11 ms·

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of do

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently they were burnt to a crisp in the LA riots, completely ignorant of the turmoil that was going on. A human driver is still far more adaptive and requires a lot less training than AI, and humans are ready to handle the infinitely long tail of exceptions to the otherwise algorithmic task of driving, which follows strict rules. And when you talk about applying this same tech, so confidently, to domains far more nuanced and complex than driving, with even less training data than to go off, I find myself firmly in the skeptics camp, that holds you will struggle even harder to apply humanoid robotics in uncontrolled environments across a diverse range of tasks without human intervention or piloting or maintenence or management. Unemployment is still near all time lows, this will persist for sometime as we have a structural demographic problem with massive amounts of retirees and less children to support the population "pyramid" (which is looking more like a tapering rectangle these days).

schneems 1y ago
A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the time to start thinking and planning for those problems. I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. But I also think the most sensible answer for climate change is a carbon tax. Just because something is sensible doesn’t meant it’s politically viable.
- DiscourseFan 1y ago
  The major shift for me is now its normal to take Waymos. Yeah, there aren't as fast as Uber if you have to get across town, but for trips less than 10 miles they're my go to now.
  - schneems 1y ago
    Ive never taken one. They seem nice though. On the other hand, the Tesla “robotaxi” scares the crap out of me. No lidar and seems to drive more aggressively. The Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel is equal parts hilarious and nightmare fuel when you realize that’s what’s next to your kid biking down the street.
    - bscphil 1y ago
      > Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel I understand the argument for augmenting your self-driving systems with LIDAR. What I don't really understand is what videos like this tell us. The comparison case for a "road-runner style fake tunnel" isn't LIDAR, it's humans, right? And while I'm sure there are cases where a human driver would spot the fake tunnel and stop in time, that is not at all a reasonable assumption. The question isn't "can a Tesla save your life when someone booby traps a road?", it's "is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads?", and moreover, "how does a Tesla perform on the 99.999999% of roads that aren't booby trapped?"
      - ekunazanu 1y ago
        > Is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.
        DiscourseFan 1y ago
        And Waymo is much safer than human drivers. Its better at chauffeuring than humans, too.
      - tfourb 1y ago
        Tesla‘s insistence on not using Lidar while other companies deem it necessary for save auto-pilot creates the need for Tesla to demonstrate that their approach is equally as save for both drivers and ie pedestrians. They haven’t done that, arguably the data shows the contrary. This generates the impression that Tesla skimps on security and if they skimp in one area, they’ll likely skimp in others. Stuff like the Rober video strengthens these impressions. It’s a public perception issue and Tesla has done nothing (and maybe isn’t able to do anything) to dispel this notion.
- visarga 1y ago
  > I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. Having had the experience of living under communist regime prior to 1989 I have zero trust in the state providing support, while I am totally dependent and have no recourse. Instead I would rather rely on my own two hands like my grandparents did. I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional. Unless your two hands are building murderbots, though, it doesn't matter what you're building if you can't grow or buy food. I haven't personally seen how UBI could end up working viably, but I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking about. Meanwhile, there are many many people that are very invested in maintaining massive differentials between the richest and the poorest that will be working against even the most modest changes.
    - griffzhowl 1y ago
      > I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking about. The other system is that the mass of people are coerced to work for tokens that buy them the right to food and to live in a house. i.e. the present system but potentially with more menial and arduous labour. Hopefully we can think of something else
  - kannanvijayan 1y ago
    I'd argue against the entire perspective of evaluating every policy idea along one-dimensional modernist polemics put forwards as "the least worst solution to all of human economy for all time". Right now the communists in China are beating us at capitalism. I'm starting to find the entire analytical framework of using these ideologies ("communism", "capitalism") to evaluate _anything_ to be highly suspect, and maybe even one of the west's greatest mistakes in the last century. > I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional. I was a teenager back in the 90s. There was much talk then about the productivity boosts from computers, the internet, automation, and how it would enable people to have so much more free time. Interesting thing is that the productivity gains happened. But the other side of that equation never really materialized. Who knows, maybe it'll be different this time.
- marsven_422 1y ago
  [dead]
- OneMorePerson 1y ago
  Isn't it the case that companies are always competing and evolving? Unless we see that there's a ceiling to driverless tech that is immediately obvious. We "made cars work" about 100 years ago, but they have been innovating on that design since then on comfort, efficiency, safety, etc. I doubt the very first version of self driving will have zero ways to improve (although eventually I suppose you would hit a ceiling).
- andrei_says_ 1y ago
  Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.
  - ludicrousdispla 1y ago
    Politicians are elected for limited terms, not for life, so they don't need to change their opinion for a change to occur.
    - polotics 1y ago
      Are you sure of this? Don't you think the next US presidential election and very many subsequent ones will be decided by the US Supreme Court?
  - mindcrime 1y ago
    Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from ... Well, if one believes that the day will come when their choices will be "make that jump" or "the guillotine", then it doesn't seem completely outlandish. Not saying that day will come, but if it did...
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      > or "the guillotine" Or even simply being voted out.
  - omnimus 1y ago
    I wouldn't underestimate what can happen if 1/3 of your workforce is displaced and put aside with nothing to do. People are usually obedient because they have something in life and they are very busy with work. So they don't have time or headspace to really care about politics. When suddenly big numbers of people start to more care about politics it leads to organizing and all kinds of political changes. What i mean is that it wouldn't be current political class pushing things like UBI. At same time it seems that some of current elites are preparing for this and want to get rid of elections altogether to keep the status quo.
- aorloff 1y ago
  Every time someone casually throws out UBI my mind goes to the question "who is paying taxes when some people are on UBI ?" Is there like a transition period where some people don't have to pay taxes and yet don't get UBI, and if so, why hasn't that come yet ? Why aren't the minimum tax thresholds going up if UBI could be right around the corner ?
  - woile 1y ago
    There's another question to answer: Who is working?
    - int_19h 1y ago
      The robots.
  - juniperus 1y ago
    The taxes will be most burdensome for the wealthiest and most productive of institutions, which is generally why these arrangements collapse economies and nations. UBI is hard to implement because it incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity. This creates economic crisis, taxes are basically a smaller scale version of this, UBI is like a more comprehensive wealth redistribution scheme. The creation of a syndicate (in this case, the state) to steal from the productive to give to the non-productive is a return to how humanity functioned before the creation of state-like structures when marauders and bandits used violence to steal from those who created anything. Eventually, the state arose to create arrangements and contracts to prevent theft, but later become the thief itself, leading to economic collapse and the cyclical revolutionary cycle. So, AI may certainly bring about UBI, but the corporations that are being milked by the state to provide wealth to the non-productive will begin to foment revolution along with those who find this arrangement unfair, and the productive activity of those especially productive individuals will be directed toward revolution instead of economic productivity. Companies have made nations many times before, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
    - essnine 1y ago
- leshow 1y ago
  UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of life on the market. If we're dreaming up solutions to problems, much better would be to remove the essentials from the market and provide them to everyone universally. Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen by virtue of being a human.
  - sneak 1y ago
    You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today. How do you intend to get them to consent to that? Or do you think that the needs of the many should outweigh the consent of millions of people? The state, the only organization large enough to even consider undertaking such a project, has spending priorities that do not include these things. In the US, for example, we spend the entire net worth of Elon Musk (the “richest man in the world”, though he rightfully points out that Putin owns far more than he does) about every six months on the military alone. Add in Zuckerberg and you can get another 5 months or so. Then there’s the next year to think about. Maybe you can do Buffet and Gates; what about year three? That’s just for the US military, at present day spending levels. What you’re describing is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than that, just in one country that only has 4% of people. To extend it to all human beings, you’re talking about two more orders of magnitude. There aren’t enough billionaires on the entire planet even to pay for one country’s military expenses out of pocket (even if you completely liquidated them), and this proposed plan is 500-1000x more spending than that. You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA - if you extrapolate out linearly, that’d be 60-200 trillion per year for the Earth. Even if you could reduce cost of provision by 90% due to economies of scale ($100/person/month for housing, healthcare, and education combined, rather than $1000 - a big stretch), it is still far, far too big to do under any currently envisioned system of wealth redistribution. Society is big and wealthy private citizens (ie billionaires) aren’t that numerous or rich. There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing.
- tfourb 1y ago
  I guess you live in a place with perfect weather year round? I don’t and I haven’t seen a robo taxi my entire life. I do have access to a Tesla though and it’s current self-driving capabilities are not even close to anything I would call „autonomous“ und real world conditions (including weather). Maybe the tech will at some point be good enough. At the current rate of improvement this will still take decades at least. Which is sad because I personally hoped that my kids would never have to get a driver’s License.
  - BoorishBears 1y ago
    I've ridden just under 1,000 miles in autonmous (no scare quotes) Waymos, so it's strange to see someone letting Tesla's abject failure inform their opinions on how much progress AVs have made. Tesla that got fired as a customer by Mobileye for abusing their L2 tech is your yardstick? Anyways, Waymo's DC launch is next year, I wonder what the new goalpost will be.
    - thephotonsphere 1y ago
      Tesla uses only cameras, which sounds crazy (reflections, direct sunlight disturbances, fog , smoke, etc. LiDAR, radar assistance feels crucial https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/waymo-srikanth-thirumalai-interview-ai4-conference-las-vegas-lidar-radar-self-driving-safety-tesla/ https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/waymo-srikanth-thirumalai-int...
      - ACCount37 1y ago
        Humans use only cameras. And humans don't even have true 360 coverage on those cameras. The bottleneck for self-driving technology isn't sensors - it's AI. Building a car that collects enough sensory data to enable self-driving is easy. Building a car AI that actually drives well in a diverse range of conditions is hard.
        BuckRogers 1y ago
        Except a car isn’t a human. That’s the mistake Elon Musk made and the same one you’re making here. Not to mention that humans driving with cameras only is absolutely pathetic. The amount of accidents that occur that are completely avoidable doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that all my car needs to be safe and get me to my destination is a couple cameras.
- Joeri 1y ago
  UBI could easily become a poverty trap, enough to keep living, not enough to have a shot towards becoming an earner because you’re locked out of opportunities. I think in practice it is likely to turn out like “basic” in The Expanse, with people hoping to win a lottery to get a shot at having a real job and building a decent life for themselves. If no UBI is installed there will be a hard crash while everyone figures out what it is that humans can do usefully, and then a new economic model of full employment gets established. If UBI is installed then this will happen more slowly with less pain, but it is possible for society to get stuck in a permanently worse situation. Ultimately if AI really is about to automate as much as it is promised then what we really need is a model for post-capitalism, for post-scarcity economics, because a model based on scarcity is incapable of adapting to a reality of genuine abundance. So far nobody seems to have any clue of how to do such a thing. UBI as a concept still lives deeply in the Overton window bounded by capitalist scarcity thinking. (Not a call for communism btw, that is a train to nowhere as well because it also assumes scarcity at its root.) What I fear is that we may get a future like The Diamond Age, where we have the technology to get rid of scarcity and have human flourishing, but we impose legal barriers that keep the rich rich and the poor poor. We saw this happen with digital copyright, where the technology exists for abundance, but we’ve imposed permanent worldwide legal scarcity barriers to protect revenue streams to megacorps.
  - immibis 1y ago
    That's way better than the present situation where they just die, though. It's at least a start.
- bboygravity 1y ago
  Carbon tax on a state level to try to fight a global problem makes 0 sense actually. You just shift the emissions from your location to the location that you buy products from. Basically what happened in Germany: more expensive "clean" energy means their own production went down and the world bought more from China instead. The net result is probably higher global emissions overall.
  - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
    This is why an economics based strictly on scarcity cannot get us where we need to go. Markets, not knowing what it's like to be thirsty, will interpret a willingness to poison the well as entrepreneurial spirit to be encouraged. We need a system where being known as somebody who causes more problems than they solve puts you (and the people you've done business with) at an economic disadvantage.
- dongping 1y ago
  The robotaxi business model is the total opposite of scaling. At my previous employer we were solving the problem "block by block, city by city", , and I can only assume that you are living in the right city/block where they are tackling.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    That just sounds like scaling slowly, rather than not scaling
- mrcincinnatus 1y ago
  > I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. What corporation will accept to pay dollars for members of society that are essentially "unproductive"? What will happen with the value of UBI in time, in this context, when the strongest lobby will be of the companies that have the means of producing AI? And, more essentially, how are humans able to negotiate for themselves when they lose their abilities to build things? I'm not opposing the technology progress, I'm merely trying to unfold the reality of UBI being a thing, knowing human nature and the impetus for profit.
CamperBob2 1y ago
Self-driving cars are a political problem, not a technical problem. A functioning government would put everything from automation-friendly signaling standards to battery-swapping facilities into place. We humans used to do that sort of thing, but not anymore, so... bring on the AI. It won't work as well as it might otherwise be able to, but it'll probably kill fewer humans on the road at the end of the day. A low bar to clear.
