←back to thread

1106 points sama | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
iMuzz ◴[] No.12508474[source]
Question/Answer I found interesting:

Sama> How should someone figure out how they should be useful?

Elon> Whatever this thing is you are trying to create.. What would be the utility delta compared to the current state of the art times how many people it would affect?

replies(8): >>12508769 #>>12509450 #>>12509709 #>>12509727 #>>12510398 #>>12513808 #>>12519665 #>>12519971 #
milkytron ◴[] No.12508769[source]
Certainly very interesting, in fact I wrote this down when I heard it. And if you look at the projects he's working on (Renewable energy, cars able to powered by renewable energy, and preserving life outside of Earth), they all affect a great portion of humanity, and have a very large affect.
replies(1): >>12508992 #
soufron ◴[] No.12508992[source]
Affect like how? As of today they're useless, except for Tesla who's motivating car automakers to go towards autonomous cars - but they had the tech before.
replies(5): >>12509111 #>>12509127 #>>12509255 #>>12509834 #>>12510147 #
Applejinx ◴[] No.12509834[source]
He is quite correct that societies can go backwards. There are many scenarios in which we would have 'the tech' and then end up abandoning and losing it. One simple example would be if one corporation profited more by wrecking 'the tech' of another and blocking its adoption, than the other could profit by furthering it. When it all comes down to money you get those suboptimal outcomes, and in the end somebody cashed in epically, but things were not made.

I'm pleased Elon gets this, but it's a chilling thought. We don't have to have MORE stuff, internets, communications etc. just because of Moore's Law, just because it's possible. We can also have progressively less because it's in someone's interest for it to be less.

replies(1): >>12524406 #