Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

[c1ue]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

So they are exactly like the workers they are meant to replace. Also robots won't sue their employer.

Wow, with an attitude like that, no wonder you don't get anything but the worst out of your employees.

And yes, humans are funny in that they do have a sense of when they're getting screwed. I've never been sued by an employee - and all the people who I do know who have...let's just say I am unsurprised.

Are there bad eggs out there? Sure, but the reality is that your average Joe Six Pack employee simply doesn't get anything of worth out of suing their erstwhile employers. If they do, it is because they're angry.

How many people do you know who can work without electricity? And Sales tax? You are seriously comparing sales tax to employment overhead?

Every single one who is doing manual assembly work can do so without electricity. They do need light, but there are a lot of ways to get that besides overhead fluorescents.

And yes, sales tax on a capital investment is a non-trivial thing. 10% on $22K is 2200 dollars - or many times what is normally paid for a low skilled employee hire bonus.

It hardly matters what caused it. Anyway, the real benefit is relief from staffing headaches and all the litigious nonsense that goes with it. Even if robots were more expensive than the equivalent employee it would be worth it to many on these grounds alone.

Well, there you go. Surely with all that you say, the robots must be ubiquitous, having replaced all those lazy, stupid, inefficient, and litigious people years ago.

Or not.

Let's review this one in 10 years.

I'd bet money it doesn't happen in 10 years. For one thing, until you get all of the OTHER cars off the road, the technotopian dream of the autodriving car cannot happen. I simply see no scenario whatsoever where all non auto driving cars are legislated off the roads in the US.

For that matter, think of the security issues. If we worry about hackers mucking about with our computers, what about our auto-drivers?

Then there is quality control. If I have to test my apps literally every iOS sub-release that comes out from Apple because every single one from 4.1 to 6.1 - some 15 versions - has broken something, this despite a multi-billion dollar company, multi-billion dollar revenue stream, and a supposed focus on customer support with a fully internally controlled environment, I don't see whatsoever how a far more complex and higher failure consequence autodriving software is going to be in any way reliable.

And it has been more and more difficult for those at the bottom to support themselves and families.

That isn't because of skill set per se, so much as cost of living. And that is due to FIRE.

Low skilled workers in countries like Japan do far better, strangely enough.

Maybe it is because they don't get screwed quite so hard by FIRE in their homes, after retirement, while sick, and while going to school.

[ST]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

Which is mostly what the "flight systems manager" (the pilot) is doing in the cockpit of a modern commercial or bizjet...intervening as needed when the set-points, sensors or software fail to keep the airplane within the design flight envelope. When they are successful, which is the overwhelming number of times, we never hear about it. There must be thousands upon thousands of these every day in the sky above us. When they aren't successful, such as Turkish Air Flt 1951 (radio altimeter/autothrottles) or Air France 447, it makes for a spectacular news story with the sub-theme "dangers of technology" running through it.

Contrary to the observation of another iTuliper earlier on this thread, there is no chance that airline (or corporate) pilots are an endangered species from technology. PCO? Well, that's another matter...

I used to work on these systems specifically for business jets (Gulfstream V, Bombardier Global Express, etc...). A full auto land system has been around and working for 50 years. Cat IIIc was developed for zero visibility conditions and is used at times, though its expensive to outfit airports for it. Even though pilot error is and will remain the cause of most aircraft accidents, there is no danger of pilot-less airplanes for passenger travel; at best they might make fewer mistakes, but probably costlier in terms of lives lost, and dumber ones that one never imagined could occur.

I'm not sure anyone would want to trust their life to software code, which invariably is patched over by dozens of different people resulting in the inevitable pile of spaghetti. Trusting 10E-9 reliability figures is a bit like trusting the statistics an economist quotes post the financial crash which "demonstrate" this type of thing happens only once in 10,000 years. The smallest change in input in these complex systems produces unpredictable outcomes. Flying is safe, but in large part because a lot of little mistakes never occur due to common sense & judgement of a human.

There's been a lot of talk about ultimately having just one pilot in these passenger airplane cockpits. That also strikes me as a bit nuts, considering the human factors problems are already pushed to the extreme with multiple people handling these complex systems and procedures. The best revolution in the industry would be to find ways to make the whole system and airplane simpler. Each airplane type takes ~4 years of effort just to design what you see in the cockpit.