- lightbritefight 1y ago
  Self-driving car companies dont want a unfiied signalling platform or other "open for all" infrastructure updates. They want to own self-driving, to lock you into a subscription on their platform. Literally the only open source self driving platform, from trillion to billion to million dollar companies is comma.ai, founded by Geohot. Thats it. Its actually very good, and I bet they would welcome these upgrades, but that would be a consortium of one underdog pushing for them.
  - Pelam 1y ago
    Ie. a political problem as the grandparent said. Corporations generally follow a narrow somewhat predictable pattern towards some local maxima of their own value extraction. Since world is not zero sum, it produces value for others too. Where politics (should) enter the picture is where we somehow can see a more global maxima (for all citizens) and try to drive towards it through some political, hopefully democratic means. (Laws, standards, education, investment, infra etc)
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Yeah, that must be it. It's a conspiracy.
    - StanislavPetrov 1y ago
      This is all happening right out in the open.
- ulfw 1y ago
atleastoptimal 1y ago
Everything anyone could say about bad AI driving could be said about bad human drivers. Nevertheless, Waymo has not had a single fatal accident despite many millions of passenger miles and is safer than human drivers.
- fallous 1y ago
  Everything? How about legal liability for the car killing someone? Are all the self-driving vendors stepping up and accepting full legal liability for the outcomes of their non-deterministic software?
  - atleastoptimal 1y ago
    Thousands have died directly due to known defects in manufactured cars. Those companies (Ford, others) still are operating today. Even if driverless cars killed more people than humans they would see mass adoption eventually. However they are subject to farr higher scrutiny than human drivers and even so make fewer mistakes, avoid accidents more frequently and can't get drunk, tired, angry, or distracted.
    - notyourav 1y ago
      A faulty break pad or an engine doesn’t take decisions that might endanger people. Self-driving cars do. They might also get hacked pretty thoroughly. For the same reason, I’d probably never buy a home robot with more capabilities then a vacuum cleaner.
      - atleastoptimal 1y ago
        Current non-self-driving cars on the road can be hacked https://www.wired.com/story/kia-web-vulnerability-vehicle-hack-track/ https://www.wired.com/story/kia-web-vulnerability-vehicle-ha... But even if they can theoretically be hacked, so far Waymos are still safer and more reliable than human drivers. The biggest danger someone has riding in one is someone destroying it for vindictive reasons.
rafaelero 1y ago
I feel like you are trapped in the first assessment of this problem. Yes, we are not there yet, but have you thought about the rate of improvement? Is that rate of improvement reliable? Fast? That's what matters, not where we are today.
- badestrand 1y ago
  You could say that about any time in history. When the steam engine or mechanical loom were invented there were millions of people like you who predicted that mankind will be out of jobs soon and guess what happened? There's still a lot of things to do in this world and there still will be a lot to do (aka "jobs") for a loooong time.
  - rafaelero 1y ago
    Nothing in the rate of improvement of a steam engine suggest it would be able to drive a car or do the job of an attorney.
bloaf 1y ago
I think it is important to remember that "decades" here means <20 years. Remember that in 2004 it was considered sufficiently impossible that basically no one had a car that could be reliably controlled by a computer, let alone driven by computer alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2004) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2004) I also think that most job domains are not actually more nuanced or complex than driving, at least from a raw information perspective. Indeed, I would argue that driving is something like a worst-case scenario when it comes to tasks: * It requires many different inputs, at high sampling rates, continuously (at the very least, video, sound, and car state) * It requires loose adherence to laws in the sense that there are many scenarios where the safest and most "human" thing to do is technically illegal. * It requires understanding of driving culture to avoid making decisions that confuse/disorient/anger other drivers, and anticipating other drivers' intents (although this can be somewhat faked with sufficiently fast reaction times) * It must function in a wide range of environments: there is no "standard" environment If we compare driving to other widespread-but-low-wage jobs (e.g. food prep, receptionists, cleaners) there are generally far more relaxed requirements: * Rules may be unbreakable as opposed to situational, e.g. the cook time for burgers is always the same. * Input requirements may be far lower. e.g. an AI receptionist could likely function with audio and a barcode scanner. * Cultural cues/expectations drive fewer behaviors. e.g. an AI janitor just needs to achieve a defined level of cleanliness, not gauge people's intent in real-time. * Operating environments are more standardized. All these jobs operate indoors with decent lighting.
- baconbrand 1y ago
  I’m pretty sure you could generate a similar list for any human job. It’s strange to me watching the collective meltdown over AI/jobs when AI doesn’t do jobs, it does tasks.
andrei_says_ 1y ago
As someone who lives in LA, I don’t think self-driving cars existed at the time of the Rodney King LA riots and I am not aware of any other riots since.
