Google Maps is getting ‘supercharged’ with generative AI

This seems like an admission that they can’t figure out how to monetize AI.

Maps have been consistently reliable for hundreds of years. I can see AI making Route 66 a destination trip once again…until the first set of reviews excoriates it.

Great! Another place for them to sell ads into.

It'll force more people to drive through high crime areas and take more "climate friendly" routes.

quote:

---

think we can take it back via crypto/blockchain tech

---

I understand what you are getting it. But we don't need the crypto/blockchain garbage grift to do any of that you described.

No but Chris seems like a pretty smart dude.


I would really like to hear back from UltimaParadox and other crypto haters on this topic, because projects similar to what I've described have already been built and are functional and that only happened thanks to blockchains.

I realize that there have been many scams involving crypto, but that shouldn't be a reason to discredit the whole idea.

Look at how many of today's most popular and useful services were built - crowdsourcing. Some voluntarily, and some not so voluntarily (or at least it isn't always obvious that you are contributing to a corporation's profits). We are usually compensated with free access to the service. Maybe that's a fair trade for some, but for others maybe it isn't. Plenty of people contribute data/corrections/whatever to Google Maps, and for what? A little kudos? The feeling of being part of something?

Or do we write reviews and submit photos, add value for other users, because we are banking that others will do the same and provide some value back to us? That's usually the motivation when I spend my time participating in a crowdsourced project - I appreciate the work others have done so I give a little back. But who really benefits from all that? The giant corporation that financed the project, of course.

How do we escape that (assuming we want to)? How do we get compensated a bit closer to the true value of our time and resources rather than allowing the bulk of it to be collected by corporations? I don't think it can be done traditionally, do you? Who will collect and disperse the funds? How can they be trusted? What if they go away?

I think the only real solution is to enter into contracts with one another:

Hey UltimaParadox, I'll collect data for this part of the map if you let me access the parts you contribute. And let's get iPadThai in on this too. And you know what, maybe a million other people as well.

It gets unwieldy very quickly. A million people are contracting with a million others, and payments have to be worked out between them, enforcement, verification, etc. Traditionally we would do all this with banks and lawyers and a corporation to manage it all and collect the rewards, and holy hell I can't think of a more expensive way to get a project off the ground.

Blockchains and crypto solve all these problems. We don't need lawyers if the contracts can enforce themselves via code. We don't need money from banks when the code can generate tokens which serve the same purpose. We don't need corporations if their only purpose is to coordinate the transactions between banks, lawyers, and the users/contributors since that can all be done with code.



This process has worked to build several cloud storage services. It has worked to build cloud compute services. It has worked to build weather networks. It has worked to build global wireless IoT networks.

I think it can also work to build a maps application. Much of the data is crowd-sourced anyway, why shouldn't the rewards go to who does the work?

quote:

---

Just because something is "Decentralized" does not mean it is better.

---

Not better in all ways, but definitely better in some ways. Specifically it is better in the ways that enable us to solve the problems that several in this thread have pointed out.

quote:

---

Code is law has become such a laughable concept because, whenever someone fricks up no one is held accountable.

---

When code is open then everyone who runs it is accountable. Why is there a need to point the finger in one direction?

quote:

---

People make mistakes, you need to be able to have a central authority to resolve disputes and reverse transactions.

---

The code is the ultimate authority, the code that we can all examine. Transactions can be reversed if two parties agree. Otherwise defer to the contract (the code). Why do we need a god figure?

quote:

---

Plus 99% of crypto projects are not decentralized to begin with, they are typically controlled by the small group of people who started it.

---

So do you want a central authority, or do you not? You are arguing both ways.

quote:

---

That is why nobody uses blockchain tech for anything real vs a modern relational database, blockchain is worse in every way.

---

Blockchains do not replace relational databases. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose.

quote:

---

Having an append only database forever is a really stupid idea.

---

A tamper-proof transaction register is actually an amazing idea with many real world applications.

quote:

---

At some point there has be trust, that is just a hard fact in reality.

---

You trust data. You trust code that you can examine. Trust no man, that's how our lives get sold for profit.

quote:

---

Because there will be mistakes in the code, no code is perfect especially over time.

---

And your central authority is perfect? You prefer a human to decide the fate of your transactions rather than hard rules that all parties agreed to?

quote:

---

You do need a central authority

---

Code and contracts are the central authority. If there could possibly be a dispute that cannot be resolved in the code, the code should be revised. If the network cannot agree on a resolution then it should split or fail, replaced by an improved version. The network should be self-governing as a fundamental design principle.

quote:

---

You are right they dont, but people post examples of replacing them all the time.

---

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but choosing the right tool for a job is paramount and I would not argue otherwise.

quote:

---

We have a fundamental difference of opinion how these problems are solved.

---

Yeah no shite.

quote:

---

I know blockchain "tech" is still looking for that killer application besides "coins" and number go up.

16 years and we are still waiting, but I guess eventually we will find out.

---

We are 10's of thousands of years into the development of "traditional" governance and banking, and that is still a shite-show. What happens when too much power accumulates at the top? The people topple it and take their power back. That is human nature.

16 years is nothing, and yet blockchains have already spawned products on a massive scale that could not have happened without it.

There will always be people who hate it and beg to either rule or be ruled by other people. But there will also always be people who prefer self-governance.

AI for navigation would be better than maps.

I'm guessing they won't be layering violent crime into those maps.