6 ms·

This is a pretty paranoid and far-fetched scenario. Generally, I'd expect that an automated taxi would operate under rules similar to current taxis - the oblig

This is a pretty paranoid and far-fetched scenario. Generally, I'd expect that an automated taxi would operate under rules similar to current taxis - the obligation would be to take the customer to the destination via the most direct route specified, unless otherwise directed. Taking someone on another route might constitute kidnapping - you're essentially transporting them against their will to somewhere they did not ask to go.

sophacles 14y ago
I didn't read the parent as paranoid at all. I thought it was pretty cool. Further, wrt the optimal/most direct route thing: * the algorithm could be tweaked to "adpresence" en-route fairly easily * "most direct route" is an ambiguous term. There could be two routes that involve almost same distance in miles, but the slightly longer one is likely to take less time. Which constitutes most direct? It turns into an optimization problem, possibly with no obviously optimal point (particularly when you account for fuzziness needed to deal with unexpected traffic patterns, accidents, etc). * Finally, the ad-laden route could be a free ride, whereas the "direct" route could be paid. This may or may not get around regulations, but as long as the time delta was not significantly bad, I would choose the ad route.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  There's a crucial difference between what you're proposing and what the parent suggests - user choice. At least as I read the parent, he's not saying you're given a choice of what route, etc. That seems like a crucial distinction to leave out if he meant that it would be at the request of the user.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    There is a crucial difference also between what you are responding to, and what I said. I am not necessarily proposing the user choice should be followed or is even necessary. It is just a possible variation on the theme. If you get in a cab and say "take me to $x" it is the cab driver's responsibility to take the best route. However, since metering is distance AND time based, there is a lot of wiggle room in what best route means. It is always an optimisation problem, and relies on imperfect data of the future conditions of the route. Further, in most american cities, there are many routes that are no more or less direct, as a result of the grid system. Therefore the car taking you on the route that goes past paid displays is not kidnapping. It is choosing 1 of n equivalent routes - the one most profitable for the operator, while still meeting the criteria of the user. Further, even with advanced traffic and condition understanding available to a robotic car, the ability to choose optimal path will probably improve significantly, even when the small fudge factor to go past advertising is accounted for. So what if it is 30s less optimal on your ride to go past the advertised place, when the human cabbie would have chosen a route adding 5 minutes?
    - tomkarlo 14y ago
      "If you get in a cab and say "take me to $x" it is the cab driver's responsibility to take the best route. " Obviously this can vary by municipality, but in most cities drivers are required to take the "most direct" route, rather than the "best" route, if for no other reason than the latter would be so subjective as to be useless for enforcement purposes. So if you're in a New York taxi (for example), the driver in theory isn't allowed to take you off the most direct route without your permission, even if another path would be faster.
      - sophacles 14y ago
        Even following this restriction on a grid: I'm at (1,1) and I want to get to (4,4). Assuming a restrictive interpretation of most direct[1] and no one-way streets factored in[2], there are still two equally direct and valid paths: (1,1) -> (1,4) -> (4,4) and (1,1) -> (4,1) -> (4,4) Which is most direct? If the cab driver chooses to go with the later because his buddy pays him to go past the billboard at (3,1), what's to stop him? What's wrong with that? [1] If most direct means "shortest path", then there are many more equivalent routes. [2] One way streets also offer a nice choice of where to do turns around a block under favorable circumstances. Similarly road construction offers extra choices by detour.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I'd assume that a driverless taxi would have an "I want to get out, please drop me off at the next safe opportunity" as well as some method of disputing the fare. Besides, it would not necessarily even have to redirect you past a different location, it could just stream an advert to the speakers in the car. It could also be possible that some routes would be subsidized, like you could enter the location of one restaurant and a rival restaurant could offer to cover your fare if you went to them instead. Another aspect is that you would need an easy way to split the fare amongst multiple passengers, I almost never take a taxi if I am traveling alone.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Cabs already stream ads once the meter starts in many cities, so that's not new, nor is fare sharing - New York has had it for decades. I'm sure any driverless cab would have the ability to ask to get out, but technically one might argue you're kidnapping someone as soon as you take them off the route they requested for any reason, if if there's an "opt-out"... at the level of an individual cab ride and human driver it's moot, but if you're operating a fleet of thousands of cabs, doing that over millions of rides, it could easily turn into a class-action suit.

