- 0 Posts
- 5 Comments
No company has an interest in that happening and since politics only cares about business (there’s fascism in every “democratic” country in the world except perhaps small states like Iceland) it’s not going to happen. If there were a population of well organized politically active individuals, then it might happen, but what you have is a population craving for more bread and games.
You are too optimistic, because while there exist humans that might be able to build such services and while it might be best for society (you know the kind of thing governments should care about, but don’t), it is not going to happen, because governments only are concerned with maintaining power. If a lot of people protest, they might consider to do something about it, but even then only when it doesn’t interfere with their goals.
The expertise required to evaluate a product is also easy to underestimate. A company like Michelin probably has a setup to evaluate new wheels of their competitors, but they aren’t going to disclose that information. The easiest solution would be to make any such knowledge freely available by law (for example as a part of trade deals) and also mandate that every large company has such a facility (which they have anyway). The problem you get with that is that perhaps all the good tire companies are within the EU, which means that you would be giving away free knowledge to the Chinese, which then might outcompete those companies, and so on.
Ultimately, if you want to know something, you are going to have to invest into the science yourself for decades and then you might finally be able to efficiently evaluate just the tires of a car. Now, only 29,999 components to go (not counting some model that says how to sum those values (for example by building a simulator driving the car for a decade)).
Introducing the death penalty for even minor violations of false advertising would go a long way. Mandating regular scientific research comparing various products along different KPIs as a precondition before even being allowed to advertise would be another.
When you buy a car with 30,000 components, do you get the failure specifications for all 30,000 components? They don’t advertise that some minor component exists that will cost a few thousand dollars to replace, because of the way it was been tucked away, do they?
The only reason people buy products is, because of lack of anything better or ignorance about the market.
A more high tech version would be if everyone had their own Star Trek Enterprise-D in which the “Computer” has solutions for almost every problem except completely new ones. For example, you can ask such a computer to design a new warp reactor, but you can’t ask it to design a new transwarp reactor.
In a future with an AI as advanced as in Star Trek, there’s no point in having a human still in the loop, however.
Don’t hold your breath for such a future, however, because the first version has no political support (people just love to lie and cheat, which is what marketing is in practice) and the second version requires technological progress of probably nine orders of magnitude if it is not outright impossible to begin with. That is, one can program a computer to come up with answers for all real-world questions, but that doesn’t mean you haven’t died of old age before the answer is returned.
I think proof of concepts are a waste of time for everyone involved, unless the person actually completes the work. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of some guy whining to get help only to get the credits later for it being “his idea”.
I think any person who thinks writing such code manually is a good idea for many different devices lacks intelligence. Apparently, Torvalds thinks he has done something useful, which only signals to me how far out of touch he is with modern engineering.
It’s annoying that so many people are so stupid these days. An Internet on which not every moron could go, must have been paradise.