- idontpost 1y ago
  [dead]
- StanislavPetrov 1y ago
  Let me be the first to welcome you out of your long slumber!
  - andrei_says_ 1y ago
    Let me welcome you to the concept of believing one’s own eyes when they contradict Mr Murdoch’s reality distortion field.
motorest 1y ago
> What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had (...) I think you're confusing your cherry-picked comparison with reality. LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any commercial chatbot service. Software engineering is being affected as well, and it requires far greater know-how, experience, and expertise to meet the hiring bar. > And when you talk about applying this same tech, so confidently, to domains far more nuanced and complex than (...) Yes, your tech job is also going to be decimated. It's not a matter of having PMs write code. It's an issue of your junior SDE armed with a LLM being quite able to clear your bug backlog in a few days while improving test coverage metrics and refactoring code back from legacy status. If a junior SDE can suddenly handle the workload that previously you required a couple of medior and senior developers, why would a company keep around 4 or 5 seasoned engineers when an inexperienced one is already able to handle the workload? That's where the jobs will vanish. Even if demand remains there, it dropped considerably as to not justify retaining so many people in a company's payroll. And what are you going to do, them? Drive a Uber?
- taormina 1y ago
  > LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any commercial chatbot service. I'd love a source to these claims. Many companies are claiming that they are able to layoff folks because of AI, but in fact, AI is just a scapegoat to counteract the reckless overhiring due to free money in the market over the last 5-10 years and investors are demanding to see a real business plan and ROI. "We can eliminate this headcount due to the efficiency of our AI" is just a fancy way to make the stock price go up while cleaning up the useless folks. People have ideas. There are substantially more ideas than people who can implement ideas. As with most technology, the reasonable expectation is to assume that people are just going to want more done by the now tool powered humans, not less things.
andrepd 1y ago
To be fair, self-driving cars don't need to be perfect 0 casualty modes of transportation, they just need to be better than human drivers. Since car crashes kill 2 million people each year (and maim another 2 or 3), this is a low bar to clear... Of course, the actual answer is that rail and cycling infrastructure are much more efficient than cars in any moderately dense region. But that would mean funding boring regular companies focused on providing a product or service for adequate profit, instead of exciting AI web3 high tech unicorn startups.
mofeien 1y ago
> What makes you think that? Self driving cars [...] AI is intentionally being developed to be able to make decisions in any domain humans work in. This is unlike any previous technology. The more apt analogy is to other species. When was the last time there was something other than homo sapiens that could carry on an interesting conversation with homo sapiens. 40,000 years? And this new thing has been in development for what? 70 years? The rise in its capabilities has been absolutely meteoric and we don't know where the ceiling is.
- klabb3 1y ago
  > we don't know where the ceiling is. The ceiling for current AI, while not provably known, can reasonably be upper bounded to human aggregate ability since these methods are limited to patterns in the training data. The big surprise was how many and sophisticated patterns were hiding in the training data (human written text). This current wave of AI progress is fueled by training data and compute in ”equal parts”. Since compute is cheaper, they’ve invested in more compute but failed scaling expectations since training data remained similarly sized. Reaching super-intelligence through training data is paradoxical, because if it were known it wouldn’t be super-human. The other option is breaking out of the training data enclosure by relying on other methods. That may sound exciting but there’s no major progress I’m aware of that points that direction. It’s a little like being back to square one, before this hype cycle started. The smartest people seem to be focused on transformers, due to getting boatloads of money from companies or academia pushing them because of fomo.
socalgal2 1y ago
Do you live in SF (the city, not the Bay Area as a whole) or West LA? I ask because in these areas you can stand on any city street and see several self driving cars go by every few minutes. It's irrlevant that they've had a few issues. They already work and people love them. It's clear they will eventually replace every uber/lyft driver, probably every taxi driver, they'll likely replace every doordash/grubhub driver with vehicles design to let smaller automated delivery carts go the last few blocks. They may also replace every truck driver. Together that's around 5 million jobs in the USA. Once they're let on the freeways their usage will expand even faster.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- inferiorhuman 1y ago
  It's irrlevant that they've had a few issues. The last Waymo I saw (a couple weeks ago) was stuck trying to make a right turn on to Market St. It was conveniently blocking the pedestrian crosswalk for a few cycles before I went around it. The time before that one got befuddled by a delivery truck and ended up blocking both lanes of 14th Street. Before Cruise imploded they were way worse. I can't say that these self-driving cars have improved much since I moved out of the city a few years back.
einarfd 1y ago
Driverless taxis is IMO the wrong tech to compare to. It’s a high consequence, low acceptance of error, real time task. Where it’s really hard to undo errors. There is a big category of tasks that isn’t that. But that are economically significant. Those are a lot better fit for AI.
avidphantasm 1y ago
> A human driver is still far more adaptive and requires a lot less training than AI I get what you are saying, but humans need 16 years of training to begin driving. I wouldn’t call that not a lot.
