When I toured NREC with my son as he was getting ready to attend CMU's engineering school, the program director said NREC focuses on "the 3d's, Dangerous, Dirty and Dull". They build the robots to do the things that people shouldn't or can't di with out putting them into grievous harm i.e spraying pesticides on thousands of acres of farmland (Deere), locating landmines (DOD), rescue robots (DARPA)... With the recent publication of science studies that say sitting for extended periods of time is one of the most dangerous things for your health, I'd say replacing taxi drivers falls into both the Dangerous and Dull categories.
America eats its seed corn.
Slim pickings next year.
Nothing left to plant.
Student crop fails.
Scant harvest.
America,
Alas!
Slim pickings next year.
Nothing left to plant.
Student crop fails.
Scant harvest.
America,
Alas!
2
Some of the previous comments notwithstanding, I don't think Uber is evil, but I do believe the real reason they want robots is to answer their drivers' emails. Uber is a fascinating phenomenon, which is changing the economic playing field as well as giving party going youth a safe, reliable and best of all, punctual way to get home. But they simply cannot keep up with the communications from their drivers on a daily basis, and so as drivers we receive canned responses that indicate a partial or "robotic" understanding of the question, comment or complaint.
It would be naive to expect a giant company run by thirty somethings to be concerned with the people who actually do the grunt work for their billion dollar operation, just as it seems futile to expect twenty something (and younger) riders to consider that their Uber driver isn't a robot- i.e. making them wait interminably, canceling rides on a whim, and purposely under-scoring hard working drivers.
If Uber does start to use robot drivers they'll appease these younger riders and cut out the middle man entirely- sadly, that is the American way.
It would be naive to expect a giant company run by thirty somethings to be concerned with the people who actually do the grunt work for their billion dollar operation, just as it seems futile to expect twenty something (and younger) riders to consider that their Uber driver isn't a robot- i.e. making them wait interminably, canceling rides on a whim, and purposely under-scoring hard working drivers.
If Uber does start to use robot drivers they'll appease these younger riders and cut out the middle man entirely- sadly, that is the American way.
The article mentioned two things that academic research doesn't have, compared to industry:
1. About 20-50% of the salary as industry (excluding share options in industry)
2. Ability to put things into practice
But there are two more:
3. Funding that doesn't have to be applied for (researchers in academia spend 50% of their time getting funding.)
4. Funding that is reliable (if your money runs out and you don't have any more, then there's nothing you can do.)
Those last two are actually what is dissuading academic researchers. Academics are idealistic and curious, so they can do with less money and they don't necessarily need to see their things built. But they really just want to do research, so all the funding applications and anxiety about future funding are what academics hate and what makes industry attractive in comparison.
1. About 20-50% of the salary as industry (excluding share options in industry)
2. Ability to put things into practice
But there are two more:
3. Funding that doesn't have to be applied for (researchers in academia spend 50% of their time getting funding.)
4. Funding that is reliable (if your money runs out and you don't have any more, then there's nothing you can do.)
Those last two are actually what is dissuading academic researchers. Academics are idealistic and curious, so they can do with less money and they don't necessarily need to see their things built. But they really just want to do research, so all the funding applications and anxiety about future funding are what academics hate and what makes industry attractive in comparison.
5
Being a resident in China, i've never heard of Uber until Late Night host Stephen Colbert recently interviewed the CEO of Uber... then i realized China's Didi is an exact reversed engineered copycat version of Uber dominating the market here...
like many state owned/backed corporations in the Mainland, they receive protectionist competitive advantage... it's why Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, among other heavyweights are blocked by their Great Firewall... while homegrown versions flourish...
eBay and Amazon are permitted to have scant online retail market presence... but crushed by the omnipresence of Jack Ma's Alibaba's Taobao/Tmall...
speaking of which, Alibaba and Tencent (China's Facebook/Twiiter equivalent in their Weixin app) are both backing and invested in DiDi, greatly enhancing Didi's reach via said social & retail platforms... Chinese live and breathe their Weixin social app.
Uber already has late market entry disadvantages, not enough connections in Beijing and the horizontal integration landscape, and out-funded by the heavily resourced local replicate in Didi and its backers.
though Uber is the original innovator, you're late in China... but if you insist... get ready to rent influential players in Beijing, if you gain access... though under President Xi Jinping's watch (aka corruption buster), that will be more challenging...