PCO? Yes, then again, what's all this Cold Fusion redux? I believe you mentioned it once EJ. There seem to be a few reputable physicists who mocked the previous efforts, but now say that what the Israelis are doing has merit and DARPA seems to agree. Any truth to it?

[GRG55]

Re: Planes on Autopilot

Planes can land on auto pilot. And they do it when visibility is the worst.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9200834AABP70V

Sure. And these sorts of systems on airplanes work really, really well. Until they don't work. Check out the accident report into the 2009 Turkish Air Flt 1951 crash at Schiphol Airport that I referenced in an earlier post. That was a state of the art 800 series Boeing 737.

And let us know when the first paying passenger commercial jet does it without a human in the cockpit.

[GRG55]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

To reinforce your point, on a flight back to Boston we're coming in for a landing at Logan. Seconds before the familiar screech of tires hitting the runway the plane suddenly accelerates, climbs and banks hard to the right.

Minutes later the pilot comes on the air to explain that just as the plane was landing the beacon on the end of the runway went out. Turns out the reason was a general power failure at the airport, but the cause could have been more sinister.

Wonder what a computer would have decided to do in that split second?

If the computers can't figure out what to do they usually inform the pilot that control of the airplane has been passed to him/her. That's what happened to Air France 447 and Colgan Air 3407 at Buffalo...the systems reached their limits, disengaged & handed control to the pilots, who in both cases appear to have been surprised and responded incorrectly.

The malfunction on Turkish Air 1951 at Schiphol happened on final approach, close to the ground. The systems didn't disengage, the autothrottles retarded the engines (twice) and the pilots didn't override the automated systems in time to save the airplane or themselves. Close to the ground is not a good time for automated systems or human pilots to screw up. There's a popular saying among pilots: "There is nothing more useless than air above you or runway behind you".

I have a light twin engine plane. The accident statistics for light twins prompt my single engine friends to repeat the old saw that "After an engine failure in a light twin the second engine will take you to the scene of the accident". But interestingly, there are no statistics kept for engine failures in light twins that do NOT result in an accident. And I won't now trade that redundancy regardless of the price of avgas...

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Planes on Autopilot, Humans in accidents

Let us know when the first paying passenger commercial jet does it without a human in the cockpit.

That will be as much politics as practicality. Planes have been making IFR landings for years. That means the pilot is relying solely on instruments, not on what he can see out the window. That means he could be 100 miles away, getting the instrument data on a monitor, and controlling systems from there. Surgery is already being done this way. So there is a pilot, just not in the **** pit. As for making a quick decision in an unusual situation, I am not sure humans will do better than computers.
In terms of avoiding car accidents, humans are actually rather poor. They frequently slam on the brakes, and skid straight into an accident, even where there is plenty of room to one side. They don't think quickly enough to turn the wheel. Panic sets on, and there isn't time for that big complex brain to go through a problem solving process.

[GRG55]

Re: Planes on Autopilot, Humans in accidents

That will be as much politics as practicality. Planes have been making IFR landings for years. That means the pilot is relying solely on instruments, not on what he can see out the window. That means he could be 100 miles away, getting the instrument data on a monitor, and controlling systems from there. Surgery is already being done this way. So there is a pilot, just not in the **** pit. As for making a quick decision in an unusual situation, I am not sure humans will do better than computers.
In terms of avoiding car accidents, humans are actually rather poor. They frequently slam on the brakes, and skid straight into an accident, even where there is plenty of room to one side. They don't think quickly enough to turn the wheel. Panic sets on, and there isn't time for that big complex brain to go through a problem solving process.

I own and fly an IFR capable twin engine airplane. In fact my airplane is certified for flight into known icing (rare in a piston powered light airplane) because I fly it out to the Pacific coast in winter.

You clearly understand more about these systems than I do, so I shall retreat. But please do let us know when the politics have been overcome to allow the first paying passenger commercial airplane to land without a human in the cockpit.

[gnk]

Re: Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage

That's a good one GRG55. Oil is everything.

My views below are geared to anyone that wants to add in their 2 cents, including EJ.

I know my comment is an extreme absurd conclusion, but nonetheless, I do think that technology is a double edged sword. That said, I am not joining the Amish anytime soon, though I do respect their lifestyle.