- player1234 1y ago
  I trained no driving my first 16 years of life, seems like fuckkng hell your upbringing training nothing but driving the first 16 years. Your parents should be locked up.
- avidphantasm 1y ago
  And the problem for Capitalists and other anti-humanists is that this doesn’t scale. Their hope with AI, I think, is that once they train one AI for a task, it can be trivially replicated, which scales much better than humans.
perryizgr8 1y ago
> They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently they were burnt to a crisp in the LA riots All of this is very common for human driven cars too.

schneems 1y ago

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the time to start thinking and planning for those problems. I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. But I also think the most sensible answer for climate change is a carbon tax. Just because something is sensible doesn’t meant it’s politically viable.

DiscourseFan 1y ago
The major shift for me is now its normal to take Waymos. Yeah, there aren't as fast as Uber if you have to get across town, but for trips less than 10 miles they're my go to now.
- schneems 1y ago
  Ive never taken one. They seem nice though. On the other hand, the Tesla “robotaxi” scares the crap out of me. No lidar and seems to drive more aggressively. The Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel is equal parts hilarious and nightmare fuel when you realize that’s what’s next to your kid biking down the street.
  - bscphil 1y ago
    > Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel I understand the argument for augmenting your self-driving systems with LIDAR. What I don't really understand is what videos like this tell us. The comparison case for a "road-runner style fake tunnel" isn't LIDAR, it's humans, right? And while I'm sure there are cases where a human driver would spot the fake tunnel and stop in time, that is not at all a reasonable assumption. The question isn't "can a Tesla save your life when someone booby traps a road?", it's "is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads?", and moreover, "how does a Tesla perform on the 99.999999% of roads that aren't booby trapped?"
    - ekunazanu 1y ago
      > Is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.
      - DiscourseFan 1y ago
        And Waymo is much safer than human drivers. Its better at chauffeuring than humans, too.
    - tfourb 1y ago
      Tesla‘s insistence on not using Lidar while other companies deem it necessary for save auto-pilot creates the need for Tesla to demonstrate that their approach is equally as save for both drivers and ie pedestrians. They haven’t done that, arguably the data shows the contrary. This generates the impression that Tesla skimps on security and if they skimp in one area, they’ll likely skimp in others. Stuff like the Rober video strengthens these impressions. It’s a public perception issue and Tesla has done nothing (and maybe isn’t able to do anything) to dispel this notion.
visarga 1y ago
> I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. Having had the experience of living under communist regime prior to 1989 I have zero trust in the state providing support, while I am totally dependent and have no recourse. Instead I would rather rely on my own two hands like my grandparents did. I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional. Unless your two hands are building murderbots, though, it doesn't matter what you're building if you can't grow or buy food. I haven't personally seen how UBI could end up working viably, but I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking about. Meanwhile, there are many many people that are very invested in maintaining massive differentials between the richest and the poorest that will be working against even the most modest changes.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    > I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking about. The other system is that the mass of people are coerced to work for tokens that buy them the right to food and to live in a house. i.e. the present system but potentially with more menial and arduous labour. Hopefully we can think of something else
- kannanvijayan 1y ago
  I'd argue against the entire perspective of evaluating every policy idea along one-dimensional modernist polemics put forwards as "the least worst solution to all of human economy for all time". Right now the communists in China are beating us at capitalism. I'm starting to find the entire analytical framework of using these ideologies ("communism", "capitalism") to evaluate _anything_ to be highly suspect, and maybe even one of the west's greatest mistakes in the last century. > I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional. I was a teenager back in the 90s. There was much talk then about the productivity boosts from computers, the internet, automation, and how it would enable people to have so much more free time. Interesting thing is that the productivity gains happened. But the other side of that equation never really materialized. Who knows, maybe it'll be different this time.
marsven_422 1y ago
[dead]
OneMorePerson 1y ago
Isn't it the case that companies are always competing and evolving? Unless we see that there's a ceiling to driverless tech that is immediately obvious. We "made cars work" about 100 years ago, but they have been innovating on that design since then on comfort, efficiency, safety, etc. I doubt the very first version of self driving will have zero ways to improve (although eventually I suppose you would hit a ceiling).
andrei_says_ 1y ago
Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.
