6 ms·

Really it's "socialize the costs" as well, considering that autonomous vehicle development was funded by taxpayers.[1] Like most high tech. [1] https://en.wiki

Really it's "socialize the costs" as well, considering that autonomous vehicle development was funded by taxpayers.[1] Like most high tech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

jessriedel 9y ago
The public spent a few million dollars on the Grand Challenge, while Waymo alone is worth 10's of billions of dollars. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/alphabets-self-driving-waymo-unit-could-be-worth-70-billion-more-than-gm-morgan-stanley-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/alphabets-self-driving-waymo... Self-driving car companies will have massive net positive externalities on the public, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year when fully deployed.
- zeth___ 9y ago
  Not if they are gasoline cars, particulate pollution alone kills tens of thousands. An electric rail network on the other hand would have real positive externalities, but isn't as easily privitazable so won't be built.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Even electric cars aren't pollution free, and there are still other negative externalities (like health costs associated with car-centric life styles).
  - nradov 9y ago
    The latest EPA Tier 3 gasoline vehicles have extremely low particulate emissions. If we're talking about building new vehicles anyway then your fatality estimate is way too high.
- nradov 9y ago
  You have no reliable basis for quantifying the net positive impact. The technology looks promising but at this point we don't even know whether it can be made to work reliably outside of a few limited areas.
- abalone 9y ago
  > The public spent a few million dollars on the Grand Challenge, while Waymo alone is worth 10's of billions of dollars. False comparison. First of all DARPA has invested a lot more than that in all sorts of related AV technologies (e.g. LIDAR, AI, robotics). But the real question is when were those "few million dollars" invested. Seed investments generally are much smaller than what companies end up being worth. In our high tech system, taxpayers generally take on the riskiest stage of very early development, where it takes billions of dollars in bets spread over a very large area over 10+ years. And you're right, there are some socialized benefits, but the statement stands that the costs are socialized as well. Imagine if you told Google's earliest investor that their investment was a tiny percentage of what it's worth today, and they enjoy the benefit of using Google now, so it's fair that Google's later investors kept all the equity.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    > First of all DARPA has invested a lot more than that in all sorts of related AV technologies I was responding to your link about the Grand Challenge. > Seed investments generally are much smaller than what companies end up being worth. Of course. Are you really going to make someone else go point out the hundreds of millions in dollars of seed-level funding by Google, by Uber, etc., to demonstrate the obvious point that the DARPA Grand Challenge is terrible evidence for the claim "autonomous vehicle development was funded by taxpayers". > so it's fair that Google's later investors kept all the equity. People who invest in Google get to keep the equity they they purchase, but they don't get a claim to the equity of companies that exist because of Google's search product. Likewise, when the government invests in public goods, they don't then get to claim everything that is built on top of the public good. Indeed, the government provides the rule of law, without which almost no modern economic development could take place. But that obviously doesn't mean the government has claim to all economic value. Likewise, none of us could work without eating, but that doesn't mean we owe all our income to farmers.
    - thatcat 9y ago
      >when the government invests in public goods, they don't then get to claim everything that is built on top of the public good. If they used the right liscensing for the information that they created then they might.
drb91 9y ago
That cost has long since been dwarfed by private investments. IMHO that was tax payer money well spent.
refurb 9y ago
Yeah, no. A good example is pharmaceutical research. NIH budget is ~$30B and arguably a fraction of that is pure drug development. The top pharma companies (ignoring VC investment in start ups) is over $70B.

jessriedel 9y ago

The public spent a few million dollars on the Grand Challenge, while Waymo alone is worth 10's of billions of dollars. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/alphabets-self-driving-waymo-unit-could-be-worth-70-billion-more-than-gm-morgan-stanley-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/23/alphabets-self-driving-waymo... Self-driving car companies will have massive net positive externalities on the public, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year when fully deployed.

zeth___ 9y ago
Not if they are gasoline cars, particulate pollution alone kills tens of thousands. An electric rail network on the other hand would have real positive externalities, but isn't as easily privitazable so won't be built.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Even electric cars aren't pollution free, and there are still other negative externalities (like health costs associated with car-centric life styles).
- nradov 9y ago
  The latest EPA Tier 3 gasoline vehicles have extremely low particulate emissions. If we're talking about building new vehicles anyway then your fatality estimate is way too high.
nradov 9y ago
You have no reliable basis for quantifying the net positive impact. The technology looks promising but at this point we don't even know whether it can be made to work reliably outside of a few limited areas.
abalone 9y ago
> The public spent a few million dollars on the Grand Challenge, while Waymo alone is worth 10's of billions of dollars. False comparison. First of all DARPA has invested a lot more than that in all sorts of related AV technologies (e.g. LIDAR, AI, robotics). But the real question is when were those "few million dollars" invested. Seed investments generally are much smaller than what companies end up being worth. In our high tech system, taxpayers generally take on the riskiest stage of very early development, where it takes billions of dollars in bets spread over a very large area over 10+ years. And you're right, there are some socialized benefits, but the statement stands that the costs are socialized as well. Imagine if you told Google's earliest investor that their investment was a tiny percentage of what it's worth today, and they enjoy the benefit of using Google now, so it's fair that Google's later investors kept all the equity.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  > First of all DARPA has invested a lot more than that in all sorts of related AV technologies I was responding to your link about the Grand Challenge. > Seed investments generally are much smaller than what companies end up being worth. Of course. Are you really going to make someone else go point out the hundreds of millions in dollars of seed-level funding by Google, by Uber, etc., to demonstrate the obvious point that the DARPA Grand Challenge is terrible evidence for the claim "autonomous vehicle development was funded by taxpayers". > so it's fair that Google's later investors kept all the equity. People who invest in Google get to keep the equity they they purchase, but they don't get a claim to the equity of companies that exist because of Google's search product. Likewise, when the government invests in public goods, they don't then get to claim everything that is built on top of the public good. Indeed, the government provides the rule of law, without which almost no modern economic development could take place. But that obviously doesn't mean the government has claim to all economic value. Likewise, none of us could work without eating, but that doesn't mean we owe all our income to farmers.
  - thatcat 9y ago
    >when the government invests in public goods, they don't then get to claim everything that is built on top of the public good. If they used the right liscensing for the information that they created then they might.

drb91 9y ago

That cost has long since been dwarfed by private investments. IMHO that was tax payer money well spent.

refurb 9y ago

Yeah, no. A good example is pharmaceutical research. NIH budget is ~$30B and arguably a fraction of that is pure drug development. The top pharma companies (ignoring VC investment in start ups) is over $70B.