EJ is correct, and I agree with his statements - to a degree. In the corporate world, technology had made me more efficient, but it also allowed work to "invade" my free time as well. The unending blinking red light on the blackberry seemed to follow me at all hours of the day and night. Work life was fast paced, and that pace did not seem to go away in my personal life.

Technology has connected us and made us safe, but it could also become an Orwellian nightmare. We don't know yet. My comment was really an admission that I really think technological advancements, especially in robotics, are hard to predict, and can really surprise us.

Thinking back the past 30 years, and the tremendous advancements that have affected our lives gives me pause. We don't fully know where this will go, and what the long term societal costs will be.

I think the past two credit bubbles have masked the negative consequences of globalization and tech advances.

I do believe that there will be a very large underclass developing in every country. Of course, it depends on a country's industrial level of maturity. More mature economies (not recent low wage entrants into the global economy) will likely get hit hard if they haven't yet. I do believe that the last two credit bubbles softened the increasing blow of unemployment due to robotics and offshoring. Those credit bubbles juiced up most of the economies in the Western world as factories migrated east. Those credit bubbles created millions of somewhat-to-highly educated paper pushers and keyboard tappers that didn't really do anything productive in a real sense. It's not just about the CEO of Goldman Sachs, but the secretaries at the title companies, the paralegals in the law firms, the loan processors at mortgage companies, the government deed recording office, etc... They were cogs in a debt based economy. That economy is dead, and what we are now witnessing is a zombie economy. The economic euphoria was a mirage. Now reality, slowly, is setting in.

I see it here in Greece. There's no QE here. Economies, on a micro level, are becoming simplified - they are regressing from their prior debt based complexity. FIRE is dying and it is producing a lot of unemployed people. Government is rarely hiring and those that work in government are getting their wages slashed. As a result, wages are plummeting everywhere (and I am not exaggerating). Yet, the renminbi is still cheaper than the Euro, and the Chinese factory worker still makes a lot less than the average Greek. Greece has a long way to go and I firmly believe that most Western countries are on the same path. It's just a matter of timing or pace of the deconstruction of big government and FIRE with all the consequences that follow.

We often hear the MMT'ers discuss full employment theories. Well guess what, wasn't that our economic modus operandi the last three decades? Take away defense spending and defense contractors (government money fueled these) and take away Central Banking feeding the financial sector, and the US is Greece overnight. The US economy has been functioning on MMT theory all along. There's no financial sector or defense sector as we now know them without Government. The bubbles were irresponsible, yet maybe they were unavoidable? EJ, if you had dictatorial economic powers in 1993, pre stock market and real estate bubbles, what would you have done differently?

The Big Three automakers at the height of the first crisis (I'm speaking of the Fall of 2008, and I call it the first, because it is not the last) practically disappeared!!! Why? It wasn't just about bloated pensions. It was about globalization and technological advances causing wage supression! The near implosion of the Big Three was our future reality. We didn't solve anything since then, we merely masked reality for a little longer...

As the credit bubble deflates worldwide, we will realize the extent of the costs of globalization and technological advances. The extremely wealthy, unconstrained by the geography of commuting to work, have benefited tremendously in this globalized world. The highly educated (so far, and mostly) have also benefited. The rest... we'll see.

In 1972, Henry Kissinger was said to have asked Zhou En Lai what he thought of the French Revolution. To which En Lai responded: "It's too early to know." I think that's what we're dealing with here in terms of the consequences of globalization and tech advances/robotics. But I think we will find a lot sooner.

[radon]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

Wow, with an attitude like that, no wonder you don't get anything but the worst out of your employees.

And yes, humans are funny in that they do have a sense of when they're getting screwed. I've never been sued by an employee - and all the people who I do know who have...let's just say I am unsurprised.

Are there bad eggs out there? Sure, but the reality is that your average Joe Six Pack employee simply doesn't get anything of worth out of suing their erstwhile employers. If they do, it is because they're angry.

Are you suggesting I have? The post to which I was replying had to do with whether buying a robot is more attractive than hiring a person. At that price point for menial tasks it is and not just because it is cheaper. I gave some examples to which you responded with the inherent inflexibly and training issues. As if people are any better at mindless repetitive tasks. And egalitarian nonsense aside not everyone is smart, motivated, and willing to work for $10 dollars an hour. Have you ever worked in a fast food franchise? Or in a factory unpacking boxes? Spend some time doing things like that and you might have some interesting observations about your fellow employees and develop realistic expectations of their capabilities.