The Great Wall (of state controlled commercial interests) stand in the way as the ultimate barrier of market entry.
like many state owned/backed corporations in the Mainland, they receive protectionist competitive advantage... it's why Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, among other heavyweights are blocked by their Great Firewall... while homegrown versions flourish...
eBay and Amazon are permitted to have scant online retail market presence... but crushed by the omnipresence of Jack Ma's Alibaba's Taobao/Tmall...
speaking of which, Alibaba and Tencent (China's Facebook/Twiiter equivalent in their Weixin app) are both backing and invested in DiDi, greatly enhancing Didi's reach via said social & retail platforms... Chinese live and breathe their Weixin social app.
Uber already has late market entry disadvantages, not enough connections in Beijing and the horizontal integration landscape, and out-funded by the heavily resourced local replicate in Didi and its backers.
though Uber is the original innovator, you're late in China... but if you insist... get ready to rent influential players in Beijing, if you gain access... though under President Xi Jinping's watch (aka corruption buster), that will be more challenging...
The Great Wall (of state controlled commercial interests) stand in the way as the ultimate barrier of market entry.
4
Reading this article makes me thing how out of touch people really are to the concept of basic research.
The vast majority of true basic research in computer science is effectively applied mathematics. How do you define an heuristic alogorithm to become more efficient....Most of pure mathematics which defined this was defined over a century ago. None of the topics listed in the article should be thought of as pure research. Unfortuneately those fields see very little funding. How fancy does your local university mathematics department look when compared to the engineering department?
That does not mean that professors who are primarily funded by corporations and the corporations themselves want to think of it in that way. Would it sound good if a multi-billion dollar company gets tax rebates to support near minimum wage work (graduate students) to work on items so they do not have to pay their own workers? Better just to call it research.
Try taking any internet company who claim to fame is an algorithm or app (think google or facebook or Uber...) and trace back how the algorithm was made. Try going back a few hundred years to when the foundations were really set. Then trace who got what money for the end product. I think at that point people will start to understand why academia is becoming corporatized. It can only stop if universities, professors and scientists get funded by a centralized organization who is not looking for a profit. Wish that still existed.
The vast majority of true basic research in computer science is effectively applied mathematics. How do you define an heuristic alogorithm to become more efficient....Most of pure mathematics which defined this was defined over a century ago. None of the topics listed in the article should be thought of as pure research. Unfortuneately those fields see very little funding. How fancy does your local university mathematics department look when compared to the engineering department?
That does not mean that professors who are primarily funded by corporations and the corporations themselves want to think of it in that way. Would it sound good if a multi-billion dollar company gets tax rebates to support near minimum wage work (graduate students) to work on items so they do not have to pay their own workers? Better just to call it research.
Try taking any internet company who claim to fame is an algorithm or app (think google or facebook or Uber...) and trace back how the algorithm was made. Try going back a few hundred years to when the foundations were really set. Then trace who got what money for the end product. I think at that point people will start to understand why academia is becoming corporatized. It can only stop if universities, professors and scientists get funded by a centralized organization who is not looking for a profit. Wish that still existed.
4
When it happened, this was highly talked about in my grad department. But this is the best major-newspaper write up that I've seen.
One thing the article misses is the impact of sequestration and other austerity measures on NSF, university, and research budgets. Scarce and shrinking funding = a scary time to be an academic. It's also scary to think about the erosion in our scientific leadership due to the short-sightedness and anti-intellectualism of our political leaders. It's rather despicable.
As one example, take high energy physics and particle physics (not my fields). We probably would have discovered the Higgs Boson years ago, not to mention other potential important discoveries, had we not defunded the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993.
Take another example, NASA: NASA literally has projects that have been built but are just sitting in storage/warehouses because we don't fund them enough to actually launch the missions. If we properly funded NASA, we would put a man or Mars years sooner. And we might find life in the universe.
Science is important. And it needs more funding.
One thing the article misses is the impact of sequestration and other austerity measures on NSF, university, and research budgets. Scarce and shrinking funding = a scary time to be an academic. It's also scary to think about the erosion in our scientific leadership due to the short-sightedness and anti-intellectualism of our political leaders. It's rather despicable.
