7 ms·

The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. With "ordinary" software, you can look at all of the use cases and if you solve

by a4isms 4y ago

The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. With "ordinary" software, you can look at all of the use cases and if you solve 5% of them in a really good way, you can be successful, users will self-select whether those 5% of the use cases are valuable for them, and then not use your software for anything else. With driverless self-driving vehicles, you have no such comfort. Even if your software correctly handles 99.9% of the use cases, the remaining .1% will get someone injured or killed, and people climbing into taxis cannot self-select whether their route will pass by a fire, in which case "take a cab with a human driver." Driverless cars have a huge moral hazard here. Their incentives are all around serving their passengers, but the downsides are offloaded onto pedestrians, cyclists, other automobile users, and now firefighters and the citizens they are protecting. No "solution" should "beg the question" by taking it as axiomatic that driverless cars at the current level of capability are necessary. They are not. We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society.

buzzert 4y ago
I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum).
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well Which has been in place for years in some places (ie Docklands Light Railway). > we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone Call me an old cynic but I'll believe it when I see it - I'm old enough to have seen many, many events where the supply cost of something has gone down but the consumer cost has not (or even gone up in some cases.) Why will driverless taxis be any different?
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Not just years—decades. The Victoria Line in London has had automatic train operation since it opened in 1968 (unlike the DRL, there's still someone in the driver's seat, but they do little more than shut the doors).
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  > I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. no great loss there.
- a4isms 4y ago
  > I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. Is that a problem? And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars?
  - buzzert 4y ago
    > And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars? I'd much rather be around a driverless car today, which drives overly cautious and comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, than a car driven by a human driver. So that's my "informed consent", and I suspect many others agree. Is that how democracy works?
- bmitc 4y ago
  It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing into buses, trams, trains, biking and walking paths, and other such solutions. The attitude designation belongs with self-driving car enthusiasts, who are perfectly happy throwing out decades of safety research and progress.
  - psychomugs 4y ago
    I'm of this attitude as well, that the Jevon's paradox would kick in for cars again and lead to more use, like how ride-hailing apps worsened congestion.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Agreed. And thank you for the reference to Jevon's paradox. I haven't heard of it before, but I've been looking for things like this.
      - psychomugs 4y ago
        I've recently been listening to some talks from Matthew Crawford and his arguments for protecting manual, human tasks from automation and safetyism. I find his stance to be a good middle ground between technocratic progress and luddite wariness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80
  - weavejester 4y ago
    > Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driverless car could drop me off, then drive away to taxi other people around. There's much less need for parking lots, freeing up valuable urban land. It may reduce car ownership overall. I have a car because it's more convenient than public transport, and far cheaper than a taxi. If I could have a self-driving car at my door in, say, 15 minutes, and it was competitively priced, then I probably wouldn't bother owning a car. Another advantage would be that if I needed more seats, or more space, I could order a vehicle to my specifications. It may increase utilization of roads, as self-driving cars that can communicate with each other can make more efficient use of them. Less need for stopping distances if all cars can brake simultaneously, and being able to slow down in advance reduces the impact of traffic jams.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  > Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). The problems from autonomously operating trains are limited owing to them being a separate, nearly-independent system. Anyways, some parts of the world has fully-autonomous trains with centrally-located operators on bay for overriding if anything unexpected (usually someone jumped into the rails) happens. Airplanes have significant automation built-in (and in theory can even land without input) but at the end of the day we have pilots that can override just in case that an engine became unexpectedly loose or someone on board suffered a heart attack. The problem with autonomous cars is that a) it's specifically on a mixed-used location and b) often most of the developers want to fully abdicate any control, unlike on other systems where how operators are in standby just something unexpected happens. If both Waymo and Cruise are willing to have an operator-standby system a) might be mitigated. Until I hear that these vehicles are supervised just in case they have encountered something unexpected you will see a lot of similar nuisance issues.