The bottom line is that every downside you mentioned about robots can be equally applied to people, especially at this price.

Every single one who is doing manual assembly work can do so without electricity. They do need light, but there are a lot of ways to get that besides overhead fluorescents.

And yes, sales tax on a capital investment is a non-trivial thing. 10% on $22K is 2200 dollars - or many times what is normally paid for a low skilled employee hire bonus.

I know very few people who can work without electricity, besides if it is really important there are backup generators. Manual assembly in the US when the line stops moving? Really? And yes, sales tax is trivial compared to other factors. Especially in states that don't have it.

Well, there you go. Surely with all that you say, the robots must be ubiquitous, having replaced all those lazy, stupid, inefficient, and litigious people years ago.

If robots were good enough to do that they already would have. The question is will the be in the future and if so when?

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

Nah. It'll all be fixed with the "services economy".

That is the thinking of Peter Diamond, Nobel winner, etc. He was interviewed briefly in the atlantic monthly article.

However, we will be paying people to provide non-essential services. So I suspect the salaries and social status of these people will not be very high. There will be a lot of people dog piling on the lower rungs of the job market ladder.

[Polish_Silver]

Planes vs Cars

I own and fly an IFR capable twin engine airplane. In fact my airplane is certified for flight into known icing (rare in a piston powered light airplane) because I fly it out to the Pacific coast in winter.

You clearly understand more about these systems than I do, so I shall retreat. But please do let us know when the politics have been overcome to allow the first paying passenger commercial airplane to land without a human in the cockpit.

The car has only two controls: brake/accelerator, and left/right/straght ahead. So it is easier to quantify the response system for the car. The driver has very little time, though, to correct for mistakes. I think the computer might actually do better because it can respond very quickly.
Google is claiming 300k accident free autonomous driving miles.

I can see at least two problems with a self driving car:

1) windows style software glitch

2) the auto driving has to be "all or nothing". If it ever needs a human over ride, that will not work unless the human is already paying attention to the road. But unless the human is actually driving, he will not be able to pay attention.

The human might be the default driver and the automatic system might serve to stop the car where an obstacle appeared quickly.

The response system for the plane is much more complex.

The plane has a separate throttle for each engine, rudder, elevator, ailerons, flaps, spoilers, so it
is much harder to quantify the proper response. The pilot usually has more time to think through the problem, consult with the copilot and control towers, and read emergency manuals. That moves the advantage towards the human control system.

If the IFR plane had the correct control systems installed, could it be flown remotely, as drones are?

Perhaps being right in the cockpit gives more information and context than you could get from any number of sensor systems.

[Polish_Silver]

limits of auto pilots

I used to work on these systems specifically for business jets (Gulfstream V, Bombardier Global Express, etc...). A full auto land system has been around and working for 50 years. Cat IIIc was developed for zero visibility conditions and is used at times

That's a good argument that further improvements in auto land may not be very significant. My brother is a pilot and he mentioned that idea of one pilot in the cockpit. His main worry seemed to be that if the pilot had a heart attack or stroke, there would be no human redundancy--you would be relying completely on the autopilot.

[c1ue]

Re: limits of auto pilots

Are you suggesting I have? The post to which I was replying had to do with whether buying a robot is more attractive than hiring a person. At that price point for menial tasks it is and not just because it is cheaper. I gave some examples to which you responded with the inherent inflexibly and training issues. As if people are any better at mindless repetitive tasks. And egalitarian nonsense aside not everyone is smart, motivated, and willing to work for $10 dollars an hour. Have you ever worked in a fast food franchise? Or in a factory unpacking boxes? Spend some time doing things like that and you might have some interesting observations about your fellow employees and develop realistic expectations of their capabilities.

The bottom line is that every downside you mentioned about robots can be equally applied to people, especially at this price.

My first job at 16 was in Kentucky Fried Chicken. I also delivered pizzas while in high school. I have also employed 20 in home senior care givers.

I thus have both direct hands-on experience working simple, repetitive jobs and hiring people at low wages to do the same.

Thus my observations come from direct experience.