As one example, take high energy physics and particle physics (not my fields). We probably would have discovered the Higgs Boson years ago, not to mention other potential important discoveries, had we not defunded the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993.
Take another example, NASA: NASA literally has projects that have been built but are just sitting in storage/warehouses because we don't fund them enough to actually launch the missions. If we properly funded NASA, we would put a man or Mars years sooner. And we might find life in the universe.
Science is important. And it needs more funding.
5
I am happy for Uber that they are doing so well, and for the people they enable to get jobs driving for others, at their own schedule. Those who do the driving report to me that including car repairs they have trouble getting ends to meet, and should be classified as employees, and certainly the app should allow for tipping on the credit card like Lyft, but that is another issue. As for the concept of investing in driverless robot-controlled cars, Uber, Apple, Google, and anyone else investing in this insane dangerous concept should cut their losses while they still can. This is one of the most dangerous ideas I have ever heard of, in my life. So much of how people drive is based on interactions with other drivers, and robots can't do that! Also, they will cause many accidents by adhering to speed limits when it is safer not to do so. We must pass laws preventing this, and when I am President in 2017, I will do all I can to stop such lunacy from endangering all our lives, as well as all the spying these companies are doing on us too. We have a right to our privacy, and we have a right to travel the roads on cars controlled by people, not robots. Would you allow a robot to carry a loaded gun, uncontrolled by a human? A car is just as dangerous as a loaded gun, and lawmakers have no business allowing this, at all. Not everything that is technologically possible should be legal. These robots could kill or injure us all! They could also be hacked by murderers! No!
1
Get the facts right -- Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng *co-founded* Coursera. Just another case of giving more credit to a man than to a woman. If anything, Koller was the reason Coursera was founded (I was a student at Stanford when the seeds of the company were sowed and tested).
The question everyone seems to be sidestepping is, Are we witnessing the birthh-throes of a world where you're either a techie or a techie's employer? Is anyone interested in engineering a society where people other than techies and their employers do work for which they get paid.
In just a few years the vast majority of most of these kinds of jobs will be done by robots:
1. Construction work.
2. Manufacturing work.
3. Large scale agricultural work.
4. Retail work (includes ready-to-wear clothing, restaurant, and retail food work).
5. Health-care work.
6. Military combat.
What then?
In just a few years the vast majority of most of these kinds of jobs will be done by robots:
1. Construction work.
2. Manufacturing work.
3. Large scale agricultural work.
4. Retail work (includes ready-to-wear clothing, restaurant, and retail food work).
5. Health-care work.
6. Military combat.
What then?
1
I hope Uber treats these researchers and scientists better than its drivers.
1
I see a bizarre analogy here to college sports. But it hurts my head and my heart to pursue that idea. Perhaps someone else in this forum, more articulate than I, could pick up on this.
Thank god there was no Google before we put a man on the moon. Hedge Fund Science. My iPhone has yet to give me Ma Bell's sound quality;
2
"By offering private-sector salaries substantially higher than university equivalents (as well as a chance to earn equity in a fast-rising tech firm), Uber was able to acquire a hefty chunk of the center’s brain trust, including some top experts in autonomous vehicles."
How does the NYT suppose that these roboticicists will be able to earn equity in Uber? Uber has enough cash to offer above street salaries, and I doubt that a team in a newly developed pre-revenue division of Uber will be offered an equity stake in such a highly valued company. Can anyone comment as to whether equity options are extended at relatively late stage (and cash rich) tech startups to non-revenue generating divisions (besides medicine/pharma startups)?
How does the NYT suppose that these roboticicists will be able to earn equity in Uber? Uber has enough cash to offer above street salaries, and I doubt that a team in a newly developed pre-revenue division of Uber will be offered an equity stake in such a highly valued company. Can anyone comment as to whether equity options are extended at relatively late stage (and cash rich) tech startups to non-revenue generating divisions (besides medicine/pharma startups)?
1
I don't understand why some people think it is obscene for public funding of research to result in the creation of private companies. That is exactly what we DO want. It's should be the role of government to make long term INVESTMENTS that benefit the country and the private sector. We get into trouble with the opposite, governments going into deficit to fund short term spending.
Also, I would remind the readers that think there is no private funding of Universities that this article is talking about Carnegie Mellon University and Stanford. Go look up the names "Carnegie" and "Mellon" and "Stanford". The founders of these Universities that are keeping the USA at the forefront of technology were not government bureaucrats or ex-presidents.