sophacles 14y ago

I didn't read the parent as paranoid at all. I thought it was pretty cool. Further, wrt the optimal/most direct route thing: * the algorithm could be tweaked to "adpresence" en-route fairly easily * "most direct route" is an ambiguous term. There could be two routes that involve almost same distance in miles, but the slightly longer one is likely to take less time. Which constitutes most direct? It turns into an optimization problem, possibly with no obviously optimal point (particularly when you account for fuzziness needed to deal with unexpected traffic patterns, accidents, etc). * Finally, the ad-laden route could be a free ride, whereas the "direct" route could be paid. This may or may not get around regulations, but as long as the time delta was not significantly bad, I would choose the ad route.

tomkarlo 14y ago
There's a crucial difference between what you're proposing and what the parent suggests - user choice. At least as I read the parent, he's not saying you're given a choice of what route, etc. That seems like a crucial distinction to leave out if he meant that it would be at the request of the user.
- sophacles 14y ago
  There is a crucial difference also between what you are responding to, and what I said. I am not necessarily proposing the user choice should be followed or is even necessary. It is just a possible variation on the theme. If you get in a cab and say "take me to $x" it is the cab driver's responsibility to take the best route. However, since metering is distance AND time based, there is a lot of wiggle room in what best route means. It is always an optimisation problem, and relies on imperfect data of the future conditions of the route. Further, in most american cities, there are many routes that are no more or less direct, as a result of the grid system. Therefore the car taking you on the route that goes past paid displays is not kidnapping. It is choosing 1 of n equivalent routes - the one most profitable for the operator, while still meeting the criteria of the user. Further, even with advanced traffic and condition understanding available to a robotic car, the ability to choose optimal path will probably improve significantly, even when the small fudge factor to go past advertising is accounted for. So what if it is 30s less optimal on your ride to go past the advertised place, when the human cabbie would have chosen a route adding 5 minutes?
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    "If you get in a cab and say "take me to $x" it is the cab driver's responsibility to take the best route. " Obviously this can vary by municipality, but in most cities drivers are required to take the "most direct" route, rather than the "best" route, if for no other reason than the latter would be so subjective as to be useless for enforcement purposes. So if you're in a New York taxi (for example), the driver in theory isn't allowed to take you off the most direct route without your permission, even if another path would be faster.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      Even following this restriction on a grid: I'm at (1,1) and I want to get to (4,4). Assuming a restrictive interpretation of most direct[1] and no one-way streets factored in[2], there are still two equally direct and valid paths: (1,1) -> (1,4) -> (4,4) and (1,1) -> (4,1) -> (4,4) Which is most direct? If the cab driver chooses to go with the later because his buddy pays him to go past the billboard at (3,1), what's to stop him? What's wrong with that? [1] If most direct means "shortest path", then there are many more equivalent routes. [2] One way streets also offer a nice choice of where to do turns around a block under favorable circumstances. Similarly road construction offers extra choices by detour.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I'd assume that a driverless taxi would have an "I want to get out, please drop me off at the next safe opportunity" as well as some method of disputing the fare. Besides, it would not necessarily even have to redirect you past a different location, it could just stream an advert to the speakers in the car. It could also be possible that some routes would be subsidized, like you could enter the location of one restaurant and a rival restaurant could offer to cover your fare if you went to them instead. Another aspect is that you would need an easy way to split the fare amongst multiple passengers, I almost never take a taxi if I am traveling alone.

tomkarlo 14y ago
Cabs already stream ads once the meter starts in many cities, so that's not new, nor is fare sharing - New York has had it for decades. I'm sure any driverless cab would have the ability to ask to get out, but technically one might argue you're kidnapping someone as soon as you take them off the route they requested for any reason, if if there's an "opt-out"... at the level of an individual cab ride and human driver it's moot, but if you're operating a fleet of thousands of cabs, doing that over millions of rides, it could easily turn into a class-action suit.