Connect with us

Business

Column: Excited about AI and self-driving cars? A top roboticist is here to burst your bubble

Published

on

Column: Excited about AI and self-driving cars? A top roboticist is here to burst your bubble

If you’re a fan of techno-hype, 2023 was the year for you.

Believers felt themselves validated by seeing excitement and fear about AI chatbots reach previously untouched heights. Skeptics may have felt initially confounded by the rollout of driverless robotaxis in San Francisco and a few other cities, but ultimately validated when they were ordered off the streets by authorities concerned at their tendency to create traffic jams, interfere with emergency responses, and injure the occasional bystander.

Everyone else was probably confused by the relentless promises by commercial tech promoters that we were standing on the doorstep of a new world.

Get your thick coats now. There may be yet another AI winter, and perhaps even a full scale tech winter, just around the corner. And it is going to be cold.

— Rodney Brooks

Advertisement

Rodney Brooks is here to put it all in perspective, with his sixth annual Predictions Scorecard.

As he wrote in issuing the scorecard Jan. 1, this is his “sixth annual update on how [his] dated predictions from January 1st, 2018 concerning (1) self driving cars, (2) robotics, AI , and machine learning, and (3) human space travel, have held up.”

Long story short: They’ve held up very well.

Why should we care what Brooks thinks? As I wrote a year ago in reporting on his fifth annual scorecard, Brooks is “one of the world’s most accomplished experts in robotics and artificial intelligence … a co-founder of IRobot, the maker of the Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner; co-founder and chief technology officer of RobustAI, which makes robots for factories and warehouses; and former director of computer and artificial intelligence labs at MIT.”

In other words, he’s the opposite of a Luddite. On the contrary, Brooks is deeply involved in technology research and development, but sufficiently independent-minded to call out hype where he sees it. He sees it a lot.

Advertisement

He is also a hands-on technology analyst. During 2023, he writes, he took almost 40 rides in Cruise robotaxis in San Francisco and wrote several blog posts about the experience.

On the whole, he found them less flexible or expedient than Lyft or Uber; the cars wouldn’t service his street and they were delayed or the rides canceled more often than the ride-hailing services.

He witnessed some decidedly dangerous behavior by the vehicles that would not have happened with human drivers, and on one occasion the Cruise in which he was riding froze in the middle of an intersection right in the path of an oncoming vehicle, to the point where Brooks was convinced he was about to be the victim of a violent collision. Luckily, the other driver slowed down, averting the accident.

“I have spent my whole professional life developing robots and my companies have built more of them than anyone else,” he writes in his scorecard, “but I can assure you that as a driver in San Francisco during the day I was getting pretty frustrated with driverless Cruise and Waymo vehicles doing stupid things that I saw and experienced every day.”

Rodney Brooks

Advertisement

(Christopher P. Michel)

Brooks pigeonholed his original 2018 predictions into three categories: technological advances projected to happen by a given date; those he expected to happen no earlier than a given date; and those he projects to happen “not in my lifetime” or “NIML” — meaning not before 2050, when he will have turned 95.

Since then, he has scored his and others’ predictions against those yardsticks. On the whole, Elon Musk’s 2015 prediction that the first fully autonomous Tesla would appear in 2018 and be approved by regulators by 2021, for example, gets a failing grade on both counts, since neither happened within the predicted time frame.

Let’s take a look at some of Brooks’ other scores.

Advertisement

Self-driving and electric cars take up the largest share of Brooks’ 2024 scorecard. In part, that’s because the technologies have occupied so much public mind space: When he first issued his dated predictions, he writes, “the hubris about the coming of self driving cars was at a similar level to the hubris in 2023 about ChatGPT being a step towards AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) being just around the corner.”

The focus then was on the advent of Level 4 autonomy, in which the car can do everything though human override is still possible and occasionally required; and Level 5, in which no human interaction is needed. Through 2017, car manufacturers, autonomous systems developers and ride-hailing firms such as Uber were predicting that self-driving cars would be available no later than 2022.

As of now, Brooks notes, “there are no self driving cars deployed (despite what companies have tried to project to make it seem it has happened).” The prospects for robotaxis, he adds, “took a beating” in 2023, with Cruise robotaxis being ordered off the streets. General Motors, the owner of Cruise, appears to be growing disenchanted with the enterprise after having poured billions of dollars into it; Cruise chief executive and co-founder Kyle Vogt resigned in November.

Meanwhile, Waymo, the leading Cruise competitor, is a money pit for its owner, Alphabet. As for Tesla, where Musk constantly issues torrents of hype about self-driving being already achieved, if you believe anything Musk says on any topic, that’s your problem.

Brooks is a believer in electric cars; he owns one and says he loves it. But he is also fully alive to the obstacles still confronting their market growth. Many people even in affluent neighborhoods have no access to private parking spaces where they can charge up day or night.

Advertisement

“Having an electric car is an incredible time tax on people who do not have their own parking spot with access to electricity,” Brooks observes. That’s one reason that EV sales are plateauing, except in pockets such as West Coast cities and Washington, D.C. At this moment, the future of the electric car rollout appears to be in hybrids, which will run on electricity or gasoline.

Then there’s artificial intelligence, a field with which Brooks is intimately familiar and that he watches very carefully.

He is especially wary of the public’s tendency to project contemporary claims ahead to the science fiction of robots taking over the Earth.

He doesn’t expect to see “a robot that seems as intelligent, as attentive, and as faithful as a dog” before 2048. “This is so much harder than most people imagine it to be,” he writes. “Many think we are already there; I say we are not at all there.”

And “a robot that has any real idea about its own existence, or the existence of humans in the way that a six year old understands humans”? Not in his lifetime.

Advertisement

Brooks predicted in 2018 that the “next big thing” in AI beyond deep learning, which was what the field had reached by then, would emerge between 2023 and 2027, though he did not know what it would be.

It happened in 2023, with the emergence of large language models, or LLMs — the ChatGPT-style chatbots that have consumed the attention of the entrepreneurial world and the popular press over the last year.

In his writings and a talk he gave at MIT in November, Brooks has been “encouraging people to do good things with LLMs but to not believe the conceit that their existence means we are on the verge of Artificial General Intelligence.”

But he takes the long view of AI — not merely looking ahead, but looking back at AI’s past. The field, he writes, is “following a well worn hype cycle that we have seen again, and again, during the 60+ year history of AI.”

The lesson that Brooks strives to leave us with is that technological progress almost always takes longer than we expect — the last mile in research and development may look like a trivial challenge, given the accomplishments that preceded it. But it’s often the most difficult part of the path to traverse.

Advertisement

Moreover, the progress of a new technology can often be mapped as peaks of achievement interspersed with troughs of disappointment and disaffection.

“Get your thick coats now,” he concludes. “There may be yet another AI winter, and perhaps even a full scale tech winter, just around the corner. And it is going to be cold.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading

Business

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Published

on

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.

If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.

Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.

As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.

Advertisement

Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.

“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”

The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.

The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.

While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.

Advertisement

The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.

The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.

“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”

The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”

Advertisement

While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.

“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”

The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.

As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.

Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.

Advertisement

Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”

While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.

“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”

Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.

Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.

Advertisement

“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending