3 ms·

Even cheaper: don't have computer driven transit, but human driven transit. The current money sunk on the automated driving tech startups could pay drivers for

Even cheaper: don't have computer driven transit, but human driven transit. The current money sunk on the automated driving tech startups could pay drivers for years to come. What I would like to see is companies and people working towrds eliminating as many vehciles from the road. It is untainable, if we want an habitable planet, to have have a dependency on cars. This means we have to move back to a denser environment (for the US, think pre WW2 suburbs, vs the current car-dependent sprawl). Either that, or boil the planet. We don't have any other way right now – and as such, Tesla is working towards the idea of heating the planet. Musk is very amandmanet on that, with his constant efforts to destroy public transit with his other companies.

bduerst 5y ago
On any given timeline, dedicated human drivers will always have larger variable costs and waste than dedicated computational drivers, on top of being cost-prohibitive to people who can't afford to pay for human driven rides. You could make the same argument for ditching email and calendar technology in favor of everyone having human secretaries typing inter-office memos. It's absurd now, yeah, but that's because we live with the benefits.
zild3d 5y ago
> Even cheaper: don't have computer driven transit, but human driven transit Cheaper on what time frame? Obviously the upfront R&D costs start out as more expensive, but the marginal cost goes toward 0 while human cost is flat/increases. Also cheaper isn't the only axis, safety is a big reason to invest in not having humans drive.
- snotrockets 5y ago
  Paying humans have better utility, for society in whole, than cheap machines.
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    If that was a universal good why do we keep inventing machines to replace labour? Would it be better to hire servants to wash dishes and fetch water to scrub clothing in the tub, or is this labour that we can largely get machines to do, and free humans from?
  - Sankozi 5y ago
    Paying humans to do things that machine does better and safer definitely does not have better utility.

bduerst 5y ago

On any given timeline, dedicated human drivers will always have larger variable costs and waste than dedicated computational drivers, on top of being cost-prohibitive to people who can't afford to pay for human driven rides. You could make the same argument for ditching email and calendar technology in favor of everyone having human secretaries typing inter-office memos. It's absurd now, yeah, but that's because we live with the benefits.

zild3d 5y ago

> Even cheaper: don't have computer driven transit, but human driven transit Cheaper on what time frame? Obviously the upfront R&D costs start out as more expensive, but the marginal cost goes toward 0 while human cost is flat/increases. Also cheaper isn't the only axis, safety is a big reason to invest in not having humans drive.

snotrockets 5y ago
Paying humans have better utility, for society in whole, than cheap machines.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  If that was a universal good why do we keep inventing machines to replace labour? Would it be better to hire servants to wash dishes and fetch water to scrub clothing in the tub, or is this labour that we can largely get machines to do, and free humans from?
- Sankozi 5y ago
  Paying humans to do things that machine does better and safer definitely does not have better utility.