Also, I would remind the readers that think there is no private funding of Universities that this article is talking about Carnegie Mellon University and Stanford. Go look up the names "Carnegie" and "Mellon" and "Stanford". The founders of these Universities that are keeping the USA at the forefront of technology were not government bureaucrats or ex-presidents.
1
Why is the sharing economy not as great as its believers claim, why is it so controversial, and what should and shouldn’t we do about it? See http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-sharing-economy-and-jobs-ii.....
"One example is the problem of ‘‘grasping.’’ Sure, wheeled robots can steer themselves through an Amazon shipping center pretty accurately; a self-driving car can trundle around San Francisco without running people over. But no robot can yet match the dexterity of a human hand. It can’t fluidly and confidently manipulate objects on a table — like picking up a coffee mug (assuming it can first identify it). "
Perhaps we can find some funding for the creative maker hands that already have fluidity hooked up to brains that recognize empathy, humor, love, passion, and educational skill sets that can provide relief solutions to so many of our problems beyond picking up the remote controller to the T.V. When will a robot deliver what innovative, intuitive brilliance Bert and Ernie has delivered? Funding the arts in working with what we have has gone by the wayside. So Uber or not, are you ready for the virtual vegetable life ahead? - countin flowers on the wall that dont bother me at all...now don't tell me - we've nothing to do...
Perhaps we can find some funding for the creative maker hands that already have fluidity hooked up to brains that recognize empathy, humor, love, passion, and educational skill sets that can provide relief solutions to so many of our problems beyond picking up the remote controller to the T.V. When will a robot deliver what innovative, intuitive brilliance Bert and Ernie has delivered? Funding the arts in working with what we have has gone by the wayside. So Uber or not, are you ready for the virtual vegetable life ahead? - countin flowers on the wall that dont bother me at all...now don't tell me - we've nothing to do...
"Carnegie Mellon’s CHIMP robot, assisted by the roboticist Prathamesh Kini, demonstrating its fine motor skills."
How many people will his efforts put out of work? Robotics and machine learning have the potential to completely hollow out our economy, leaving only the owners of capital to reap the benefits. I would like to see a NYT editorial that takes a more critical look at the effects of automation.
How many people will his efforts put out of work? Robotics and machine learning have the potential to completely hollow out our economy, leaving only the owners of capital to reap the benefits. I would like to see a NYT editorial that takes a more critical look at the effects of automation.
1
Carnegie Mellon reported $2.9 billion in assets in 2014. Academia has become a bit lazy by depending on the government to fund programs while underpaying graduate students, adjunct faculty, and other researchers.
If the universities are unwilling compete on salary, benefits, and facilities they will become less and less relevant to research and the talent will follow the money.
If the universities are unwilling compete on salary, benefits, and facilities they will become less and less relevant to research and the talent will follow the money.
There should be some way to prevent rich companies from stealing our best and brightest. Isn't there any way to prevent rich Silicon Valley Companies from bribing these essential academics away from where we need them?
We have had great success regulating the interface between industry and physicians. Perhaps we should apply the same regulatory framework to the interface between all academics and all industry so we can be certain that the research is untainted and our researchers in all fields are not tempted by the allure of Silicon Valley $$$$.
America eats its seed corn.
Slim pickings next year.
Nothing left to plant.
Student crop fails.
Scant harvest.
America,
Alas!
Slim pickings next year.
Nothing left to plant.
Student crop fails.
Scant harvest.
America,
Alas!
3
When I got my PhD in CS, it was a pretty new field. There were more women, there was a lot of government funding, and there were lots of jobs in academia. By the time I got out, the emphasis in academia was on bringing in huge amounts of grant money, but the government drastically cut the amount of funds available for basic research. Corporate money and "technology transfer" were the name of the game. There was a gold rush on (I think that's when/why women were pushed aside).
The corporatization of academia is harmful for many reasons. In CS it means that research is directed primarily towards profit-making and war. Speculative, artistic, or altruistic research is far less likely to get you tenure. Concerns about issues like tech-caused job loss are nearly verboten.
As the parent of a college student and a high school senior (who plans to major in Computer Science), I worry about them finding decent-paying jobs. Will there be any good jobs left? One is interested in teaching, but that is being de-professionalized by Gates Foundation-led education reform. Technology and an utter lack of concern (if not disdain) for workers plays a role.
