IOTA

[Cryptorials]

People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

[1713523433]

1713523433

[1713523433]

1713523433

[Come-from-Beyond]

People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

[iotatoken]

People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to believe that all these 'next big things' just happen overnight. They don't.
 
Internet-of-Things is already here and we're all using it in one way or another. Every day there are new gadgets and use-cases being deployed and adopted.

We're already in the beginning of it and it's only going to grow, grow and grow, just like applications and the internet did and do still.

[Cryptorials]

People have been saying the 'internet of things' is the next big thing since at least 5 big things ago.

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

[patmast3r]

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

[iotatoken]

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

[Cryptorials]

free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.

[patmast3r]

It all sounds interesting, but I've been reading articles like that for years and the only significant applications seem to be very limited and within a specific company (eg tracking product, assembly lines etc). What few consumer applications there have been have been highly prone to security breaches and largely related to gimmicky products that people don't really want to use.  When I first started hearing about this one of the classic examples was the fridge which could order milk for itself when you're running low, but people don't want a fridge which thinks it knows better than them. Perhaps I decided to cut down on my coffee drinking or lose weight by switching to semi-skimmed, perhaps I fancy getting it from a different shop - I simply don't want my fridge to have already made the decision for me.

Also the costs of security, public distaste for sensors monitoring them all the time and then claiming ownership of data about them, the big organisational changes needed to make the most of this kind of thing - these are all big costs and barriers. Technologies don't just need to be possible, they also need to be desirable and cost-effective.

The whole term 'internet of things' is also something of a rhetorical device. Things can already use the internet. They have been able to for quite some time. But for the most part, they just don't need to.

Well, we can argue on if IoT is good or bad for privacy, etc., but I think it's obvious that this future is inevitable.

I wish i could say that you were wrong but yeah...people will be on board with anything that makes their life "easier".

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

you're kidding right ?

[BitcoinForumator]

free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.

Let's push this even further. What you're describing here is very similar to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUc_3CZHzAM

Watch it from 19:00 forward. Either this is the best sci-fi movie you will watch/hear today or it's the worst horror movie.

keywords: iot, technocracy, dictatorship, transhumanism, data collection, surveillance, artificial intelligence...

You're a bunch of smart guys here. Has this woman gone completely off the rails? Is she unrealistic? Is she making wrong conclusions because she's not tech-literate enough? Is she lying?

Anyways, I just did a little search and I see that some of what she says has grounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative

http://www.zdnet.com/article/raytheon-riot-defense-spying-is-coming-to-social-networks/

http://neurosky.com/

...


Also, some of you Iot pushers are towing the line that everything will be peachy. Are you sure you're not building the ultimate prison?


Turning living cells into computers? Sounds great!

[iotatoken]

free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money

It will do this by monetizing everything?

It will 'free' humanity by automating human decision making? It may increase efficiency in some areas, but if it does then it will do it by directly de-humanizing them (making the machines the decision makers and humans their servants).

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?
Just because things become more autonomous and efficient doesn't mean that humans are unable to make decisions, on the contrary you'll be able to make decisions based on what you wish rather than what you HAVE to do. This is always the result of technological progress. Are there ways this can be abused? Of course. As automation becomes more efficient a lot of human manual labour will become superfluous and so the owners of companies will probably choose to fire these people and replace them with automation. But this is a political question, not a technological one. One solution to this is basic income, others believe that further radical decentralizaton and distribution will lead to a kind of equilibrium. But this discussion is for another topic. IOTA is a neutral technology.

I notice from my previous post that only the small part about privacy got a response and not the rest, so I'll repeat: I don't want a fridge which thinks its better than me. I don't want my free will to be automated away. And neither do I share the general pessimism that this is what the majority of ordinary people want for their lives.

So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple. It's a choice. When the internet started going mainstream there was A LOT of similar complaints along the line of: "I don't want to be online all the time", "I don't want the entire world in my livingroom" etc. etc. So don't. It's your choice. Personally I am looking forward to the day where as much of the mundane tasks and chore can be automated so that I can spend my time doing productive things or things that I find rewarding instead.