- ludicrousdispla 1y ago
  Politicians are elected for limited terms, not for life, so they don't need to change their opinion for a change to occur.
  - polotics 1y ago
    Are you sure of this? Don't you think the next US presidential election and very many subsequent ones will be decided by the US Supreme Court?
- mindcrime 1y ago
  Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from ... Well, if one believes that the day will come when their choices will be "make that jump" or "the guillotine", then it doesn't seem completely outlandish. Not saying that day will come, but if it did...
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    > or "the guillotine" Or even simply being voted out.
- omnimus 1y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate what can happen if 1/3 of your workforce is displaced and put aside with nothing to do. People are usually obedient because they have something in life and they are very busy with work. So they don't have time or headspace to really care about politics. When suddenly big numbers of people start to more care about politics it leads to organizing and all kinds of political changes. What i mean is that it wouldn't be current political class pushing things like UBI. At same time it seems that some of current elites are preparing for this and want to get rid of elections altogether to keep the status quo.
aorloff 1y ago
Every time someone casually throws out UBI my mind goes to the question "who is paying taxes when some people are on UBI ?" Is there like a transition period where some people don't have to pay taxes and yet don't get UBI, and if so, why hasn't that come yet ? Why aren't the minimum tax thresholds going up if UBI could be right around the corner ?
- woile 1y ago
  There's another question to answer: Who is working?
  - int_19h 1y ago
    The robots.
- juniperus 1y ago
  The taxes will be most burdensome for the wealthiest and most productive of institutions, which is generally why these arrangements collapse economies and nations. UBI is hard to implement because it incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity. This creates economic crisis, taxes are basically a smaller scale version of this, UBI is like a more comprehensive wealth redistribution scheme. The creation of a syndicate (in this case, the state) to steal from the productive to give to the non-productive is a return to how humanity functioned before the creation of state-like structures when marauders and bandits used violence to steal from those who created anything. Eventually, the state arose to create arrangements and contracts to prevent theft, but later become the thief itself, leading to economic collapse and the cyclical revolutionary cycle. So, AI may certainly bring about UBI, but the corporations that are being milked by the state to provide wealth to the non-productive will begin to foment revolution along with those who find this arrangement unfair, and the productive activity of those especially productive individuals will be directed toward revolution instead of economic productivity. Companies have made nations many times before, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
  - essnine 1y ago
leshow 1y ago
UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of life on the market. If we're dreaming up solutions to problems, much better would be to remove the essentials from the market and provide them to everyone universally. Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen by virtue of being a human.
- sneak 1y ago
  You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today. How do you intend to get them to consent to that? Or do you think that the needs of the many should outweigh the consent of millions of people? The state, the only organization large enough to even consider undertaking such a project, has spending priorities that do not include these things. In the US, for example, we spend the entire net worth of Elon Musk (the “richest man in the world”, though he rightfully points out that Putin owns far more than he does) about every six months on the military alone. Add in Zuckerberg and you can get another 5 months or so. Then there’s the next year to think about. Maybe you can do Buffet and Gates; what about year three? That’s just for the US military, at present day spending levels. What you’re describing is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than that, just in one country that only has 4% of people. To extend it to all human beings, you’re talking about two more orders of magnitude. There aren’t enough billionaires on the entire planet even to pay for one country’s military expenses out of pocket (even if you completely liquidated them), and this proposed plan is 500-1000x more spending than that. You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA - if you extrapolate out linearly, that’d be 60-200 trillion per year for the Earth. Even if you could reduce cost of provision by 90% due to economies of scale ($100/person/month for housing, healthcare, and education combined, rather than $1000 - a big stretch), it is still far, far too big to do under any currently envisioned system of wealth redistribution. Society is big and wealthy private citizens (ie billionaires) aren’t that numerous or rich. There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing.
tfourb 1y ago
I guess you live in a place with perfect weather year round? I don’t and I haven’t seen a robo taxi my entire life. I do have access to a Tesla though and it’s current self-driving capabilities are not even close to anything I would call „autonomous“ und real world conditions (including weather). Maybe the tech will at some point be good enough. At the current rate of improvement this will still take decades at least. Which is sad because I personally hoped that my kids would never have to get a driver’s License.
