Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #625195 > unrolled thread

Beware of the hype

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Beware of the hype richard@microscitech.com - 2017-03-26 12:01 -0700
    Re: Beware of the hype jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-03-26 21:43 +0000
      Re: Beware of the hype benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 00:46 -0400
        Re: Beware of the hype jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-03-27 05:42 +0000
          Re: Beware of the hype benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-27 16:52 -0400
            Re: Beware of the hype jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-03-27 22:11 +0000
    Re: Beware of the hype Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-26 19:00 -0500
    Re: Beware of the hype Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-03-27 03:17 -0400
      Re: Beware of the hype richard@microscitech.com - 2017-03-31 14:10 -0700
        Re: Beware of the hype noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 22:22 -0700
        Re: Beware of the hype richard@microscitech.com - 2017-04-07 12:58 -0700

#625195 — Beware of the hype

Beware of the hype...

I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?

As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
vacuum my house in any way. Neither do I believe we have any chance of such
a device within at least 20 years. We were promised 'Robbie the household 
robot' at least fifty years ago. dop the ironing as well. Nowt, absolutely nowt
nearing this so far. Washing the dishes? Well, the best we have is a 
dishwasher running a 19th century cotton-mill program - a knitting machine 
really.

I'm not surprised, it is very difficult (vacuuming the house), 
and we will probably only do it within say 30 years (minimum).
But, in the next few years, fat chance!
A bit like Fusion but harder, and that aint easy as we can all see.

So on to driverless cars. This topic has also gone beserk recently.

I note that every trial seems to have a human driver in a driverless car!
They say there is minimal driver intervention. More like maximal press
intervention, sucking up to their advertising masters.

In truth, these driverless cars (paradoxically with a human driver)
drive mostly in a straight line and stop if an object is
close. Great. Its called radar, we had it 70+ years ago, or proximity sensors as
they are called today. There is no intelligence here whatsoever is there?
I'm open to question, but I don't see it? It's a sensor, it measures distance,
without any thought or intelligence.

I too know one day we will crack it, but it won't happen in the next 10 years,
and I wish the media would stop listening to all the crap hype emanating
from Tesla and chums. These guys saw a movie (Iron Man), and now some loud mouth with a bizarre name claims all, but it is just hype, pure hype, and self promotion of course.

Why the rant? Well, this year the press, media, governments, seem to think
it is all going to happen with a few years. This year it seems to have all gone ballistic. Yet the technology has most definitely not.

I can assure you, it ain't going happen any day real soon now. 

50's AI anyone? I'm still waiting...

The message: Beware of the hype.

Richard Miller
http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#625219

richard@microscitech.com wrote:
> Beware of the hype...
> 
> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
> 
> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
> vacuum my house in any way.

Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_domestic_robots


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625280

On 03/26/2017 05:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> richard@microscitech.com wrote:
>> Beware of the hype...
>>
>> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>>
>> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
>> vacuum my house in any way.
>
> Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_domestic_robots

I take it that your science knowledge comes only out of TV programs and 
magazines and certainly not quality ones like Nova or Wired.

A programmable mobile vacuum cleaner even with sensors and pattern 
programming hardly qualifies as a domestic robot that stands at the sink 
and does the dishes for you. It certainly doesn't make the bed. This is 
like calling your dishwasher a domestic robot. Yes, it may be smarter 
than your computer and certainly is smarter than you, but is hardly a 
"domestic robot". Go read RUR again or do some science fiction to get a 
handle on this, Chimp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625324

benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/26/2017 05:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> richard@microscitech.com wrote:
>>> Beware of the hype...
>>>
>>> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>>>
>>> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
>>> vacuum my house in any way.
>>
>> Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_domestic_robots
> 
> I take it that your science knowledge comes only out of TV programs and 
> magazines and certainly not quality ones like Nova or Wired.

Ad hominems unrelated to what was posted as would be expected from a troll.
 
> A programmable mobile vacuum cleaner even with sensors and pattern 
> programming hardly qualifies as a domestic robot that stands at the sink 
> and does the dishes for you.

Why would anyone expect a vacuum cleaner to do the dishes or anything other
than vacuum the floor kook?

Or is this just more troll irrelevant nonsense?

<snip remaining troll nonsense>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625399

On 3/27/2017 1:42 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/26/2017 05:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> richard@microscitech.com wrote:
>>>> Beware of the hype...
>>>>
>>>> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>>>>
>>>> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
>>>> vacuum my house in any way.
>>>
>>> Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_domestic_robots
>>
>> I take it that your science knowledge comes only out of TV programs and
>> magazines and certainly not quality ones like Nova or Wired.
>
> Ad hominems unrelated to what was posted as would be expected from a troll.
>
>> A programmable mobile vacuum cleaner even with sensors and pattern
>> programming hardly qualifies as a domestic robot that stands at the sink
>> and does the dishes for you.
>
> Why would anyone expect a vacuum cleaner to do the dishes or anything other
> than vacuum the floor kook?
>
> Or is this just more troll irrelevant nonsense?
>
> <snip remaining troll nonsense>

Chimp your amazing ignorance simply defies credulity even after 
witnessing the senile babblings of Bert as setting the standard.

