6 ms·

I'd also argue that US government should shut down Uber's self-driving research division. If they want self-driving cars they can license from Waymo, or someon

I'd also argue that US government should shut down Uber's self-driving research division. If they want self-driving cars they can license from Waymo, or someone else who is actually taking it seriously. Its pretty clear that Uber's techbros have some serious culture issues. They have shown they are incompetent and should be disqualified by regulators.

uoaei 7y ago
I think it'll be hard to come up with a legally defensible reason to demand that they shut down all research efforts without looking like it's a vendetta. Also, Uber's business plan is 100% to maintain share in the rideshare market until their cars drive themselves. That is the end game here. To shut down their self-driving research is to doom the company entirely. Not that I'd be against that. Would be great to see Uber die. It's already caused enough headache and pain.
- _jal 7y ago
  > I think it'll be hard to come up with a legally defensible reason to demand that they shut down all research efforts without looking like it's a vendetta. They don't have to shut down their research. I don't care if they want to write software and play on private tracks. As I see it, Uber should be explaining exactly why their privilege to endanger the public by operating unsafe robots on public roads should not be revoked for criminal incompetence.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  A fatality should do nicely. /s
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Their business plan is and always was a stupid plan by alarmingly stupid leadership. Local or national leaders have no obligation to literally sacrifice more citizens to enable it.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  I always thought the self driving car was an excuse. Something like "We are loosing money now, but if you invest in us we will magically be profitable in the future."
- kayoone 7y ago
  > Also, Uber's business plan is 100% to maintain share in the rideshare market until their cars drive themselves. That is the end game here. To shut down their self-driving research is to doom the company entirely. Uber's business is clearly more important than lost human lives due to negligence of proper software safety measures. /s
CodeWriter23 7y ago
There’s a reason Waymo is currently deployed only around Chandler, AZ, and I’m pretty sure it’s consistent building codes as relates to public highways. They picked a different optimization path to get to MVP than Uber. But you can be assured that too is a shortcut.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  I'm a little biased but I don't think Waymo is shortcutting this. If you look at the data they're looking at and how it's being processed, it's several orders of magnitude more reliable than what Uber was using. I have yet to see a sensor data video from Waymo that hasn't targetted all obstacles successfully, even if they're not categorized right. If anything, I think Waymo is, in some cases, being too conservative with its driving data (although, admittedly, I don't think I really mean that since the alternative is the loss of human life). If you've ever driven behind a Waymo vehicle, they're annoyingly strict when it comes to following posted speed limits, stopping for obstacles, and reacting/erring on the side of caution. It's an infuriating exercise in patience but I hope that it will pay off in the long term.
  - CodeWriter23 7y ago
    I haven’t had the experience of driving in proximity to a Waymo vehicle like you have. Your statement could be viewed as taking a conservative approach to that automation is in itself a shortcut. That of course is speculation; I feel confident that when it comes to automated driving by virtue of the infancy of the technology, there are things we don’t know that we don’t know yet.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >Your statement could be viewed as taking a conservative approach to that automation is in itself a shortcut. Can you expand on that? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.
      - CodeWriter23 7y ago
drstewart 7y ago
What happens when Waymo is in an accident and you shutdown their division too? Human drivers in fatal accidents don't have their licenses permanently revoked and there's no outrage.
- throwaway908744 7y ago
  I've interviewed an Uber engineer once, from their self-driving division. Incredible arrogance. Unforgettable. He clearly believed he is the pinnacle of creation, best software engineer around. I've asked him a few questions, probing gently his experience and skills. Aside from his arrogance there was nothing special. No love of technology. No depth. Nothing. We didn't hire him. Companies have different cultures. Companies hire and promote differently. And it matters.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  It isn't (just) that there was an accident and somebody died. It's that this quality of software was allowed to operate in a capacity where that could happen.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "permanently" Humans have their licenses temporarily revoked because it's assumed that humans can change their ways (maybe or maybe not a reasonable assumption). With a computer, you can't expect it will get better unless its programming is improved. So isn't that reasonable grounds for "permanent" revocation, at least in the sense of indefinite, where you wouldn't do the same thing to a human? Criminal negligence resulting in death by motor vehicle is a minimum of six months license revocation in NY.

uoaei 7y ago

I think it'll be hard to come up with a legally defensible reason to demand that they shut down all research efforts without looking like it's a vendetta. Also, Uber's business plan is 100% to maintain share in the rideshare market until their cars drive themselves. That is the end game here. To shut down their self-driving research is to doom the company entirely. Not that I'd be against that. Would be great to see Uber die. It's already caused enough headache and pain.

