3 ms·

I will definitely try it out. Long term however I feel uneasy about actively undermining the income opportunities for so many people.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
That's an interesting tradeoff to make. So try it once and swear it off afterwards for ideological purposes? I already feel myself creating a bit of a conversational rage trap here though, so apologies in advance.
harmmonica 2y ago
I certainly understand the sentiment, but can you think of historical examples where technology, which oftentimes in history has undermined income opportunities for people, has not been adopted for that reason? I guess I'm really asking whether there has ever been a successful effort to stop the adoption of tech that undermines human labor/income opportunity. We're certainly in the thick of it right now. Recent high profile ones: LLMs, port automation, other types of AI for media production, I'm sure the list goes on and on. The reason I'm asking is not to advocate for technology, but rather to understand if there have been successful efforts in the past to stifle tech. If there haven't been noteworthy ones, then my gut says we ought to be focused on how to get those people to not be left behind (so so incredibly difficult) rather than preserving something solely for the sake of people making money off of it. Like I said, so easy to say, but incredibly difficult to achieve in practice. Not sure there are great examples of people not being left behind.
jqpabc123 2y ago
undermining the income opportunities for so many people. Don't worry. Once the novelty has worn off, the cost will probably be on par with Uber and Lyft with real human drivers --- if not higher. The acquisition, maintenance and supervision costs for the self driving vehicles will probably consume any difference in cost.
- ghaff 2y ago
  A lot of people are assuming that replacing cars driven by minimum wage/sub-minimum wage drivers with high tech robotaxis will make this sort of transportation almost too cheap to meter. Long-term there's presumably some advantage espeically as costs drop to the level where an autonomous car is just a car. I'm not sure there's ever this magical transition where a car you use a few times a day (and is specific to your needs) is ever replaced by an on-demand service to a significantly greater degree than today.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  They are the same price in SF, but you never have to figure out how much to tip the waymo.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
This is really a valid concern. We talk about stable wages for Uber and meal delivery drivers here in Seattle, and when business goes down as a result of policies that pay drivers more but cost users more, we say that's just a society cost (don't use the service if you can't pay the 20% tip!). But if Waymo ever moved in here, I'm sure there would be a bunch of people on the far left crying bloody murder since it upends their whole feedback loop.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

That's an interesting tradeoff to make. So try it once and swear it off afterwards for ideological purposes? I already feel myself creating a bit of a conversational rage trap here though, so apologies in advance.

harmmonica 2y ago

I certainly understand the sentiment, but can you think of historical examples where technology, which oftentimes in history has undermined income opportunities for people, has not been adopted for that reason? I guess I'm really asking whether there has ever been a successful effort to stop the adoption of tech that undermines human labor/income opportunity. We're certainly in the thick of it right now. Recent high profile ones: LLMs, port automation, other types of AI for media production, I'm sure the list goes on and on. The reason I'm asking is not to advocate for technology, but rather to understand if there have been successful efforts in the past to stifle tech. If there haven't been noteworthy ones, then my gut says we ought to be focused on how to get those people to not be left behind (so so incredibly difficult) rather than preserving something solely for the sake of people making money off of it. Like I said, so easy to say, but incredibly difficult to achieve in practice. Not sure there are great examples of people not being left behind.

jqpabc123 2y ago

undermining the income opportunities for so many people. Don't worry. Once the novelty has worn off, the cost will probably be on par with Uber and Lyft with real human drivers --- if not higher. The acquisition, maintenance and supervision costs for the self driving vehicles will probably consume any difference in cost.

ghaff 2y ago
A lot of people are assuming that replacing cars driven by minimum wage/sub-minimum wage drivers with high tech robotaxis will make this sort of transportation almost too cheap to meter. Long-term there's presumably some advantage espeically as costs drop to the level where an autonomous car is just a car. I'm not sure there's ever this magical transition where a car you use a few times a day (and is specific to your needs) is ever replaced by an on-demand service to a significantly greater degree than today.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
They are the same price in SF, but you never have to figure out how much to tip the waymo.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

This is really a valid concern. We talk about stable wages for Uber and meal delivery drivers here in Seattle, and when business goes down as a result of policies that pay drivers more but cost users more, we say that's just a society cost (don't use the service if you can't pay the 20% tip!). But if Waymo ever moved in here, I'm sure there would be a bunch of people on the far left crying bloody murder since it upends their whole feedback loop.