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Does anyone really believe that? Right now I could commute to work by taking an Uber - it costs about £10 for a one way trip. Now you're telling me that a company somewhere, would send a state of the art car equipped with incredibly advanced computers and sensors, car which they need to insure, which needs constant communication and backup emergency controls ready on standby, for which they need to cover maintenance, depreciation and other costs, and would charge me less than £10 for the priviledge? How little exactly? It's nonsense, that's what it is. Human taxis have pretty much reached the bottom of pricing through gig economy - you are hardly paying for maintenance and fuel at this point with the way rides are structured. What sort of possible margin is there for self driving taxis, which will inevitably end up being incredibly expensive assets until the technology becomes common place and cheaper?
  - buzzert 4y ago
    That £10 trip is "artificially" cheap. Uber/Lyft are effectively tricking drivers into thinking it's a good deal to use their own cars (and thus their own fuel and pay for their own maintenance), and are partially subsidized by venture capital. This, in my opinion, is unsustainable. Soon there won't be any new "suckers" in the pipeline, and it will suddenly get a lot more expensive as these rideshare companies need to reckon with the actual cost of human labor and leasing their own cars. Investing in driverless technology, which can be replicated and will eventually become cheaper as it's mass-produced, is a very smart move. These costs will eventually get passed down to consumers as well once there's enough competition, and then everyone wins.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). No, public transportation has completely different technological needs.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Is this going to make people's lives better (shorter work week and/or better pay) or worse (longer commute and expectation that you work in your car)?
ctoth 4y ago
Just a quick note, as a blind person waiting impatiently for the driverless future, there are other uses for driverless vehicles than just making some random person money.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- a4isms 4y ago
  Absolutely. Also aged people who no longer qualify to drive their own vehicles, people with other disabilities that prevent them from driving under any circumstance, people who have disabilities that permit them to drive with specially modified vehicles but would like to be driven or cannot afford the extra expense... Yes, there are a lot of very good use cases. And honestly, I have a far less important use case of my own: If I take a taxi (usually when travelling) I just want transportation, I do not want someone chatting me up in an effort to earn a good review/tip because they don't earn enough from driving the route silently to get by. I just don't want progress lubricated by the blood of people who did not give informed consent to assume the risks.
stingrae 4y ago
As a pedestrian and cyclist in San Francisco, I find driverless cars to be much safer than the average car driver. They follow the rules and are always paying attention.
- mnd999 4y ago
  That’s great, but it apparently wasn’t the case here and that’s the whole point of the article
consumer451 4y ago
> The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. I agree. If we both happen to be correct, I wonder in what other areas of automation we may be greatly over the tips of our skis.
rcpt 4y ago
"ordinary software" also gets people killed and injured
closeparen 4y ago
>We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. Other than working and sleeping, driving is the main thing adults do with their lives. Not having to do it anymore would be transformational. I'd prefer to see that accomplished through urbanism and public transit, but that's about as much of a moonshot politically as self-driving is technically.
shultays 4y ago
We are nowhere near ready for cars with drivers either. Accidents happen everyday, drunk driving is common, quite a bit of people get their license while they shouldn't (and some drive licenceless anyway) "A software handling 99.9% of the cases" wouls be a significant advantage over cars with drivers if it was true. I think it is just a numbers game, we may not be there today but I believe we will have the a future with safer roads thanks to driverless cars. I am longing for that So we should push for it instead of trying to shut it down. Solution to the problem in article sounds easy, allow law officers to mark roads as blocked so the car does not even to see the fire truck. Or just put a road signal or a person on the road so the cars (driverless or with drivers) don't step on your hose

