with my core point. If we have the political will to do so, we can. It pretty much all boils down to that. If we don't have it, we can't do it.
I agree, in most parts of the US we do not currently have the political will. I agree, building things and changing minds often takes time.
But instead we've elected people who put people into power who thinks bike lanes are woke and need to be destroyed. So I guess it'll take a bit longer before we start making real progress on these issues.
You flying on that Joby tomorrow? I hear They've been saying their air taxi service is coming next year for so many years now and are only supposedly just now starting FAA testing. I wouldn't hold my breath for actual useful and anywhere near affordable service anytime soon.
> I agree, in most parts of the US we do not currently have the political will.
This isn't about political will. Politicians are whores, it doesn't matter what side, they respond to money and votes. This is worse than that, this is about people not being intelligent enough to vote with a view towards future benefits --decades away. Politicians buy votes by promising crap that the masses eat-up and never get. This nonsense is as old as time. This is precisely the kind of thing that destroyed nearly every nation in Latin America. And now idiot voters are pushing the US in the same direction with these bat-shit-crazy socialist/communist politicians gaining ground in various places. Americans will eventually learn, however, and sadly, this might require a few decades.
In that context, the whole mass transit conversation is so utterly insignificant it isn't even worth the bits we have wasted in this chat.
> bike lanes are woke
No, they are not woke, they are stupid...in certain cities. Some of the things I have seen are truly horrific. One of my own kids, who decided commuting to work on a bike was a good idea, nearly got killed twice. A year later he bought a car.
Once again, there's reality and fantasy. They are not the same.
>You flying on that Joby tomorrow?
If I could, absolutely. I've talked to people who would never get in a Waymo. I have, many times, also through Uber. Great experience. Progress.
> I hear They've been saying their air taxi service is coming next year for so many years now and are only supposedly just now starting FAA testing.
If you've never been involved in product development, manufacturing, testing and certification within a regulatory environment you don't have a real sense of just how hard and detailed these processes can be. Could it go faster? Sure. The point is, we probably don't really want them to in a case where safety is the top consideration. It will take as long as it will take.
> I wouldn't hold my breath for actual useful and anywhere near affordable service anytime soon.
Sure, but it will happen and affordability is relative. For example, it costs me $120 each way for an Uber to the airport that could take one to two hours to get there. If I drive my own car, I still get to eat two hours on the road and spend about $300 parking it at the airport. So, if I can buy a 30 minute Joby ride for $300 to $500 round trip, with Uber car pickup and drop-off included, sign me up!
Also, people use helicopters today and they are not at all cheap to fly. So this isn't like comparably-priced options are not out there. In fact, a Joby solution integrated into Uber is far more likely to democratize short-range air transport than anything else.
At what scale? As a non-trivial percentage of road traffic they can reduce congestion in a million different way. For example, predictive and cooperative route planning (you know what the road looks like 0 to N Km ahead and plan accordingly.
The other one is one of the most frustrating things humans do while driving: Slow down while going uphill. Where I live, except of accidents, this is probably the #1 source of traffic jams on the highway. I don't know what it is with some people (and it doesn't take but a few to cause a mess). Are they not paying attention? It's a chain reaction, once a few cars slow down, traffic coming up at speed log-jams behind them. And, of course, because in the US (or, at least, in CA) nobody has the courtesy to move over the right if they want to go slow, you easily end-up with 4 to 6 lanes of perfectly good highway absolutely jammed. Once over the crest every seems to drive like Max Verstappen. It's both tragic and hilarious to observe.
So, yeah, self-driving cars --at scale-- can absolutely reduce congestion by driving far more intelligently than most humans do.
That said, at a scale that approximates a rounding error they probably can't materially affect traffic.
You're not factoring in the unused capacity of a regular car parked on the street or in a garage versus being in service of delivering transportation value..
The point of this idea is that housing is expensive to build and one way to significantly reduce that cost is by eliminating parking. Add to the cost of car ownership and the cost of living is substantially higher.
Most people still will need a car to get around. Bus rail and carpooling are not real solutions for most people in urban USA cities. Some feel offended by this notion, but it's reality.
I imagine that the concept of cities leasing waymos and being able to allocate them around to particular nodes will increase the avg. passenger capacity as well, because it can be modeled and tracked to figure out where the nodes need to be to create an effective network with high utilization.
But yes, traffic is indeed an impact.
The government can also lease vehicles with more capacity, like mini-busses if that's the policy objective. Doesn't have to be cars. The government would be in the driver's seat to drive this driverless policy as well, no pun intended
An unused car parked isn't causing traffic jams on the highway. It's irrelevant to my comment that AVs increase traffic, not decrease traffic. I agree reducing parking needs is a benefit to AVs, but arguing it will reduce congestion is ignoring extremely basic traffic concepts.
