It’s a talk filled with problems. The overarching problem is the halo effect. India is this guy’s home team, and he is committed to cheering for his team.
This leads him to overlook pretty much every qualifying factor. I was riding along with his viewpoint comfortably until, halfway through the section on the Nano, he said “adhesives instead of rivets.” And I said “Oh damn, there is a serious tradeoff going on here that he is glossing over.” And from that point on the magic was lost, I started questioning what he said. Once you correct for the fact that he is intentionally trying to get you to believe false things, his talk gets reduced to “here, look at some hand-picked success stories of developing cheap products.”
Not developing high-quality products cheaply. Just developing products cheaply.
AI research is probably the wrong thing to apply the (possible) lessons of these success stories to. Quality is essential, or else bad things happen. It’s new research, with big limitations on what you can do with prior art. I would agree that FAI is probably being done inefficiently (at least form the perspective of someone who knows the answer), but that doesn’t mean this is a way to do it better.
Is your concern that only a few good cheap products get developed, while there’s either a lot of effort wasted on trying to meet irrationally low prices and/or creating poor quality products?
After I’d gotten a bunch of upvotes with no comments, I was wondering if I was in applause light country.
I upvoted without comment (there’s a self-negating statement!) because I want to see other people’s answers, in case there were things I’m doing the hard way.
Holding things together with metal is generally a more durable solution. There are some factors that can mitigate this, but in something like a car… well, maybe he was talking about interior bits and not the guts or body. But he gave me the impression that this replacement was widespread, which would be a strong indicator that the car was a “real car” in the sense that it has four wheels and an engine, but not in the sense that it showed other cars were “high cost.”
I’m not very concerned about problems from this, even were it to become widespread—capitalism is pretty good at what it does. My point was that I don’t feel like this demonstrates that we’re stuck doing things the hard way; it at best opens up a new market niche and at worst, doesn’t. It seems to be just normal capitalism making tradeoffs to explore the market, even if the speaker sometimes hides the tradeoffs.
I think we need information about whether adhesives have improved enough to be satisfactory for structural joins in a car.
Capitalism (whether normal or not) is affected by what people believe is possible and worth doing. I believe that opportunities to make profits frequently don’t get noticed for a while until someone thinks to look in that direction.
It’s a talk filled with problems. The overarching problem is the halo effect. India is this guy’s home team, and he is committed to cheering for his team.
This leads him to overlook pretty much every qualifying factor. I was riding along with his viewpoint comfortably until, halfway through the section on the Nano, he said “adhesives instead of rivets.” And I said “Oh damn, there is a serious tradeoff going on here that he is glossing over.” And from that point on the magic was lost, I started questioning what he said. Once you correct for the fact that he is intentionally trying to get you to believe false things, his talk gets reduced to “here, look at some hand-picked success stories of developing cheap products.”
Not developing high-quality products cheaply. Just developing products cheaply.
AI research is probably the wrong thing to apply the (possible) lessons of these success stories to. Quality is essential, or else bad things happen. It’s new research, with big limitations on what you can do with prior art. I would agree that FAI is probably being done inefficiently (at least form the perspective of someone who knows the answer), but that doesn’t mean this is a way to do it better.
What’s the problem with adhesives vs. rivets?
Is your concern that only a few good cheap products get developed, while there’s either a lot of effort wasted on trying to meet irrationally low prices and/or creating poor quality products?
After I’d gotten a bunch of upvotes with no comments, I was wondering if I was in applause light country.
I upvoted without comment (there’s a self-negating statement!) because I want to see other people’s answers, in case there were things I’m doing the hard way.
Holding things together with metal is generally a more durable solution. There are some factors that can mitigate this, but in something like a car… well, maybe he was talking about interior bits and not the guts or body. But he gave me the impression that this replacement was widespread, which would be a strong indicator that the car was a “real car” in the sense that it has four wheels and an engine, but not in the sense that it showed other cars were “high cost.”
I’m not very concerned about problems from this, even were it to become widespread—capitalism is pretty good at what it does. My point was that I don’t feel like this demonstrates that we’re stuck doing things the hard way; it at best opens up a new market niche and at worst, doesn’t. It seems to be just normal capitalism making tradeoffs to explore the market, even if the speaker sometimes hides the tradeoffs.
I think we need information about whether adhesives have improved enough to be satisfactory for structural joins in a car.
Capitalism (whether normal or not) is affected by what people believe is possible and worth doing. I believe that opportunities to make profits frequently don’t get noticed for a while until someone thinks to look in that direction.