You are delusional in thinking a non tech person can just tell a chatbot to build an entire, complex program from scratch without a technical person who can ensure it is correct.

Sure we may be there one day but by the time that happens we will be so far fucked that this entire conversation is meaningless. Either we have reworked our entire economy or we have descended into economic hell where no one earns money.

Technical jobs might be easier but they will still have to exist to oversee this whole process.

>So they are making an electric car less efficient by putting an energy draining device on the front?

It's an absolutely absurd marketing gimmick.

If we consider that the filters need to be changed, the loss in efficiency and the absurd amount of these cars that it would take to equal a wooded park or small forest it makes no sense.

Example:

Central Park in NY has 18000 trees. Even if we accept that ten of these cars over 20 000 miles equal an average tree - that would mean you'd need 180 000 of these cars driving 20k miles per year to equal just central park.

Saving money on the filter and being more efficient and just planting more trees would be vastly more useful.

Delusional. You say tech is where its at because the chatbots you speak to today spew out bad code. By the time someone goes and gets a degree in some tech field that wont be the case.

[removed]

Why stop there... lets put one on every vehicle in the US.

The average American driver drives 13,476 miles per year[1]. Times ~240 licensed drivers is 3.2T miles driven.

At 4.5 pounds of CO2 per 20,000 miles, that is 728M pounds of CO2 per year.

At 48 pounds per mature tree, that is like 15M trees.

Just for comparison, adding 15M trees, would add 0.0066% to the total number of trees in the US.

Or another way to look at it; 728M pounds of CO2 is what you get from burning 36.4M gallons of gasoline. For reference, in the US we burn about that much gasoline every 144 minutes on average.

​

Even before you consider actually producing these devices, installing them and handling the used filters, they are rounding error on rounding error.

​

​

​

[1]https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-is-the-average-miles-driven-per-year#:~:text=Calculating%20Your%20Mileage%20And%20Average,clocks%2013%2C476%20miles%20per%20year.

So they are making an electric car less efficient by putting an energy draining device on the front? Fun concept but the thermodynamics don't work in their favor. It would be more energy efficient to just plug the carbon capture device into your house and skip the charging step.

It doesn't mention this in the article, but it's not controlled by the rider. It's remote controlled. You are basically riding on top of a drone piloted by someone else. (0:55)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt9bTGxIr8I

Yes but if every electric vehicle had this feature, it would really add up, especially as EVs start to take increasing market share

[removed]

You are right-- I missed the "ten" in front :(

Though it is still an exaggeration since (1) 4.5 pounds is (a little) less than a tenth of 48 pounds, and (2) 20,000 miles per year is certainly not a typically driven car; that is likely 95th-98th percentile.

In the US 12-15k is more typical and I'd guess the sort of folks who really care about the environment tend toward the lower end of that (choosing not to drive when not needed and combining trips).

Looks like ~14-18 equally one tree is closer to reality, and that is before comparing the CO2 output to build the system into the car and dealing with the used filters to I guess what the CO2 costs are to get a tree planted (in a way that it'll at least survive to maturity)

>work force 20-30 years from now

hahaha there ain't gonna be a work force

That's why they said ten of these cars would equal 1 tree

Wasn't Jetsons a utopia? This is gonna be more like blade runner

something what is useful for AI and it won't kill you :)
Serverroom cleaner? robot repairer (in case it can't fix itself).

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Ain't gonna happen.

This is a way for joint venture capitalists to give money to each other, kind of like the Segway, which ultimately only cops wanted.

Exactly my point.

Because psychology as we know it will probably become just an appendix of psychiatry and neuroscience. Those are more likely the professionals who are going to design and dispense therapy in the future.

Why did you put psychology on your obsolete list? Seems as though there will be a great need for therapists. Nobody wants to do something that personal with a robot.

>“The Zem electric car is also home to bi-directional charging that can be used to charge other items as well. Zem will look like an external battery to your home, providing green energy when needed,” TU/ecomotive has stated.

I can see this being very useful in my home country, Canada. On the east coast the frequency of hurricanes, ice storms and other events causing power outages is increasing. Portable generators have always been popular but many people are buying portable battery packs so they can at least boil some water and make tea or soup while waiting for the power to come back on.

I hope that this kind of bi-directional charging becomes standard for all vehicles in the future; it could be very helpful and lifesaving in the case of emergency situations in natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, etc.

AI is far far less capable than people are giving it credit, it will improve with time however, that is true.
The first jobs to go won't really be the doers, it will be the managers.
However as you say, infrastructure and physical jobs are safe, and will likely be for a very, very long time. They are inconvenient and 'dirty' jobs however.

Very interesting concept, but will likely need long trials before this is anywhere near ready for public usage.