5 ms·
Uber's self-driving program seems to be one of the most unethical, most poorly-run in the entire industry. There were plenty of reports before warning us of the
by ashleyn 9y ago
Uber's self-driving program seems to be one of the most unethical, most poorly-run in the entire industry. There were plenty of reports before warning us of the questionable quality of their research: cars changing lanes suddenly, blowing red lights, and now one finally killed someone. Every prior incident should have been treated as a serious matter.
Waymo et al has had none of these issues. Time to revoke their licence to test?
- Mononokay 9y ago> Uber's self-driving program seems to be one of the most unethical, most poorly-run in the entire industry. I mean, it's Uber. I'm not sure exactly what people were expecting. Their entire schtick is being unethical and poorly-run.
- reddit_clone 9y agoYeah. Their motto seems to be 'easier to ask forgiveness/pay fines instead of asking for permission'.
- artursapek 9y agoWhat do you guys think Uber stands to gain from intentionally programming their cars to run red lights?
- Mikeb85 9y agoI don't think anyone thinks it's intentional, just that they're a poorly run company and have been less diligent in fixing bugs and ensuring safety.
- stochastic_monk 9y agoThey stand to gain by being quicker to market by failing to instantiate adequate safeguards. Criminal negligence, not direct malicious criminality.
- gt_ 9y agoNot a bad business plan. The market rewards risk. I’ll use Uber as an example.
- stochastic_monk 9y agoThis is why unregulated growth makes cancer the perfect metaphor for corporations.
- taoistextremist 9y agoNobody is suggesting they're doing that. They're saying Uber cuts corners to save a dime among other unethical practices (like stealing research from competitors).
- sitkack 9y agoUber is embodiment of its employees. It is a flame that the unethical moths are drawn to, so they can realize their vision by the means that delight them. Uber is the Phoenix of Enron.
- pretentiousPear 9y agoNo one said that this was their intention.
- moscovium 9y agoNot intentionally programming them to run red lights, just intentionally or unintentionally not taking necessary precautions to prevent it from happening. They can get it right, or have it right now, and it's pretty clear which side they've chosen.
- citizenkeen 9y agoI think it's more what Uber stands to gain from not ensuring that their cars are programmed to not run red lights. Which is first-to-market advantage.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- netsharc 9y agoNot intentionally doing that, but, intentionally ignoring bugs. "Sir, we have several bugs, one of them would cause the car to run a red in the following conditions... [fictional made-up condition: in case it sees a clown car with Brad Pitt wearing a pink dress in it]". "What are the chances of that ever happening? Ship it!".
- dpwm 9y agoI somewhat doubt they even know or care that there might be bugs before they do something awful. It's like they're using the public highway as their simulator. I don't know if this job ad for a self-driving simulation software engineer is still current, but it is somewhat worrying given the broad scope of the role they appear to be advertising for. [0] https://www.uber.com/en-US/careers/list/27029/ https://www.uber.com/en-US/careers/list/27029/
- throwawaysecops 9y agoFuck you and your leading question.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Mononokay 9y agoThe art of being cheap and the virtue of being lazy oft end with someone getting hurt, and Uber embodies both of those quite well.
- cgag 9y agoWhich I'm thankful for since I now have access to taxis because of them.
- heartbreak 9y agoThis comment is in spectacularly poor taste given the subject of this news story.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoIrrespective of the ethics, the plan "worked" in that they managed to pressure local governments to change rules or otherwise let Uber operate
- dangerlibrary 9y agoThey did manage to get some local governments to do that, yes. I’m not sure how to interpret your comment other than as an apology/excuse for their illegal and unethical behavior. If there’s more to your thought than “the ends justify the means,” I’m curious what it is.
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoUber has been rewarded for employing schticks that GP called "unethical and poorly-run." Is it unethical? Yes, and I strongly believe that "Move fast and break things" is wholly inappropriate when people's lives are involved. Is it poorly-run? I think Uber is actually well-run if you accept that "ends justify the means" is in their DNA.
- dangerlibrary 9y agoWhat would compel me to accept that an ethical standard that can be used to justify any amount of immoral and unethical behavior is “in a company’s DNA?” Why would I grade them on that curve? This is like saying the Duterte is a very effective anti-drug crusader if you accept that murdering innocents and drug dealers is in his DNA.
- agumonkey 9y agocomma ai must be so jealous
- catnaroek 9y agoIt's no less immoral in programming languages than in real life, precisely because it tends to slip from the former into the latter.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ProAm 9y agoPar for the course in regards to Uber.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoWe do not yet know whether another autonomous vehicle or human for would have done better in this situation. THAT SAID, asshole company fields asshole autonomous driver. Did we expect differently? Uber cuts every corner.