If we were truly concerned about maintaining a middle class and with workers having decent options for jobs, we would be addressing the issues of job loss due to technology. Restoring government funding for basic research and allocating money for non-profit-making and non-military applications is the least we should do.
The corporatization of academia is harmful for many reasons. In CS it means that research is directed primarily towards profit-making and war. Speculative, artistic, or altruistic research is far less likely to get you tenure. Concerns about issues like tech-caused job loss are nearly verboten.
As the parent of a college student and a high school senior (who plans to major in Computer Science), I worry about them finding decent-paying jobs. Will there be any good jobs left? One is interested in teaching, but that is being de-professionalized by Gates Foundation-led education reform. Technology and an utter lack of concern (if not disdain) for workers plays a role.
If we were truly concerned about maintaining a middle class and with workers having decent options for jobs, we would be addressing the issues of job loss due to technology. Restoring government funding for basic research and allocating money for non-profit-making and non-military applications is the least we should do.
22
Uber may - or may not - be an ethical company. But hiring a lab full of engineers and researchers from academia does not enter into that equation. From this article it appears that Uber gave these hires the opportunity to develop and deliver on an immediate real world need - at least, an Uber need.
And they took the bait because it was meaningful to them. There is no societal purpose which state that individuals who have mastered the exceptionally difficult course of engineering studies shouldn't command as high a salary as they can - even if it comes from an Uber. So, what's the complaint?
And they took the bait because it was meaningful to them. There is no societal purpose which state that individuals who have mastered the exceptionally difficult course of engineering studies shouldn't command as high a salary as they can - even if it comes from an Uber. So, what's the complaint?
7
"There is no societal purpose which state that individuals who have mastered the exceptionally difficult course of engineering studies shouldn't command as high a salary as they can - even if it comes from an Uber."
Especially when that salary will be considerably less than that of some stupid sports star.
Especially when that salary will be considerably less than that of some stupid sports star.
2
As long as most scientists in academia are non-tenured researchers, struggling to survive on grant money that barely covers their cost of living -- forget about luxuries like retirement and benefits -- no, academia cannot survive Silicon Valley's talent hunt. I say this from personal experience as a former NASA space scientist who finally fled their byzantine bureaucracy in search of an employer here in Sillicon Valley who'd actually pay me on a regular basis -- NASA tended to 'lose' our funding every now and then.
Bottom line: science isn't free. And if you aren't willing to pay for it, you don't deserve to have it.
Bottom line: science isn't free. And if you aren't willing to pay for it, you don't deserve to have it.
20
In recent years, academia has seriously mistreated its own. Tuition is rising rapidly. Where is all that money going? Clearly not to the staff.
KPCC (LA's NPR carrier) just did a program on the woe of adjunct professors.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2015/09/08/44392/added-pressure-lo...
Even Doonesbury has picked up on this thread.
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2015/09/06
KPCC (LA's NPR carrier) just did a program on the woe of adjunct professors.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2015/09/08/44392/added-pressure-lo...
Even Doonesbury has picked up on this thread.
http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2015/09/06
12
Something similar happened during the last bubble in the late 90s. I have lived in Silicon Valley during the past bubble and so called "domain experts" were flocking into Internet businesses and start-ups were courting people with industry expertise in whatever business they were trying to "revolutionalize". When the bubble burst, all of these business domain experts went back to where they came from. I assume similar things would happen when all dust settles. I should know, because a lot of my friends and family were involved in those internet businesses and saw first hand what happened :-)
6
It would be interesting to know, in these times of shrinking federal support for basic research, how many of these private firms minimize their tax contributions, yet jump in as soon as academic research has built something to the point where they can make a buck off it? Corporations don't want to pay their share, yet expect the research universities (funded by the govt) to do their work for them.
29
Do they actually want to buy it or just use it without any of the actual risks and responsibilities of ownership? That would be more Uber's style, no?
14
They will be a car rental company, just self driving. When you use the app for a pickup you pay by credit card and the insurance risk is transferred to the card company for the term of your "rental".
For the longest time the "techies", the engineers, the computer types that made billions for their companies and millions for their bosses got, for their efforts, essentially nothing. It is unfortunate that the universities that spawned them can not match the new salary structure of Silicon Valley and its spawns, but it is "revenge of the nerds" time in some industries. And about time too.