I know very few people who can work without electricity, besides if it is really important there are backup generators. Manual assembly in the US when the line stops moving? Really? And yes, sales tax is trivial compared to other factors. Especially in states that don't have it.

A generator for lights, or even one for an assembly line, is far different than electricity supply for a piece of electronic machinery. Spoken as someone who presents works with software and who has an electrical engineering degree which was used to design electronics.

If robots were good enough to do that they already would have. The question is will the be in the future and if so when?

What a neatly circular argument you weave.

The opinions of those who actually work in the semiconductor, software, and hardware industries - and who aren't trying to sell something -not important.

The opinions of those who have hands-on experience with what automation exists out there - and the societal and trust challenges associated with them, equally not important.

Robots are an economic issue. There are places where a robot makes sense - for example in a hugely commoditized assembly line like a top 5 world car manufacturer. For everyone else - they don't make sense.

It has very little to do with technology.

There are firms out there that specialize in custom machinery. These are effectively robots created to do one specific series of tasks, and do them well. I've known someone in that business for years - it is niche because it costs $500K to $2M or more to design one. This might make sense for a nationwide company like Hormel to automate assembly of its latest packaging + product, but it will never make sense for anyone smaller. His company does about $50M a year, and is one of a dozen or so in existence. That tells you just how much 'potential' robots have.

[radon]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

I believe that these cars will work under carefully controlled conditions:

- No obstacles appear between the time the route is mapped and the time the car takes the route
- No snow or fog or other interference with sensors
- No sudden, unexpected moves by other drivers

As these conditions can occur at any time, the driver has pay attention at all times to what the car is doing and to conditions around the car and be prepared to take control.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. This reminds me of an episode in the 90s when I was writing practice management software. There were a few occasions when marketing sold our product with features it didn't have "yet". This lead to either the customer or the development team getting shafted. Thankfully we didn't have to deal with the media making grandiose claims as well.

On the other hand, if this turns out to be more than glorified cruse control would you use it?

[radon]

Re: limits of auto pilots

My first job at 16 was in Kentucky Fried Chicken. I also delivered pizzas while in high school. I have also employed 20 in home senior care givers.

I thus have both direct hands-on experience working simple, repetitive jobs and hiring people at low wages to do the same.

Thus my observations come from direct experience.

Perhaps you worked with the best fry cook in the country, but his volume of human spirit and initiative is completely unnecessary for putting a bucket in the fat and then removing it when the timer goes off. All the things you listed as impediments to the adoption of automation are faults that people suffer from as well. Plus you still have to deal with all the issues that arise from people being people. Issues you don't have to deal with once their job is automated.

A generator for lights, or even one for an assembly line, is far different than electricity supply for a piece of electronic machinery. Spoken as someone who presents works with software and who has an electrical engineering degree which was used to design electronics.

The claim was that the loss of electrical power was somehow less of a problem for people than robots. In my experience on the rare occasion there is a prolonged power outage everyone gets sent home anyway. And yes, if it is really important to you you can pony up the cash for proper fail-over and run your electronics.

What a neatly circular argument you weave.

The opinions of those who actually work in the semiconductor, software, and hardware industries - and who aren't trying to sell something -not important.

The opinions of those who have hands-on experience with what automation exists out there - and the societal and trust challenges associated with them, equally not important.

As if your assertion that if robots were useful they should have already replaced low tier workers is any better. As to your opinions, so far they have been mostly about employee relations. If you express an option related to your stated field of expertise I would be more inclined to listen. Do you have a technical argument that bars the development of a trainable humanoid robot?

Robots are an economic issue. There are places where a robot makes sense - for example in a hugely commoditized assembly line like a top 5 world car manufacturer. For everyone else - they don't make sense.

It has very little to do with technology.

There are firms out there that specialize in custom machinery. These are effectively robots created to do one specific series of tasks, and do them well. I've known someone in that business for years - it is niche because it costs $500K to $2M or more to design one. This might make sense for a nationwide company like Hormel to automate assembly of its latest packaging + product, but it will never make sense for anyone smaller. His company does about $50M a year, and is one of a dozen or so in existence. That tells you just how much 'potential' robots have.

You are taking about apples and oranges. This isn't a high-speed piece of precision equipment. This isn't specialized custom machinery, and at 22K a unit it isn't expensive. You might as well be a mainframe guy in the 70 laughing at the apple kit I put together. Your entire line of reasoning appears to that this looks like a toy, and it will never amount to anything. And that argument might work just fine, until it doesn't.

