Personally I think the biggest impact this will have is the energy usage one. Currently we stress about our abilities to meet future demands, but we aren't stressed enough to really innovate. Automated driving will definitely change that.

As there are better ways to harness energy and automate things people will move onto more and more productive work.

Finally we may reach a point where things like space colonies, settlements and other massive space exploration projects will make sense. Because we will have nothing else to do.

But, you're completely ignoring the economic framework we live in.

The problem is the people who own these automated systems accumulate more and more wealth, while the workers who once operated them get poorer and poorer. So 'nothing else to do' = 'living in grinding dystopian poverty', if nothing changes in our current economic system.

Most things that actually push the boundaries of what we can do - such as 3D printing, space exploration - have very little effective demand going towards them these days. The one exception may be medical research, I'm just not sure about that.

So I agree that society wins if the level of education can be raised and more people work in highly educated sectors. However, this is not going to be some kind of inevitable outcome of the market. The effective demand needs to be there to enable this transition, and there is no automatic market mechanism to make it happen.

But delivery trucks will still need someone in them to make the deliveries. But what would change is that the delivery person could be doing things in the truck while on the rounds - this could be related or unrelated work.

Generally, if a technology transition releases a lot of productivity, it also drastically lowers cost of whatever is affected (delivered goods, which is everything). This, by rights, should free up a lot of extra money for people, which they can then spend on other things. The other things generally cause more economic activity somewhere else, which should create the new jobs.

But a portion of truck drivers will lose their job, with it never to return.

However, this can't be, nor should it be, stopped.

And here is the problem. What actually happens is the people who control "production" end up with most of this extra money.

This is not true. It's actually a pretty well-understood economic phenomena.

When changes to pricing is forced by changes in upstream costs, as with this example, but also as forced by increased taxes/fees, etc., you can predict who will bear the brunt of the cost (or enjoy the windfall) based on the elasticity of the buyer.

For example, we know that the elasticity for gasoline is very inelastic, because consumption only changes a small amount in response to price changes. This means that an increase in taxes on the petroleum industry will be borne mostly by the consumer, and not the producer.

However, for other industries where consumers are more likely to change their spending habits in relation to price changes, it will be the consumers that are on the winning side.

Lowered cost of production always results in lowered cost of goods, which either raises quality for the same price, or lowers cost and released cash for other purchases.

And to avoid even more problems the delivery network could work with post offices to put these safes in place of P/O boxes. Australia Post already does this - you receive a package and they send you an SMS with the code to unlock the safe they've left it in. The delivery truck would just put the packages in the safe totally autonomously.

The safe idea is interesting, though.

It's a somewhat different experience to a human knocking on your door, but I'm sure it could be made to work.

Automated delivery vehicles may be able to do better in terms of offering a choice of delivery time, and sending accurate estimates of arrival time. There's considerable scope for doing a better job of delivering to households where there is usually nobody home during "working hours".

What you're essentially describing is a motorised set of po boxes. Which would work brilliantly. For pizza delivery it's a motorised warmer oven with multiple components, probably looking a lot like those little motorised droids that are always zipping around the ankles of actors in Star Wars films.

But when big paradigm shifts like this happen, generally a lot of people end up loosing jobs.

Driverless racing cars could go incredibly fast - and require real solutions to large computing problems. And this would push development of driverless cars along quickly, just as motor racing pushed along the infant car industry quickly.

It's near-impossible for a motor race to end in a tie because there is only one optimum racing line, and only one car can occupy it at a time. Just removing the drivers wouldn't be enough to change the results.

Yes, you'd get one team dominating as you do in any motorsport, but the methods to temper this are well known.

Basically it would be like current motorsport but with the element of risk for the driver removed, which would result in higher speeds and greater risks being taken. I think it would be exciting to watch.

Personally I have a dream of one day seeing an AI car competing against humans in an F1 race, but alas I fear it will never happen.

"It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning."

At least the packages that end up on the doorstep still require human delivery. Normalizing addresses and pin pointing the exact location still isn't quite good enough.

But yes, unintended consequences will surely make things interesting. The productive will become more productive, and the 99% will get that much larger...

Imagine that you ordered something from Amazon. You could choose from a bunch of different times, perhaps a dozen in a day, when the automated delivery truck would swing by your house. Your phone would make a noise, and you would go outside to grab your packages off the truck. It would be like an Automat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat) on wheels. You would somehow authenticate yourself and then grab your boxes from your assigned slots.

Now, instead of hoping that the delivery guy arrives when you are at home, you just give the address of the next Packstation and pick it up at your convenience.

I'm not sure that there's anything to fix here, specifically.

https://tools.usps.com/go/EPLAction!input?WT_z.redirect=www....

