snooggums

Better slap a “safety” on there to show the administration is thinking about children.

…thinking about children’s safety. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

You completely glossed over the small, agile part.

A drone can do a fucking barrel roll with zero impact on its flight capabilities or passengers. Have fun with passengers when an automated passenger drone needs to quickly change thrust direction because of wind shear.

Drone swarms are groups of small, agile devices with no passengers.

That is one of the many problems, yes.

So yeah, if you ignore the parts that make it more complicated it seems easier!

If it is windy, it is far more complicated than driving on the road, especially in cities with taller buildings. Like not crashing into buildings is far harder than applying the brakes when there is ever changing wind shear that you can’t see. This applies to most days in most cities.

If you ignore take off and landing, birds, weather conditions, and everything else that makes flying more complex and dangerous than driving on the ground, sure.

You would have a point if the flying car didn’t have to take into account the wind, updrafts, downdrafts, wind sheer off buildings, and a ton of other flying related stuff that helicopter pilots need to take into account which are barely noticeable to cars the majority of the time.

Then there is landing, the most dangerous part of flying. Imagine if the emergency braking in a csr needed to stop the car without spilling a liquid from an open cup.

Being on the ground is far less complex than flying, otherwise getting a pilot’s license would be easier than a driver’s permit.

With a flying car that is directed by an AI that knows where every other flying object is, what every flying object is going to do, and the locations of every stationary object based on maps and lidar on the vehicle, you can keep collisions far less likely.

This magically perfect AI would work on the ground too. I mean, it knows what birds are going do, why not people?

The alternative is autonomous AI trafficked flying cars that is networked with all commercial drone traffic, but that is 5-10 years away from being reliable and possible.

50-100 years is more likely. The complexity of automated low altitude flight is exponentially more complex than driving on the ground.

You are 100% correct that helicopters and their issues are the exact reason why flying cars are a terrible idea for the general population. I even like to point them out as the same thing when people talk about flying cars. There are some technical differences between people’s image of a flying car, which is closer to a drone with the multiple lift producing drives than a singular giant spinning blade, although the little ones would be comparably dangerous in a crash.

That said, helicopters aren’t flying cars because you can’t drive them around on the ground. Which means this product is a helicopter, not a flying car.

The big thing here is that ‘polite’ words are being singled out as extraneous when there are tons of extraneous words being used. The focus is on words that make it seem like AI has feelings or intent.

There is no reason to filter any words, because the entire point of LLMs is to take inefficient human communication and do stuff with it. ‘Please’ isn’t any more of a waste that ‘the’ or including a period at the end of a sentence.

Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is so horribly inefficient that ‘extra’ words cost millions of dollars to process. Holy shit that is terrible design.

No, we should not.

Smoking was known to be bad for your health long before anyone did studies because it was easily correlated with coughing and other breathing issues and early death. The evidence was obvious and apparent.

You have been tagged as weak willed and fit for the worst types of labor because robots don’t have feelings.

Maybe don’t write an article speculating about something possible being true based on another article that is also speculating about something being possible when it being able to confirm it is possible. Like speculating about dinosaurs makes sense as we don’t have a way to verify their soft tissues. But when it comes to AI, there are ways to actually confirm the reliability of responses.

I’m smart enough to know that an article peppered with assumption and zero facts is dogshit.

Presumably

might

could

Doesn’t matter how educated someone is when they write a bunch of words about possibilities with no actual evidence. They are morons because they are spouting a bunch of useless speculation about a shitty and unreliable technology and naval gazing about whether ‘being polite’ to a bullshit generator is beneficial. I feel dumber for having read both the article and the linked article.

It FEEEEEEEEEEEELS better is what the authors said too. Both articles were completely worthless dreck about how they felt about the responses.

Both authors state that the phrasing from the AI is what is improved based on how they felt about the answers, not the accuracy.

The author and the writer they quoted are fucking morons.

Tim Discord

We already know they knowingly lied about battery range, the capabilities of self driving, and a ton of other fraudulent practices. Tesla is doing it intentionally is more likely than poor build quality.