[EJ]

Re: Robots are replacing humans

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. This reminds me of an episode in the 90s when I was writing practice management software. There were a few occasions when marketing sold our product with features it didn't have "yet". This lead to either the customer or the development team getting shafted. Thankfully we didn't have to deal with the media making grandiose claims as well.

On the other hand, if this turns out to be more than glorified cruse control would you use it?

It is my habit to approach every technology as a potential investor, that is, the way an investor performs due diligence on a business idea. Let's ask a few of the more rudimentary questions.

Who is the customer?

Eventually the market is all automobile drivers, but the product initially will be far too expensive as a standard feature or even as a high-end option.

The google driverless car product uses a $70,000 laser system and $80,000 in other hardware components, plus a significant software investment that needs to be amortized.

But let's be generous and say that by the time a commercial product is ready in a few years they have figured out how to get the cost down by half, to $75,000.

Applying a standard 25% margin, it goes to market as a $100,000 option. The puts the market at the high end of the Tesla market, for the well healed geek, like the CEO of google himself, who just has to have the latest gadget to show off to his friends.

To broaden the market google needs to get the cost down. Let's generously assume they figure out how to shave 25% off the cost of the system every year. That's never been done before, but let's give google super-human cost reduction abilities.

Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8
$100,000	$80,000	$64,000	$51,200	$40,960	$32,768	$26,214	$20,972

If they get a $100,000 option out the door in, say, 2015, they can maybe have a $21,000 version by 2022.

Then they will be a far larger market than for a $100,000 option, but as an option Driverless is several times more expensive than any other option you can buy for a high-end car.

It's an option for someone who really, really, really needs the Driverless feature.

That's, "Who is the customer?" Next, "What is the customer need?" or "What customer problem does the product solve?"

If you've ever taken long drives on open highway with few cars on it, cruise control solves the problem if sitting motionless except for the foot on the accelerator that you adjust to maintain speed. With the cuise control on you can take your foot off the gas and move around a little, although you still have to keep your other foot on or near the brake in case grandma drifts into you or a moose leaps out at you. The infrared and radar enhanced cruise control systems additionally apply the brake as necessary to avoid vehicles ahead. That's a feature that came with both of the last two cars I've owned. I experimented with both but rarely used them; the traffic is either too dense for the system to work or not dense enough to be needed. The traffic has to be just right for it to provide a benefit.

What is the benefit of a driverless car? Does anyone walk up to their commuter car in the morning, cup of coffee in hand, stop, stare, and ask, "Gee, if only this thing could drive itself!"

What if it did? Then what are you going to do? It's not like you can do yoga or aerobics while the car winds its way through rush hour traffic. You're still stuck in a small space behind a steering wheel. What are you going to do with your hands and feet free while the car stops and starts through traffic? Play the piano? I suppose you can send emails and talk on the phone. What else can you do? Write book? Take a nap? Make eye contact while you argue with the wife?

What you can do as the back-up driver of a driverless car depends on how frequently the car might suddenly return control to you because something has happened that the car is not programmed to cope with.

The most important due diligence question for the potential driverless car investor is, "In the 300,000 miles that the prototype cars have been driven, how may times and how frequently did the driver have to take over?"

If the answer is once or twice, then the value proposition is a certain number of "Things you can do behind the wheel instead of driving that you can't do now" but if the answer is every few miles then the value proposition is "Things you can do now, like email and text, but for longer stretches of time, assuming they're legal."

So far we have a customer defined as someone who is, best case, willing to pay $20,000 eight years for the privilege of doing something or other that they can't do now while stuck in the driver's seat of a car.

That doesn't sound compelling from the investors' point of view. There must be something else.

Google talks about The Commute of the Future made possible by this technology. In a TED Talk, gee golly whiz Google future, all cars will be driverless.

Traffic jams and accidents will be a thing of the past.

How long will it take for the fleet of 250,000,000 human driven cars in the U.S. to be replaced so that the The Commute of the Future benefit of driverless cars accrues? Twenty years? Fifty?

I expect that fives years from now we'll still be hearing about the google driverless car as a product in development, improving bit by bit, but not yet commercialized.

Anyway, I'm holding out for my Jetson's flying car.