Making a car that drives you (safely) somewhere is the problem Google is working on.

Delivery of packages along a route is a whole other matter; for example I live on a street with a weird t/fork at the end. Vans tend to struggle getting in and out.

The decision making process to effectively get a van to my door probably still one that requires human input :)

The autonomous cars had to solve problems much more difficult than this in the DARPA challenges. Stanley and Junior have been thrust into artificially complicated mazes and come through with no problem.

Heck, here the car can autonomously produce a 'slide park': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_piO849uRdI

Easy to imagine with a phone, but does HP still support their fingerprint readers? Seems like a gimme.

Or maybe just require the card used at purchase to be swiped in the delivery truck. Then you could ask anyone to stay home and pick up your item, just give them your card.

In Japan, all the delivery services let you indicate a precise 2-hour window when you want the delivery. With automated drivers, this could be feasible in the U.S. as well.

For example, here in Berlin we have a really good public transportation, which becomes more and more automated every year. In particular, short-distance (as well as long-distance) rails are almost fully automated these days, yet there is still a human sitting in the train's driver's cab for safety reasons.

In other cities like Frankfurt, there are even one or two non-human fully automated short-distance rails. Those are used more in the way we use an elevator, they feel less like trains.

Another example are airplanes, which are driven almost automatically these days, where the pilot is only really required for landing and, again, for safety in unexpected situations.

I think that cars are no different in that regard. There will always be some kind of "driver", although that person will have less and less to do with driving, and more with technical observation, safety, etc.

(As a side note, I think that putting so much emphasis on cars over other types of transportation is some kind of "US thingie". Here in Germany, cars are high valued vehicles, too, but they are generally not a symbol of freedom, independence, etc. Maybe I'm wrong in that regard, but that's my personal explaination of that strange car-centric view on transportation, which leads to so much excitement of self-driving cars, disregarding the amazing progresses in all other areas of transportation.)

In Germany, even in the more rural areas, you can typically walk 15-20 minutes to a town with shops, or get a bus even closer than that. That's not so in much of the US. If you don't live in one of the few walkable cities with decent public transit, you're gonna need a car.

If you think US urban planning is in a mess, come to India. I bet these self driven cars can't survive for even minutes on any street.

In India, you practically have to chase street dogs, dodge cricket balls, avoid kids playing on the road, find the road in a road of full of potholes, use breath control techniques to escape the stench and lanes are nothing short of mazes which you can't find a way out unless you've lived years in that area.

I am not sure if self driven cars can ever work here.

Actually now pilots usually don't land manually unless for training (and so on commercial flights usually only in perfect weather conditions) or when there is some serious problem (like engine not working).

BTW, very big part of recent plane crashes was related to human errors in cases which could be handled by autopilot.

My one question is "Who the hell decided that averaging stick inputs is a good idea??

You can't compare the car google is building with semi-automated transportation on rails or in highly regulated air space. It is using completely different technology.

Also humans are notoriously bad at supervising technology. I would much rather drive myself, then having to pay attention all the time and step on the break, if my car does something stupid.

No, I think they are certainly possible and I'd love to see some.

> You can't compare the car google is building with semi-automated transportation on rails or in highly regulated air space. It is using completely different technology.

This discussion was not about technology but about impact. Comparison with other transportation systems which are much more automated right now gives a better impression of the future than unjustified claims about self-driving cars being totally incomparable to anything else.

http://neurographs.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/social-impact-of...

I'll bet most people have a story like that. Probably from when they were younger, but not necessarily. And that's not even getting into "driving while black" and the likes.

You think it's illegal to scan edit and print just money? Wait till they make it illegal to print firearm parts.

I already have all the AR-15 parts in STL format.

It's not far until the fucking morons in politics whom have no idea of how information works decide 3D printing is in support for terrorism.

How long then until they realize that only intelligence can be outlawed to thwart this imaginary foe.

Oh, wait, the war on education has been in full effect for decades for this very reason. What is the best weapon against education? Poverty.

Keep them poor, keep them stupid.

And he next level of that weapon? When they start acting up, kill th economy to make the educated poor!

What do you think the 2008 crash was about? "the people have caught on to our lies! Quick! Kill he economy, make them worry about putting food on the table - that will shut them up!!"

It is not legal to manufacture firearms unless you are licensed. The ATF will freak out and confiscate everything if they get wind of you building so much as a zip gun.

Also I assume that if the GP is planning on 3D printing an AR-15 once it's feasible (already illegal), he is planning on manufacturing a fully automatic version. That would be manufacturing a "machine gun" and would bring serious jail time.