Look at the ongoing IoT-robotics-smarthome 'revolution' where more and more people acquire automatic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers, this saves people several hours each week and enable them to always live in a clean home. But nothing is forcing this on you. It's entirely your own choice. Just because your fridge orders food for you when you're out, doesn't mean that it has somehow made you its slave.

[iotatoken]

...

Also, some of you Iot pushers are towing the line that everything will be peachy. Are you sure you're not building the ultimate prison?


Turning living cells into computers? Sounds great!

I have been in the 'futurology' community for a decade and have given deep thought to all these issues that you mention. I highly suggest the book 'Superintelligence' by seminal thinker Nick Boström for everyone. His work over the last decades paved the way for taking these things seriously, which in the last year has made people such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking etc. 'warn' about AI. And this is a good thing, SuperAI is no joke. I highly suggest reading the work by Eliezer Yudkowsky on 'Friendly AI' to get a deeper perspective on the pioneering work in this field.

Same goes for IoT, if society makes the wrong decisions it can lead to more joblessness, on the other hand if society embraces it and makes good decisions, it will lead to an utopian world where money is essentially eradicated through an overwhelming abundance. Read 'zero marginal cost society' by Jeremy Rifkin or 'Abundance'/'BOLD' by Peter Diamandis for an overall view of this.

Of course reality is never black/white there will be nuances. But in general most people will benefit greatly from technology. Because that is what we're discussing here. All these terms are just that, terms, it's semantics, at the end of the day IoT, AI/Machine Learning/Neural networks etc. is just technological progression.

[Come-from-Beyond]

you're kidding right ?

I think he is not kidding. If you hope to see utopian future you'd better place "dys" in front of it, this way you'll increase chances for hope realization.  

[smooth]

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.

[iotatoken]

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.

No. Read again, that'sthe forecast for the next few years. Can you think of any other time in mankind where wealth impact went up 15% in a few years? This effect is cumulative, go forward 10-15-30 years and you should start to get the picture.

[chicken65]

ICO again 

I hope so...yes Ive been scammed a few times with ICO's but I still prefer them for the purposes of speculation. All Alt coins are gambling...I think 

[Cryptorials]

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?

You are trying to smear me by suggesting that because I criticize one technology I must be a luddite who is against all technology. This is very childish logic.

Just because things become more autonomous and efficient doesn't mean that humans are unable to make decisions, on the contrary you'll be able to make decisions based on what you wish rather than what you HAVE to do. This is always the result of technological progress. Are there ways this can be abused? Of course. As automation becomes more efficient a lot of human manual labour will become superfluous and so the owners of companies will probably choose to fire these people and replace them with automation. But this is a political question, not a technological one. One solution to this is basic income, others believe that further radical decentralizaton and distribution will lead to a kind of equilibrium. But this discussion is for another topic. IOTA is a neutral technology.

To suggest that anything is 'always the result' of anything is dogmatic and reveals a kind of pseudo-religious rather than rational attitude you seem to have. Also I explicitly mentioned human decision making not human labour. I have no problem automating human labour. Also what really scares me is not firing workers, its keeping them on, but chipped and tracked and with no scope for them to use their own initiative, creativity or even intelligence as every single part of their day with be monitored and prescribed in the name of efficiency.

So don't buy a fridge that is smarter than you. It's really that simple. It's a choice. When the internet started going mainstream there was A LOT of similar complaints along the line of: "I don't want to be online all the time", "I don't want the entire world in my livingroom" etc. etc. So don't. It's your choice. Personally I am looking forward to the day where as much of the mundane tasks and chore can be automated so that I can spend my time doing productive things or things that I find rewarding instead.

This is emphatically not an example of a fridge which is smarter than me. It is an example of a fridge which thinks it is smarter than me but in actual practical use is definitely not, which is why people don't choose to buy this kind of thing, which has actually been technologically possible for a long time. People act like the internet of things is a new idea, but its as old as the internet itself. Many of these IoT things have been possible for a long time and do not require cutting edge technology, but people are already choosing not to buy them.

Look at the ongoing IoT-robotics-smarthome 'revolution' where more and more people acquire automatic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers, this saves people several hours each week and enable them to always live in a clean home.