by a4isms 4y ago

buzzert 4y ago

I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. > We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum).

zimpenfish 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well Which has been in place for years in some places (ie Docklands Light Railway). > we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone Call me an old cynic but I'll believe it when I see it - I'm old enough to have seen many, many events where the supply cost of something has gone down but the consumer cost has not (or even gone up in some cases.) Why will driverless taxis be any different?
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Not just years—decades. The Victoria Line in London has had automatic train operation since it opened in 1968 (unlike the DRL, there's still someone in the driver's seat, but they do little more than shut the doors).
chordalkeyboard 4y ago
> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. no great loss there.
a4isms 4y ago
> I really believe that with that attitude, we'll never be "ready" for driverless cars. Is that a problem? And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars?
- buzzert 4y ago
  > And if it is, are you implying that we cannot one day have driverless cars without imposing life-threatening externalities on citizens who did not give informed consent to participate in the testing of driverless cars? I'd much rather be around a driverless car today, which drives overly cautious and comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, than a car driven by a human driver. So that's my "informed consent", and I suspect many others agree. Is that how democracy works?
bmitc 4y ago
It's not an attitude. It's reality. Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. That is, other than creating "cool" jobs and supporting get rich schemes and startups. If we cared about transportation and climate change, we'd be investing into buses, trams, trains, biking and walking paths, and other such solutions. The attitude designation belongs with self-driving car enthusiasts, who are perfectly happy throwing out decades of safety research and progress.
- psychomugs 4y ago
  I'm of this attitude as well, that the Jevon's paradox would kick in for cars again and lead to more use, like how ride-hailing apps worsened congestion.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Agreed. And thank you for the reference to Jevon's paradox. I haven't heard of it before, but I've been looking for things like this.
    - psychomugs 4y ago
      I've recently been listening to some talks from Matthew Crawford and his arguments for protecting manual, human tasks from automation and safetyism. I find his stance to be a good middle ground between technocratic progress and luddite wariness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxONOUwOX80
- weavejester 4y ago
  > Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driverless car could drop me off, then drive away to taxi other people around. There's much less need for parking lots, freeing up valuable urban land. It may reduce car ownership overall. I have a car because it's more convenient than public transport, and far cheaper than a taxi. If I could have a self-driving car at my door in, say, 15 minutes, and it was competitively priced, then I probably wouldn't bother owning a car. Another advantage would be that if I needed more seats, or more space, I could order a vehicle to my specifications. It may increase utilization of roads, as self-driving cars that can communicate with each other can make more efficient use of them. Less need for stopping distances if all cars can brake simultaneously, and being able to slow down in advance reduces the impact of traffic jams.
zinekeller 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). The problems from autonomously operating trains are limited owing to them being a separate, nearly-independent system. Anyways, some parts of the world has fully-autonomous trains with centrally-located operators on bay for overriding if anything unexpected (usually someone jumped into the rails) happens. Airplanes have significant automation built-in (and in theory can even land without input) but at the end of the day we have pilots that can override just in case that an engine became unexpectedly loose or someone on board suffered a heart attack. The problem with autonomous cars is that a) it's specifically on a mixed-used location and b) often most of the developers want to fully abdicate any control, unlike on other systems where how operators are in standby just something unexpected happens. If both Waymo and Cruise are willing to have an operator-standby system a) might be mitigated. Until I hear that these vehicles are supervised just in case they have encountered something unexpected you will see a lot of similar nuisance issues.
gambiting 4y ago
>>How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Does anyone really believe that? Right now I could commute to work by taking an Uber - it costs about £10 for a one way trip. Now you're telling me that a company somewhere, would send a state of the art car equipped with incredibly advanced computers and sensors, car which they need to insure, which needs constant communication and backup emergency controls ready on standby, for which they need to cover maintenance, depreciation and other costs, and would charge me less than £10 for the priviledge? How little exactly? It's nonsense, that's what it is. Human taxis have pretty much reached the bottom of pricing through gig economy - you are hardly paying for maintenance and fuel at this point with the way rides are structured. What sort of possible margin is there for self driving taxis, which will inevitably end up being incredibly expensive assets until the technology becomes common place and cheaper?
- buzzert 4y ago
  That £10 trip is "artificially" cheap. Uber/Lyft are effectively tricking drivers into thinking it's a good deal to use their own cars (and thus their own fuel and pay for their own maintenance), and are partially subsidized by venture capital. This, in my opinion, is unsustainable. Soon there won't be any new "suckers" in the pipeline, and it will suddenly get a lot more expensive as these rideshare companies need to reckon with the actual cost of human labor and leasing their own cars. Investing in driverless technology, which can be replicated and will eventually become cheaper as it's mass-produced, is a very smart move. These costs will eventually get passed down to consumers as well once there's enough competition, and then everyone wins.
goodpoint 4y ago
> Before you mention public transportation, realize that it would benefit from driverless technologies as well (aka, not zero sum). No, public transportation has completely different technological needs.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> How about, we're trying to make transportation cheaper for everyone by eliminating the most expensive part of taxi cabs (human labor)? Transportation being cheaper means people can get better jobs further away from where they live, see family more often, etc. Is this going to make people's lives better (shorter work week and/or better pay) or worse (longer commute and expectation that you work in your car)?

ctoth 4y ago

Just a quick note, as a blind person waiting impatiently for the driverless future, there are other uses for driverless vehicles than just making some random person money.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
a4isms 4y ago
Absolutely. Also aged people who no longer qualify to drive their own vehicles, people with other disabilities that prevent them from driving under any circumstance, people who have disabilities that permit them to drive with specially modified vehicles but would like to be driven or cannot afford the extra expense... Yes, there are a lot of very good use cases. And honestly, I have a far less important use case of my own: If I take a taxi (usually when travelling) I just want transportation, I do not want someone chatting me up in an effort to earn a good review/tip because they don't earn enough from driving the route silently to get by. I just don't want progress lubricated by the blood of people who did not give informed consent to assume the risks.

stingrae 4y ago

As a pedestrian and cyclist in San Francisco, I find driverless cars to be much safer than the average car driver. They follow the rules and are always paying attention.

mnd999 4y ago
That’s great, but it apparently wasn’t the case here and that’s the whole point of the article

consumer451 4y ago

> The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. I agree. If we both happen to be correct, I wonder in what other areas of automation we may be greatly over the tips of our skis.

rcpt 4y ago

"ordinary software" also gets people killed and injured

closeparen 4y ago

>We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society. Other than working and sleeping, driving is the main thing adults do with their lives. Not having to do it anymore would be transformational. I'd prefer to see that accomplished through urbanism and public transit, but that's about as much of a moonshot politically as self-driving is technically.

shultays 4y ago

We are nowhere near ready for cars with drivers either. Accidents happen everyday, drunk driving is common, quite a bit of people get their license while they shouldn't (and some drive licenceless anyway) "A software handling 99.9% of the cases" wouls be a significant advantage over cars with drivers if it was true. I think it is just a numbers game, we may not be there today but I believe we will have the a future with safer roads thanks to driverless cars. I am longing for that So we should push for it instead of trying to shut it down. Solution to the problem in article sounds easy, allow law officers to mark roads as blocked so the car does not even to see the fire truck. Or just put a road signal or a person on the road so the cars (driverless or with drivers) don't step on your hose