This is false. It is legal for non-prohibited persons to manufacture non-NFA firearms without a license, provided you do not do so "for sale or distribution." Your state may impose additional restrictions.

(I believe it is also legal for non-licensed individuals to manufacture non-machinegun NFA items by filing a form 1 and paying the tax, but don't quote me on that.)

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#com...

L send you an email about your slandering me claiming that I am stating such things.

Learc83:

I have no intention of breaking the law. For you to post such slander online is outrageous. Let's hope we do not meet face to face.

My family has been a responsible gun owning family for more than 150 years.

I am appalled and angered that you simply assume that I would seek the most illegal form of weapon should I simply be able to print it.

Shall I assume that you have a propensity for rape if I were to know you were not a virgin?

My point in my original post was that should politicians who are abstracted from the understanding of how information exists will always err on the side on insane restrictions not based in the reality of how that information is actually disseminated or accessed.

You cannot outlaw knowledge, or intelligence.

However, in your case, it appears you can aschew it.

It would be libelous not slanderous, if it was actually defamatory.

Also you'll notice I said if you plan on manufacturing a firearm illegally you'll likely manufacture an automatic version--I never said you would do so.

>Shall I assume that you have a propensity for rape if I were to know you were not a virgin?

Since not being a virgin is not illegal, those are not analogous.

A better analogy would be something like: I assume you have a propensity for rape, if you have previously committed sexual battery.

"* a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name*

You published and broadcast on HN that you assumed that I would be manufacturing illegal weapons based on a comment that I had an STL for a part of a gun.

You said that you DO assume that if I am going to 3D print a part, that I would be producing the fully automatic version of a weapon.

This post ignores the fact that the STL I refer to is only a singular part of a device.

Further, your analogy DOES NOT work. As printing a gun part is NOT illegal. So you are saying that having an STL is the same as having previously commited sexual battery???

NO

IT DOES NOT.

My analogy works, yours is broken.

By the way I'm not fussed about considering myself informed and intelligent, I'm happy enough with "not a whack job".

I appreciate the both of you attempting to appear legally abiding, informed citizens, but you're just a pair of dicks that assume that anyone doing anything outside of your own boxed reality must be a criminal.

Kudos - I am sure you'll do well in politics.

But you sound like freaking idiots assuming what you do.

I am sure you believe yourselves to be well informed, but I am not sure you truly are.

My stating I have the STLs for an AR-15 lower etc is NOT the same as stating I intend to manufacture illegal weapons as the other poster claimed.

So, fuck both of you for attempting to slander my thusly.

Also, in your vast experience over the last ~4 years as operations manager, I am sure that I should bow to your expertise over such situations where you are accused of illegal activity based on a comment on HN. I look forward to your council.

While you're a young person from the UK with little to no experience with either US law, culture, politics or history, I appreciate your input in this matter.

I would hope that you could do yourself a favor and look into the things I stated above. I could give you some referrences to the things I said, but I doubt you would use them as much as I doubt you would even look into anything I said.

I you find that you DO want to know some things that occurred not only prior to when you were 11, but also things that occurred decades before you were born, please let me know.

Seriously. There is a lot more to know, hopefully you wont acquiesce to what you think you know from the internet.

Have you ever managed to convince anybody who didn't start off agreeing with you of anything?

1) You're english - i.e. NOT culturally related to the issue.

2) You're 22 - You have NO idea of the history of the people of which I speak. as a personal IT trainer to one of them who visited their house often, do you think I know, or you know, more? Please advise.

3) Yes, my friend, I do know more than you. When you were 11 I was building some of the largest enterprise datacenters in silicon valley. I have designed and implemented large corporate campuses for companies you well know. I am jealous that at 22 you have it figured out, as it appears you eschew any opportunity to learn that may present itself.

I am sure you will be very technically correct in many of your endeavors, I doubt you will have depth of character and knowledge though.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could see something you don't agree with and seek more info rather than trying to prove your insightful disposition so early?

In martial arts, we find this behavior often attributed to green belts (yes, in my decades of experience, I have more insight into another arena other than tech (20+ years in both))

Have you ever thought that someone you started off not agreeing with may be actually correct?

Are you that misinformed that you need me to cite my comment?

Or, do you, like most on HN consider themselves to be well informed and intelligent?

Then how about you do some research, look into the history of a large number of people and their careers:

Do you know how any of the following people came to be in their positions: (clue: you'd need to know what they were doing over the last 45 years)

GHW bush Cheyney Dov zakheim Rumsfeld Ashcroft Tom Ridge

If you know where these guys have come from and what they have been doing (more than just Wikipedia) you'd be a bit closet to understanding some of the things we are dealing with.

Rather than downvote, why don't you ask for information.