Where did you spend your life? In a cave or was it in goverment service? 
Clearly it was in isolation from the real world. I'm SURE you are old 
enough to have seen the idiot Lib ramblings in popular mags blindly 
predicting anthropomorphic robots in the future that will be in every 
house doing all the housework. Such fantasies are obviously as insane as 
those of HVAC and you.

What is psychologically interesting is that the more ignorant you are 
and the less comprehension you have of a subject the MORE you become 
convinced that everyone else is babbling nonsense! You are truly an 
interesting case! As Bert would Say: WOW!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625429

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 3/27/2017 1:42 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/26/2017 05:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> richard@microscitech.com wrote:
>>>>> Beware of the hype...
>>>>>
>>>>> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>>>>>
>>>>> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
>>>>> vacuum my house in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_domestic_robots
>>>
>>> I take it that your science knowledge comes only out of TV programs and
>>> magazines and certainly not quality ones like Nova or Wired.
>>
>> Ad hominems unrelated to what was posted as would be expected from a troll.
>>
>>> A programmable mobile vacuum cleaner even with sensors and pattern
>>> programming hardly qualifies as a domestic robot that stands at the sink
>>> and does the dishes for you.
>>
>> Why would anyone expect a vacuum cleaner to do the dishes or anything other
>> than vacuum the floor kook?
>>
>> Or is this just more troll irrelevant nonsense?
>>
>> <snip remaining troll nonsense>
> 
> Chimp your amazing ignorance simply defies credulity even after 
> witnessing the senile babblings of Bert as setting the standard.

Usual useless troll ad hominems.

> Where did you spend your life? In a cave or was it in goverment service? 
> Clearly it was in isolation from the real world. I'm SURE you are old 
> enough to have seen the idiot Lib ramblings in popular mags blindly 
> predicting anthropomorphic robots in the future that will be in every 
> house doing all the housework. Such fantasies are obviously as insane as 
> those of HVAC and you.

Typical semi-coherent troll babble and ad hominems irrelevant to the
original statement.

> What is psychologically interesting is that the more ignorant you are 
> and the less comprehension you have of a subject the MORE you become 
> convinced that everyone else is babbling nonsense! You are truly an 
> interesting case! As Bert would Say: WOW!

Yet more useless troll ad hominems.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625229

On 3/26/2017 2:01 PM, richard@microscitech.com wrote:
> Beware of the hype...
>
> I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics
> and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>

hype for gov funding


> As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
> vacuum my house in any way. Neither do I believe we have any chance
> of such a device within at least 20 years. We were promised 'Robbie
> the household robot' at least fifty years ago. dop the ironing as
> well. Nowt, absolutely nowt nearing this so far. Washing the dishes?
> Well, the best we have is a dishwasher running a 19th century
> cotton-mill program - a knitting machine really.

agree, robot cost per chore is far too high.

>
> I'm not surprised, it is very difficult (vacuuming the house), and we
> will probably only do it within say 30 years (minimum). But, in the
> next few years, fat chance! A bit like Fusion but harder, and that
> aint easy as we can all see.
>
> So on to driverless cars. This topic has also gone beserk recently.
>
> I note that every trial seems to have a human driver in a driverless
> car! They say there is minimal driver intervention. More like maximal
> press intervention, sucking up to their advertising masters.

they dont want the car to drive over someone, or their little doggie. 
(quite true)

>
> In truth, these driverless cars (paradoxically with a human driver)
> drive mostly in a straight line and stop if an object is close.
> Great. Its called radar, we had it 70+ years ago, or proximity
> sensors as they are called today. There is no intelligence here
> whatsoever is there? I'm open to question, but I don't see it? It's a
> sensor, it measures distance, without any thought or intelligence.

they use a high power infrared lasar radar, about $50,000 each (google) 
that maps the area. it is not eye safe within about 4 feet.

also they integrate the data from various sensors, not that high tech.


>
> I too know one day we will crack it, but it won't happen in the next
> 10 years, and I wish the media would stop listening to all the crap
> hype emanating from Tesla and chums.

Tesla makes its money from Gov Funding.  It has to put out the hype to 
keep the money flowing.


> These guys saw a movie (Iron
> Man), and now some loud mouth with a bizarre name claims all, but it
> is just hype, pure hype, and self promotion of course.

agree.

>
> Why the rant? Well, this year the press, media, governments, seem to
> think it is all going to happen with a few years. This year it seems
> to have all gone ballistic. Yet the technology has most definitely
> not.

what is being ignored is the failure rate, each device you add onto a 
system lowers the reliability, and it will fail earlier.

so with a complex car, 30 more sensors, and a million lines of code,


>
> I can assure you, it ain't going happen any day real soon now.
>
> 50's AI anyone? I'm still waiting...
>
> The message: Beware of the hype.
>
> Richard Miller http://www.urmt.org
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#625300

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:01:47 -0700 (PDT), richard@microscitech.com
wrote:

>Beware of the hype...
>
>I frequently read phys.org, but is it me, or is the hype on robotics and, especially, driverless cars, going stratospheric?
>
>As regards robotics: I do not have or see anything nearing that will
>vacuum my house in any way.