You've got more vehicles on the road driving to move the same number of people. What does that do to traffic??
The actual savings are minimal at best, as demand for cars is all about peak, and how the peak travels typically in similar directions. You see this in trains. In downtown SF, you will find trains parked near the stadium all day, because there is no,practical use for them 9p% of the day. Most of the fleet is idle most of the day, and it would not be any better if it's a self driving car. You'd have a much better chance if trips were random, but they absolutely aren't.
The nodes have been calculated and modeled, the gains round to zero. What you get instead is higher demand for moving around in cars, because it's now cheaper and less annoying. Lower prices increase demand, therefore more congestion, not less. This component obliterates said minor savings from earlier in any reasonable model.
> Moving the same number of people with fewer passengers per car increases traffic.
The overwhelming majority --overwhelming-- of cars, SUV's and trucks on the road have exactly one passenger, including the guy commuting to his office job in an F-250.
You're right, but that still puts the minimum at 1. Even with the many, many vehicles with single passengers as 1, the average is still always higher than 1.
An autonomous vehicle doing a deadhead drive has a passenger count of 0.
0 < 1. You start tossing in a lot of miles with 0 in there on top of the vast majority of your trips being 1, and suddenly now you're less than the cars you're theoretically replacing.
A lot of these AVs at the moment at least are still roughly minivan/midsize SUV. On top of that, with safe distances adding another foot of the car to a highway scenario really doesn't increase the percentage of the total space that much. You need a lot of follow space ahead/behind the vehicle.
Maybe if they were like single person pods that teleported to their pickups and managed to group tightly together in packs on the road, but until then they're just another SUV on the road driving around sometimes with zero people in the car.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think single person AV pods would be amazing and is likely one version of the future. However, this kind of change takes time, a lot of time. AV or not, if you have to share the road with monster trucks being driven by humans who are too busy looking at pictures on their phones, well, you are going to eventually want to be in something at a similar scale. That's why interesting options like Smart cars never made it here.
Whatever this will become, it will be a matter of decades and a real modernization of our traffic laws and other infrastructure. I will not pretend to know what form that will take, my crystal ball stopped working a few decades back.
There are so many questions. Just looking at a place like Los Angeles, I regularly drive right next to massive trucks moving containers and all kinds of cargo. Can we be more intelligent about this? An automated cargo monorail operating down the middle of every highway? Sure, as an idea and a fantasy. In the real world you'll have to contend with myriad issues spanning a range between our inability to build anything anymore in this country with how you are going to deal with millions of people losing their jobs if you automate cargo transport and clear large trucks from the highways. Etc.
It's nice to have these visions about the future. What will actually happen is a different matter. I am placing my bet on self driving cars as the first practical phase of a transition into something more sensible that will likely require three to five decades. The equation is very simple: Atomos are expensive and hard to move. Conventional cars and trucks manufactured and purchased today are going to stay on the roads for at least a decade. A mass transition to a different paradigm is measured in units of decades after the last conventional vehicle is manufactured and sold. Hence my five decade estimate for transportation utopia.
I wonder what the logistics and costs look like having to maintain a fleet of single-seaters along with multi-seater vehicles. I realize a high percentage of rides are solo rides, but there's still like 20-30% of rides with >1 passenger. Is it really easier for the transit companies to manage multiple fleets of vehicles with various seating sizes? Is it actually a better experience for riders?
> An automated cargo monorail operating down the middle of every highway?
There's already cargo freight rail practically all across the country. Loads on trucks are on trucks because of the desired flexibility and point to point response time as opposed to having to load/unload rail.
Also, unless you're talking some really long distances, having rail in the middle of a highway doesn't always make much sense. You're not going to have the depots or stations in the middle of the highway after all. The train then needs to weave back and fourth across the highway to get to the places its routed to. Far better to just figure out its own right of way rather than stick it in the middle of a complicated place.
Yeah, all the people who refuse to ride busses to the point they're willing to spend many many thousands of dollars on their own cars are just yearning to carpool in a much more compact vehicle than a bus.
I know it's not popular in some circles to say it, but people (not just evil, rich racists) dislike riding the bus because of homeless people and other people who have little reason (or ability) to conform to social norms. I only saw one a couple altercations on the bus in my years riding it in Austin, but that's enough to get a lot of people to decide it's not worth it, especially women or people with kids.
We're not willing to enforce basic safety on buses, let alone other norms. If Waymo is willing to do that, that will make it available to many more people. Even just not having to wait at the bus stop before sunrise can be a game changer.
I drive track days with some frequency. When I am on the road I have to turn my brain down to slow and just let it happen. To be fair, you can't expect grandma to drive at a high level. What most people talking about congestion and traffic don't stop to think about is that the traffic you get is a function of the lowest common denominator. All you need is one small rock in a stream to disrupt it.
reply