Hopefully the universities can still be the incubators of talent, for once a profit making firm has to bear the considerable development costs, which include the cost of failure, they will not be so happy with the structure and salaries they created.
Hopefully the universities can still be the incubators of talent, for once a profit making firm has to bear the considerable development costs, which include the cost of failure, they will not be so happy with the structure and salaries they created.
5
Robots are going to pick up our trash. They are going to cut our grass (except in California where they'll merely paint the brown grass green). They're going to wash our dishes. They're going to cook our food. They're going to replace home health care workers. They're going to work the agricultural fields. Mankind will become gelatinous exomorphs from the ensuing sloth, but hey, at least the robots will lift us out of the bed and swab our bedsores.
7
And the world will even more dramatically be divided into the exceptionally rich who own all the infrastructure and technology and those who are exploited and replaced by it.
5
General Ludd wants you!
When Sergei Brin and Larry Page started Google, much of the foundation of the company's search algorithm, PageRank, was developed at Stanford. Since the work was done at Stanford, Stanford was granted 1.8 million shares of Google stock earning Stanford $337 million.
Something tells me Carnegie Mellon isn't going to see anything similar from Uber for all the research that the university has funded. Sad.
http://www.ipnav.com/blog/google-algorithm-earns-337-million-for-stanford/
Something tells me Carnegie Mellon isn't going to see anything similar from Uber for all the research that the university has funded. Sad.
http://www.ipnav.com/blog/google-algorithm-earns-337-million-for-stanford/
26
If Carnegie M thought it was valuable - they could have pursued a patent or they could have pursued commercialization - they did neither - and if they had - Uber would not have been able to "poach" the ideas.
Uber just recruited a bunch of smart people who are free to work where they choose.
Uber just recruited a bunch of smart people who are free to work where they choose.
It is unlikely the university funded any of this research. Most university science faculty are salesmen, endlessly pitching the work their grad students do to granting agencies. If anyone should feel burnt, it's the government.
Googles was a start-up that was essentially a Stanford spin out since Page Rank was developed in house. Uber merely hired people who had worked at CMU. There is no reason for CMU to be financially rewarded by a company for poaching its talent. It's not relying on its technology.
Uber is evil, plain and simple. Shame on all of the state and local governments for allowing them to thumb their noses and skirt rules and regulations applicable to taxis and other related services. Whomever said cheaters never win has never heard of Uber.
33
I'm not even sure it's possible to "win" in the current economy without cheating. Makes me sad to say that.
5
Question: Can high-tech academia survive today’s Silicon Valley talent binge?
Answer: Yes. The stars who leave can be replaced by others who will grow into stars. In general, there will always be people ready and able to work on NASA scale 1-5 problems. The only problem are the luddite politicians in government, who need to comes to their senses, and increases federal funding for basic science research. Otherwise, there will soon be very few NASA scale 5-9 technologies for private industry to monetize.
Answer: Yes. The stars who leave can be replaced by others who will grow into stars. In general, there will always be people ready and able to work on NASA scale 1-5 problems. The only problem are the luddite politicians in government, who need to comes to their senses, and increases federal funding for basic science research. Otherwise, there will soon be very few NASA scale 5-9 technologies for private industry to monetize.
15
Uber is a very aggressive company, which is understandable on many levels, but also off-putting in other ways. It's good that they gave Carnegie Mellon an endowment but it doesn't necessarily even out with what they took. Overall, Uber's charitable outreach is pretty limited and given their valuation and growth potential, it would seem like a good idea to be funding more educational programs in robotics and engineering.
5
"compared with the evaporating federal funds for ‘‘basic’’ research"
Yet over the last four years the federal government spent upwards of $100 Billion on the soft "science" of climate change. Perhaps than money could have been spent better by funding real fundamental hard science?
Yet over the last four years the federal government spent upwards of $100 Billion on the soft "science" of climate change. Perhaps than money could have been spent better by funding real fundamental hard science?
2
Almost certainly not. Source?
1
You should go back to the report and read the number correctly. Total was $21 billion.
Uber has a long uphill battle with the academic types from CMU. There's a good reason that even though robotics has a long history at CMU there haven't been real commercial robotic products launched. If Uber is to succeed they need to have seasoned commercial product developers keeping a tight grip on the CMU eggheads.
