Predicting the future

November 13th, 2016 at 8:38:36 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." Attributed to Yogi Berra.

I came across and article by Rob Tracinski largely about self-driving cars. He's an uneven writer, but occasionally he comes up with interesting notions. This is one such:

"But a lot of these predictions depend on a very basic methodological error. They assume that new technology will change the way people live and work and think and make money --but only in one way. New technology will revolutionize life in one particular respect, while everything else will stay the same."

I find this very insightful. And I think he's mostly right. I explain it with the opening quote, as it is hard to make accurate predictions.

He goes on to speculate why people might go for much larger self-driving cars. Here's the link:

http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2016/10/13/how_not_to_predict_the_future_111945.html

To me, it works as a guide for writing science fiction. Many plots center about imagined new technologies or discoveries. That's great. but often an author can miss the obvious by focusing on one change.

BTW, had you said in 2008 upon seeing the iphone, "This thing will change the internet," you'd have gotten some odd looks. Here we are a few years alter and it has, or is changing it.

So there.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 13th, 2016 at 8:54:48 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Iphone, Ipod, Blackberry..................

All were misnomers.

Iphones were not just phone head sets but small portable screens for a computer that allowed people to stay in touch w/o secretarial intermediaries.

Ipods were simply portable audio devices and PodCasts were not limited to brand names.

Blackberrys are still revolutionary because they have much valued REALish keyboards.
November 13th, 2016 at 12:38:16 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
I think that the reason many people are wrong about technological innovations in general is that they tend to assume that inventions are purposeful--that somebody sees a need and then comes up with a device to address that need. The vast majority of the time, it's the other way around. Gunpowder. Oil. Electricity. The concept of geosynchronous satellites. They all existed in some form long before someone came up with practical uses for them.

Self-driving cars are like that. Right now, there is no demand for them, because people are not inclined to trust computers with their lives (though by that logic, they shouldn't trust THEMSELVES, either). Also, most people truly like to drive (though it's not any fun to fight commute traffic).

Per the author's perspective, then, self-driving cars may change one specific aspect of daily life--how people commute. The technology appears to be most reliable on a fixed route where relatively few options exist. It's easy to imagine a self-driving car ferrying people from one transit terminal to another.

And of course, there's another factor that will slow adoption of the technology. Inevitably, someone, somewhere, will be killed in an accident involving a self-driving car. And like conservatives reacting to a single terrorist incident by calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, people will say "SEE! I told you that those things were unsafe!!!," when they would have something like 1000x the risk of death if they drove themselves.
November 13th, 2016 at 1:07:06 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: stinkingliberal
And of course, there's another factor that will slow adoption of the technology. Inevitably, someone, somewhere, will be killed in an accident involving a self-driving car.


I actually think that if someone is killed on their way to the grocery store in a self driving car, it will have a massive impact since people react very strongly to a death from a mundane chore. In addition to people's reaction, you have to question what the liability will be from such a death.

Interstate 94 through the three states of MT, ND, and MN is 806 miles. If the federal government changes it's policy and lets those states charge a fee to let self driving cars traverse that distance at 120 mph then I think that pilot program will make driverless cars much more popular.

November 13th, 2016 at 1:10:19 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: Pacomartin


Interstate 94 through the three states of MT, ND, and MN is 806 miles. If the federal government changes it's policy and lets those states charge a fee to let self driving cars traverse that distance at 120 mph then I think that pilot program will make driverless cars much more popular.


I've driven that route. I think that some kind of technology, like cryosleep, that let you just be unaware of the entire journey would be even more popular.

Especially since the journey is mostly through Trump Land :)