_jal 7y ago
> I think it'll be hard to come up with a legally defensible reason to demand that they shut down all research efforts without looking like it's a vendetta. They don't have to shut down their research. I don't care if they want to write software and play on private tracks. As I see it, Uber should be explaining exactly why their privilege to endanger the public by operating unsafe robots on public roads should not be revoked for criminal incompetence.
jacquesm 7y ago
A fatality should do nicely. /s
michaelmrose 7y ago
Their business plan is and always was a stupid plan by alarmingly stupid leadership. Local or national leaders have no obligation to literally sacrifice more citizens to enable it.
gus_massa 7y ago
I always thought the self driving car was an excuse. Something like "We are loosing money now, but if you invest in us we will magically be profitable in the future."
kayoone 7y ago
> Also, Uber's business plan is 100% to maintain share in the rideshare market until their cars drive themselves. That is the end game here. To shut down their self-driving research is to doom the company entirely. Uber's business is clearly more important than lost human lives due to negligence of proper software safety measures. /s

CodeWriter23 7y ago

There’s a reason Waymo is currently deployed only around Chandler, AZ, and I’m pretty sure it’s consistent building codes as relates to public highways. They picked a different optimization path to get to MVP than Uber. But you can be assured that too is a shortcut.

dkonofalski 7y ago
I'm a little biased but I don't think Waymo is shortcutting this. If you look at the data they're looking at and how it's being processed, it's several orders of magnitude more reliable than what Uber was using. I have yet to see a sensor data video from Waymo that hasn't targetted all obstacles successfully, even if they're not categorized right. If anything, I think Waymo is, in some cases, being too conservative with its driving data (although, admittedly, I don't think I really mean that since the alternative is the loss of human life). If you've ever driven behind a Waymo vehicle, they're annoyingly strict when it comes to following posted speed limits, stopping for obstacles, and reacting/erring on the side of caution. It's an infuriating exercise in patience but I hope that it will pay off in the long term.
- CodeWriter23 7y ago
  I haven’t had the experience of driving in proximity to a Waymo vehicle like you have. Your statement could be viewed as taking a conservative approach to that automation is in itself a shortcut. That of course is speculation; I feel confident that when it comes to automated driving by virtue of the infancy of the technology, there are things we don’t know that we don’t know yet.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >Your statement could be viewed as taking a conservative approach to that automation is in itself a shortcut. Can you expand on that? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.
    - CodeWriter23 7y ago

drstewart 7y ago

What happens when Waymo is in an accident and you shutdown their division too? Human drivers in fatal accidents don't have their licenses permanently revoked and there's no outrage.

throwaway908744 7y ago
I've interviewed an Uber engineer once, from their self-driving division. Incredible arrogance. Unforgettable. He clearly believed he is the pinnacle of creation, best software engineer around. I've asked him a few questions, probing gently his experience and skills. Aside from his arrogance there was nothing special. No love of technology. No depth. Nothing. We didn't hire him. Companies have different cultures. Companies hire and promote differently. And it matters.
throwaway2048 7y ago
It isn't (just) that there was an accident and somebody died. It's that this quality of software was allowed to operate in a capacity where that could happen.
perl4ever 7y ago
"permanently" Humans have their licenses temporarily revoked because it's assumed that humans can change their ways (maybe or maybe not a reasonable assumption). With a computer, you can't expect it will get better unless its programming is improved. So isn't that reasonable grounds for "permanent" revocation, at least in the sense of indefinite, where you wouldn't do the same thing to a human? Criminal negligence resulting in death by motor vehicle is a minimum of six months license revocation in NY.