Phoew that's cool! I have to say Opendoc always smelled wrong to me, so I stayed clear -- But I did implement the 'whose' descriptors in Applescript once, and I still have the scars to prove it :-)
I wrote a lot of "Apple Telecom 3.0" that ran on most "powerbooks" back in 1995+ or so, you know, modems, faxes, voice mails and all these very high tech stuff :-)
This is the Steve Jobs more young entrepreneurs need to know about and emulate. Not the "Jobs was an asshole and successful, therefor if I am an asshole I will also be successful" vision of Jobs. Or the "Jobs made pretty things and suckered people into paying too much for them" vision of Jobs.
Wow. I need to remember him taking that drink of water and giving himself time to respond. I respond way too quickly to things far too often. You can just see himself giving himself a second to collect himself. Brilliant.
The AI control is architected such that failover isn't really necessary; the local control is always in control, it just gets suggestions (which it can safely ignore) from the AI. If the AI disappears or starts sending bad suggestions, the AI gets kicked out.
We're trying to continually improve the AI so that its time in control is maximized, much like Waymo's early days with self-driving car software + safety drivers.
Hi, I'm one of the engineers working on this project at Google. If the AI disconnects or starts to make bad control decisions, the local control system (which has veto power) kicks it out and takes over. We lose some efficiency when this happens, but the cooling system stays safe and operates in a mode that the human operators understand completely.
With more and more of the company’s data centers shifting to automated infrastructure control, and with the real possibility that the same will eventually start happening outside of Google, arises the inevitable question of jobs. Are Google’s data center engineers engineering themselves and their colleagues out of work?
So far, Kava hasn’t seen evidence of that happening.
“We still have people there, because they still have to do all the maintenance,” he said. “So, you’re not getting rid of the people, you’re augmenting” the existing team’s capabilities. “Instead of trying to tune the system themselves, they can focus more of their time on preventative maintenance and corrective repairs.”
Besides, AI still does poorly in situations “outside of the envelope of its training,” he said. People are very good at making observations in what Kava likes to call “corner cases” and coming up with a course of action on the spot. AI isn’t.
In other words, it’s a good idea to have AI fine-tune a cooling system to improve efficiency in pre-tornado conditions, but you better have some human engineers around in case a tornado forms.
I think the problem is in the idea that "you better have some human engineers around in case a tornado forms." That is a completely different job than the original job and the folks waiting around "in case a tornado forms" likely won't have the skills to fix that tornado anymore. The issue isn't that "the robots are going to take our jobs!" its that the new jobs are ones humans actually aren't very good at; waiting around ever vigilant until the automated system screws up and then immediately coming up to speed and fixing the system they no longer have any interaction with.
It’s so funny to me how no one working on technology that will wipe out classes of jobs ever self-reports evidence that it will wipe out classes of jobs.
I’m sure early automakers “saw no evidence” in jobs for carriage drivers too.