I am not sure you actually know what IoT is. Robotic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers are not IoT devices. They are self-contained robotic devices which need little or no connection with the outside world at all to operate. Yes you can add a connection to your smartphone to switch them on and off, but once again this is hardly cutting edge - its a fancy switch. I do see some growth in 'smart home' technologies but mostly I see it as just what you say there - people using their phone as a remote control. Nothing revolutionary, and not really machine to machine communication which is what IoT really is, just a fancy switch.

[iotatoken]

Let me ask you this, did the wheels of the bicycle or subsequent car 'dehumanize' people?

You are trying to smear me by suggesting that because I criticize one technology I must be a luddite who is against all technology. This is very childish logic.

What are you talking about? I am simply drawing a parallel, no need to go all ad hominem conspiracy theory.

To suggest that anything is 'always the result' of anything is dogmatic and reveals a kind of pseudo-religious rather than rational attitude you seem to have. Also I explicitly mentioned human decision making not human labour. I have no problem automating human labour. Also what really scares me is not firing workers, its keeping them on, but chipped and tracked and with no scope for them to use their own initiative, creativity or even intelligence as every single part of their day with be monitored and prescribed in the name of efficiency.

I always wonder why people have this idea in their head that the world is always out to 'get them', chip them, trace them and then kill their spirits. Sorry I don't buy this narrative at all. Are there potentials for abuse as we become ever more reliant on technology? Of course, we have a plethora of examples to draw from. Are these organized efforts dehumanize us? No.

This is emphatically not an example of a fridge which is smarter than me. It is an example of a fridge which thinks it is smarter than me but in actual practical use is definitely not, which is why people don't choose to buy this kind of thing, which has actually been technologically possible for a long time. People act like the internet of things is a new idea, but its as old as the internet itself. Many of these IoT things have been possible for a long time and do not require cutting edge technology, but people are already choosing not to buy them.

It has not been technologically possible for a long time. A lot of hardware and software is needed for this to become a seamless reality. Just because something was possible to prototype 10 years ago, does NOT mean it was ready for market. Bell Telephone essentially invented Skype in the 60s, but it was not possible to get mass adoption in the technological ecosystem of the time. Similarly the smartphone existed in the early 90s, but it was not suited for the market landscape of that era. Now with the new hardware sensors, acutators and software APIs, IoT is becoming feasible, which is why we are seeing people starting to adopt it. And this is why IOTA exists, it's another one of those bricks needed to make it a reality.

I am not sure you actually know what IoT is. Robotic vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers are not IoT devices. They are self-contained robotic devices which need little or no connection with the outside world at all to operate. Yes you can add a connection to your smartphone to switch them on and off, but once again this is hardly cutting edge - its a fancy switch. I do see some growth in 'smart home' technologies but mostly I see it as just what you say there - people using their phone as a remote control. Nothing revolutionary, and not really machine to machine communication which is what IoT really is, just a fancy switch.

Yes, they are. These robots already communicate with their environment. And again: we're just at the beginning of this. It seems you believe that technological progression happens overnight. The smartphone was revolutionary, but it didn't happen overnight, in fact it was over a decade in development and had numerous iterative steps it needed to take before it had great impact. So just adopt some patience:)

[Tobo]

Were those big things as big as http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact ?

In this article, the author mentioned one of the biggest challenges for IoT is privacy and security issue - protecting company and customer data. How can IOTA help and do better in this area? 

[smooth]

It's not just about making life easier, it's about upping productivity substantially which will bring about a growth in wealth unseen in the history of mankind. The industrial revolution is nothing compared. In the end this technological progression will eventually free mankind from its 'slave' relationship with money and revolutionize virtually every field from medicine to entertainment.

According to the report CfB linked earlier it will not bring wealth "unseen in the history of mankind", it will (according to industry hype at least) bring "impact" of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion which is something like 3%-15% of world GDP. A lot of that will be totally boring but still economically important "impacts" like better automating supply chains. You're overdosing on kool aid.

No. Read again, that'sthe forecast for the next few years.

How about you put down the kool aid and read it for the first time.

"could have a total economic impact of $3.9 trillion to $11.1 trillion per year in 2025"

"We also found that more than two-thirds of value will be generated in business-to-business settings"

That is 10 years away, so taken as an annual growth rate represents between 0.3% and 0.8% per year, assuming it even happens ("could"), and even then will be mostly boring things like supply chain management.