- gwern 9y agoUber consistently has some of the highest disengagement rates reported in California, their cars really are just worse than everyone else's.
- dmix 9y agoWhat does that mean in practice exactly? Does it directly imply that pedestrians are at a higher risk of being hit?
- gwern 9y agoIt means the cars are sufficiently dangerous in general that the human drivers have to constantly take over manual control to avoid accidents. So they are dangerous to someone. Apparently the human didn't make it in time this time, and turns out that someone was 'pedestrians/bicyclists'.
- dmix 9y agoAs a pure safety judgement that'd depend on: a) what % of disengagements are 'to avoid accidents' vs navigating an entirely safe but complex situations. For ex: a parked UPS truck on a narrow 2 lane rd. b) the degree of real-world complexity the tests the cars are engaging in (compared to other vendors). For ex: testing cars on simple suburban routes = fewer disengagements. Not trying to defend Uber here, I'm just trying to understand the distinction between a high-level general statistic and it's real world implications.
- synaesthesisx 9y agoYup - I've personally witnessed one of these almost zoom through a red light at an intersection and was appalled. I'm honestly not surprised...in their effort to race to the bottom Uber's autonomous vehicle program has been extremely aggressive - to the point of total disregard for safety. Their business model may be built on pipe dreams of autonomous travel (without drivers to pay), and hopefully this shutters that. In fact, the whole company should probably be shut down IMO - but I digress.
- danso 9y agoIIRC, Uber initially launched its self driving cars by flouting California law: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/ubers-self-driving-cars-back-on-sf-streets-but-now-theyre-legal/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/ub...
- Mononokay 9y agoEDIT: Yeah this was a bit reactionary on my part. I get it, it's not over the $150. It tells a lot about Uber that they weren't willing to fork over $150 for a permit.
- aetherson 9y agoIt does say a lot about Uber, but clearly the $150 was not the issue. They didn't want to report disengagements.
- jstanley 9y agoIt's more likely that they couldn't be bothered with the associated process than that they couldn't afford the $150.
- Judgmentality 9y agoIt had nothing to do with the $150, but part of accepting the permit is taking legal responsibility to report disengagement from autonomous testing. Uber didn't want to share this information since it would make them look bad.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- creato 9y agoIt wasn't about the $150, it was about not sharing data about the status of their program. I'm not sure which is worse.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- brd 9y agoAgreed. I've been in the cars in Pittsburg and the operators laughed about how poorly it performed on certain roads. Slanted telephone polls caused the vehicle to literally slalom down the road.
- bitL 9y agoWe should wait for the results of investigation first. It could easily happen the killed person did some bonehead move that resulted in unavoidable crash. I was once told how a friend of mine fatally hit an older man that decided to cross the highway quickly, giving him no chance to react and a life-long trauma.
- dmix 9y agoCalls to wait for facts never stopped the internet outrage machine in the early moments of news release. I doubt it will do much here, sadly. But it's worth pushing back against, even if it won't work IMO. People will always relish in their biases being confirmed... even after a rare one-off event with a sample size of 1 in a burgeoning industry.
- barkingcat 9y agoTheir San Francisco testing program didn't even have a license to test because they didn't want to pay for a permit. https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14698902/uber-self-driving-san-francisco-dmv-email-levandowski https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14698902/uber-self-drivin... Nothing to revoke if they never had a license to begin with!
- dmix 9y agoNot sure how that regulation would have made their cars safer in a way that's relevant to this accident? Local governments have stopped other self-driving companies before with cease-and-desist letters with threats of serious punitive fines. I highly doubt by not buying a $150 license Uber would suddenly have carte-blanche to do what they want, that's not how it works. If the state gov was really interested in stopping them they easily could have regardless.
- tom_mellior 9y agoFully agreed regarding Uber's ethics, but... > Waymo et al has had none of these issues. ... absence of negative media coverage doesn't prove anything.
- pyjammas 9y agoYou'd think Uber would be extra-vetted before they were allowed to do something like this.
- amelius 9y ago> Waymo et al has had none of these issues. Time to revoke their licence to test? I think Alphabet is to blame here too in a sense (or at least the industry as a whole). Why didn't they push for more strict testing rules? It's in their interest too.
- sevensor 9y agoThis is how cars came to be on the road in the first place. Despite the fact that they were erratic and deadly, and spewed noxious gas everywhere, the manufacturers and automobiling clubs succeeded in convincing everybody that roads were for cars. Uber may well be the worst actor in the self-driving industry, but the industry as a whole is going to need to invent new crimes akin to jaywalking. This will allow it to shift blame to those killed by autonomous vehicles, just as jaywalking implies pedestrians are to blame for being hit by manned vehicles.
- yaps8 9y agoYeah I missed that but it doesn't look good [1] (december 2016). [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self-driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self...