1
Without the "eggheads", the "seasoned commercial product developers" wouldn't have anything to develop.
6
Without the product developers, the eggheads' ideas will never get out of the lab and actually benefit a significant number of people.
The basic question assumes a dearth of creativity. Why can't closer interaction develop and evolve between academia and commercial exploitation of technology? Why can't industrial technologists not be more closer aligned and allied with schools? Why can't a woman be more like ... me?
1
Apple is raiding automakers and labs like mine looking for people to build self-driving cars. But many of my colleagues go out and talk to existing people, and balk at the "meat grinder" they would be walking into.
12
Uber is a disgusting culture. Check out the interview with the CEO on Colbert last night. He was shameless, even proud, of decimating the taxi industry and replacing humans win driverless cars. No moral compass at this company and they will do anything to get ahead.
Libertarianism meets technocracy meets corporate greed.
Libertarianism meets technocracy meets corporate greed.
43
Taxation and regulation soften the bad-for-society parts, and still allow the future, which involves increased automation. Luddites didn't stop the future by breaking looms and we won't either.
1
The corrupt taxi industry is what is disgusting, not Uber.
Uber has saved us all from high fares, dirty, poorly-maintained taxis, not to mention rude drivers.
It seems many Uber-bashers who offer no logical explanation for their dislike of Uber, are just plain jelly.
Uber has saved us all from high fares, dirty, poorly-maintained taxis, not to mention rude drivers.
It seems many Uber-bashers who offer no logical explanation for their dislike of Uber, are just plain jelly.
5
And would you mourn for buggy whip manufacturers? The taxi industry was long overdue for being restructured and made both cheaper and more efficient. It is called progress.
10
To Robert in Syracuse
Much of the government money flowing into robotics comes from the the military.
DARPA is not there for the beauty of research.
It's funding robotics to enhance the killing efficiency of the American military.
That's its mission.
Much of the government money flowing into robotics comes from the the military.
DARPA is not there for the beauty of research.
It's funding robotics to enhance the killing efficiency of the American military.
That's its mission.
20
And save soldiers' lives. That is the horrible irony of robotic warfare; by not dying or getting maimed, it becomes easier to kill.
5
I don't think that's an irony at all. Anytime you can use technology to save a life, shouldn't you?
Our military front line soldiers are ripe for replacement, by autonomous drones, capable of detecting and identifying 'bad guys'. In a righteous twist of fate, the Islamic suicide bombers have perfected the level 9 method of death and destruction for us. All we need to do is add a little A. I. to a droni-copter along with the largest payload of TNT it can carry, then release a flying horde of unescapable suicide (roboticide?) bombers who will seek out anyone in their flight path carrying a gun or waving an ISIS banner.
One truck load of these drones would suffice to make any group of human fighters run or stand their ground and be vaporized. Why sacrifice even one American life when we can cheaply build millions of flying, intelligent bombs?
Low tech meet our hi-tech. We will of course jam any radio control frequencies they would us to direct their own drones at us (or use our computers to steal their drones from them and send the flying back). Autonomous drones need only be given directions then they complete their mission without further input or control.
One truck load of these drones would suffice to make any group of human fighters run or stand their ground and be vaporized. Why sacrifice even one American life when we can cheaply build millions of flying, intelligent bombs?
Low tech meet our hi-tech. We will of course jam any radio control frequencies they would us to direct their own drones at us (or use our computers to steal their drones from them and send the flying back). Autonomous drones need only be given directions then they complete their mission without further input or control.
It is relevant to note that all the basic research was paid for with public government funds as was the development of the expertise of all the researchers who worked on those grant funded projects. Yet when the time comes for the technology to generate profits, it all goes to private industry - similar to much of what happens in the biomedical field.
Yet another way in which we socialize costs and privatize profits.
Yet another way in which we socialize costs and privatize profits.
94
And that's ok, as long as we do what we need to do as a society to be our best: reclaim and recycle some of that in taxes and then the government reinvests.
2
Nonsense. Most of the basic research goes nowhere or is so broadly applicable that many different products can claim lineage to it. Think of funding basic research line building roads. Companies and individuals pay taxes to support an infrastructure that will allow them to operate and innovate. To think that private industry picks up a ready-to-go product from basic research betrays a level of ignorance I find surprising for a reader here.