Unless you are just criticizing the "Roomba's" effectiveness, please
see:
http://store.irobot.com/default/robot-vacuum-roomba/?&gclid=CIXPwpCF9dICFQeqaQode2MEBA

...

>So on to driverless cars. This topic has also gone beserk recently.

>I note that every trial seems to have a human driver in a driverless car!
>They say there is minimal driver intervention. More like maximal press
>intervention, sucking up to their advertising masters.
>
>In truth, these driverless cars (paradoxically with a human driver)
>drive mostly in a straight line and stop if an object is
>close. Great. Its called radar, we had it 70+ years ago, or proximity sensors as
>they are called today. There is no intelligence here whatsoever is there?
>I'm open to question, but I don't see it? It's a sensor, it measures distance,
>without any thought or intelligence.

We have driver-less cars now. The Tesla S-50 autopilot is an example
of one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware

Tesla's Model S autopilot is scheduled to go full self-driving  by the
end of 2017.

>I too know one day we will crack it, but it won't happen in the next 10 years,
>and I wish the media would stop listening to all the crap hype emanating
>from Tesla and chums. These guys saw a movie (Iron Man), and now some loud mouth with a bizarre name claims all, but it is just hype, pure hype, and self promotion of course.
>
>Why the rant? Well, this year the press, media, governments, seem to think
>it is all going to happen with a few years. This year it seems to have all gone ballistic. Yet the technology has most definitely not.
>
>I can assure you, it ain't going happen any day real soon now. 
>
>50's AI anyone? I'm still waiting...
>
>The message: Beware of the hype.
>
>Richard Miller
>http://www.urmt.org

They are getting safer than human piloted vehicles.

Human piloted vehicles kill approximately 30,000 each year.

Mike
See you at the show trials - lol.
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#626123

On Monday, 27 March 2017 08:17:57 UTC+1, Michael Strickland  wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
> wrote:
> 
> >Beware of the hype...
> >
> 
> We have driver-less cars now. The Tesla S-50 autopilot is an example
> of one.

It may well go out on the street, but with a driver. What part is driverless?

> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware
> 
> Tesla's Model S autopilot is scheduled to go full self-driving  by the
> end of 2017.
> 

Oh please, this is Wiki, it is not an authority, it is a site where anyone can post any stuff they like - and they do. It contains main error. The case you cite may well be "scheduled", but,.. I too have a super-luminal spaceship that is "scheduled" to go super-luminal soon. Indeed it could go out in 2017, but that don't mean it is fit for purpose.

Media hype is about the excessive self-promotion of something that has very little chance of it meeting the claims made, at least in the near future (say a few years).

But forget all that, if you are so confident, then please send some of these robotic vacuum cleaners to charity care homes of your choice, plus one of those robotic dish-washers, out of your own cash.

You imply they are obviously very good, and maybe they are, so their widespread adoption is evidently imminent, and many charities could do with this cheap labour now, instead of paying for ghastly humans to do a job evidently your robots can do far superior today. In fact, why aren't they in my house doing my bloody cleaning now!

> They are getting safer than human piloted vehicles.
> 

Yeah, you go on and believe that guff. the clue is 'Getting safer'...  Read it carefully!

I'm getting better at devloping a space ship going super-luminal, but it will take me some time.

> Human piloted vehicles kill approximately 30,000 each year.
> 

Yes, and when you scale up the same numbers of robotic vehicles, the numbers may not seem to suit your argument.


> Mike
> See you at the show trials - lol.

Lol - Lol creme was a member of 10cc.

Scientific scepticism - have you got it? No.

> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

Richard M.

http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#626186

bd00mp, the fundamental theor y of

> Scientific scepticism - have you got it? No.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Richard M.
> 
> http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#627657

On Friday, 31 March 2017 22:10:41 UTC+1, urmtrich...@gmail.com  wrote:

> On Monday, 27 March 2017 08:17:57 UTC+1, Michael Strickland  wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >Beware of the hype...
> > >
> > 
> 
> > Mike
> > See you at the show trials - lol.
> 
> Lol - Lol creme was a member of 10cc.
> 

> Scientific scepticism - have you got it? No.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Richard M.
> 
> http://www.urmt.org

It's a rare thing on this group, especially with the recent carpet bombing by some unknown entity with obviously nothing to offer, but, Michael J Strickland, I retract my comment on your scientific scepticism. Truth is, I don't know, so I'm going to leave it at that.

As for Mr Hype, nowt changes on that one, but recent launches are at least positive.

Richard Miller.
http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web