2
It doesn't all go to private industry. A portion of those revenues are returned to the government/society in the form of taxes. To fully understand whether this was an example of 'socializing costs and privatizing profits', we would need an accurate picture of money spent on the research that elevated the technology to the point of consumer readiness and an accurate accounting of the tax returns generated by that technology.
Unfortunately, neither are particularly easy numbers to establish due to the wide net of inputs that inspire research and the wide array consumer technology production inspired by research. That wide net makes it difficult to keep track of both sides of the equation.
Unfortunately, neither are particularly easy numbers to establish due to the wide net of inputs that inspire research and the wide array consumer technology production inspired by research. That wide net makes it difficult to keep track of both sides of the equation.
2
Why do you think these universities even HAVE computer science departments and robotics labs? Usually through the generosity of top tech companies, who often fund the effort in the first place.
Students only want to attend the schools which fee them into the 'right' companies.
Surviving the Talent Binge? More like following the money...
Students only want to attend the schools which fee them into the 'right' companies.
Surviving the Talent Binge? More like following the money...
5
> Why do you think these universities even HAVE computer science departments and robotics labs? Usually through the generosity of top tech companies, who often fund the effort in the first place.
University CS departments exist because of the generosity of tech companies? On what planet is that the case? University CS departments are a fine example of your tax dollars hard at work.
University CS departments exist because of the generosity of tech companies? On what planet is that the case? University CS departments are a fine example of your tax dollars hard at work.
51
Carnegie Mellon's computer science program is the brainchild of Herbert Simon, who realized the potential of computer programming back in 1957. The Robotics Institute was founded in 1979, back when Microsoft had a grand total of 13 employees.
I'm quite sure that you can find university programs that would not exist without the largess of "top tech companies," but CMU's is not one of them.
I'm quite sure that you can find university programs that would not exist without the largess of "top tech companies," but CMU's is not one of them.
30
This is a complicated question, you're making it much too simple. The really fundamental breakthroughs tend to happen because devote themselves to years (think, a decade, say) to work on hard, really far-out questions. Lots of people There are so many examples. It doesn't happen in industry with the exception of the old bell labs example. I'm talking about really fundamental breakthroughs that change everything: like DNA, MRI, the laws of electricity, PCR, the list goes on, and not even the ones we hear about, but the ones that lead to the ones we hear about . I'm talking about "flying cars, not 140 characters." Universities have CS depts and robotics labs for lots of reasons. The federal government is certainly one of them, and sometimes the only one, depending on the subfield.
9
Multibillion dollar Uber doesn't pay even a penny for the right to operate.
While local taxicabs are required by law to pay for essentially the same privilege.
All that money that Uber corporation "saves" this way - is then directed at developing robot cars that will further destroy jobs Uber is already unlawfully destroying. Something isn't right here.
While local taxicabs are required by law to pay for essentially the same privilege.
All that money that Uber corporation "saves" this way - is then directed at developing robot cars that will further destroy jobs Uber is already unlawfully destroying. Something isn't right here.
48
I've also wondered about this. The cab companies and their drivers face all sorts of government regulations and fees, yet, although it provides virtually the same service, Uber has been able to completely skate past all this. I guess it's just one more case of money dominating politics.
21
What's not right is the monopoly of the cab medallion. Keeping the supply artificially low and making it difficult to enter the market and you get cab medallions worth millions. Yet people have trouble getting a cab. Why? There aren't enough of them around and they all want to get the best routes, like down in Manhattan or to the airport. It's just as bad down here. When my daughter and her friends wanted to go out they could never get a cab to show up. Not at their apartments or clubs. But with Uber (which has been shut out of the city for now) the cars showed up in ten minutes and once was waiting for her when she left a restaurant. Who serves people more, and I don't mean the politicians that are getting their money from the cab companies. Work out some basic rules, such as insurance, etc., but the time is over for restricting ride sharing.
5
No, it's really hard for taxation to keep up with new paradigms. The taxman needs to figure out how uber drivers are just like taxi drivers on one hand, and how they are different on the other. Medallion systems exist to keep congestion and pollution down to a dull roar, not to limit competition specifically. If we didn't hate public transportation in this country, there wouldn't be a market for uber.
3