- BoorishBears 1y ago
  I've ridden just under 1,000 miles in autonmous (no scare quotes) Waymos, so it's strange to see someone letting Tesla's abject failure inform their opinions on how much progress AVs have made. Tesla that got fired as a customer by Mobileye for abusing their L2 tech is your yardstick? Anyways, Waymo's DC launch is next year, I wonder what the new goalpost will be.
  - thephotonsphere 1y ago
    Tesla uses only cameras, which sounds crazy (reflections, direct sunlight disturbances, fog , smoke, etc. LiDAR, radar assistance feels crucial https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/waymo-srikanth-thirumalai-interview-ai4-conference-las-vegas-lidar-radar-self-driving-safety-tesla/ https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/waymo-srikanth-thirumalai-int...
    - ACCount37 1y ago
      Humans use only cameras. And humans don't even have true 360 coverage on those cameras. The bottleneck for self-driving technology isn't sensors - it's AI. Building a car that collects enough sensory data to enable self-driving is easy. Building a car AI that actually drives well in a diverse range of conditions is hard.
      - BuckRogers 1y ago
        Except a car isn’t a human. That’s the mistake Elon Musk made and the same one you’re making here. Not to mention that humans driving with cameras only is absolutely pathetic. The amount of accidents that occur that are completely avoidable doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that all my car needs to be safe and get me to my destination is a couple cameras.
Joeri 1y ago
UBI could easily become a poverty trap, enough to keep living, not enough to have a shot towards becoming an earner because you’re locked out of opportunities. I think in practice it is likely to turn out like “basic” in The Expanse, with people hoping to win a lottery to get a shot at having a real job and building a decent life for themselves. If no UBI is installed there will be a hard crash while everyone figures out what it is that humans can do usefully, and then a new economic model of full employment gets established. If UBI is installed then this will happen more slowly with less pain, but it is possible for society to get stuck in a permanently worse situation. Ultimately if AI really is about to automate as much as it is promised then what we really need is a model for post-capitalism, for post-scarcity economics, because a model based on scarcity is incapable of adapting to a reality of genuine abundance. So far nobody seems to have any clue of how to do such a thing. UBI as a concept still lives deeply in the Overton window bounded by capitalist scarcity thinking. (Not a call for communism btw, that is a train to nowhere as well because it also assumes scarcity at its root.) What I fear is that we may get a future like The Diamond Age, where we have the technology to get rid of scarcity and have human flourishing, but we impose legal barriers that keep the rich rich and the poor poor. We saw this happen with digital copyright, where the technology exists for abundance, but we’ve imposed permanent worldwide legal scarcity barriers to protect revenue streams to megacorps.
- immibis 1y ago
  That's way better than the present situation where they just die, though. It's at least a start.
bboygravity 1y ago
Carbon tax on a state level to try to fight a global problem makes 0 sense actually. You just shift the emissions from your location to the location that you buy products from. Basically what happened in Germany: more expensive "clean" energy means their own production went down and the world bought more from China instead. The net result is probably higher global emissions overall.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  This is why an economics based strictly on scarcity cannot get us where we need to go. Markets, not knowing what it's like to be thirsty, will interpret a willingness to poison the well as entrepreneurial spirit to be encouraged. We need a system where being known as somebody who causes more problems than they solve puts you (and the people you've done business with) at an economic disadvantage.
dongping 1y ago
The robotaxi business model is the total opposite of scaling. At my previous employer we were solving the problem "block by block, city by city", , and I can only assume that you are living in the right city/block where they are tackling.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  That just sounds like scaling slowly, rather than not scaling
mrcincinnatus 1y ago
> I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. What corporation will accept to pay dollars for members of society that are essentially "unproductive"? What will happen with the value of UBI in time, in this context, when the strongest lobby will be of the companies that have the means of producing AI? And, more essentially, how are humans able to negotiate for themselves when they lose their abilities to build things? I'm not opposing the technology progress, I'm merely trying to unfold the reality of UBI being a thing, knowing human nature and the impetus for profit.

CamperBob2 1y ago

Self-driving cars are a political problem, not a technical problem. A functioning government would put everything from automation-friendly signaling standards to battery-swapping facilities into place. We humans used to do that sort of thing, but not anymore, so... bring on the AI. It won't work as well as it might otherwise be able to, but it'll probably kill fewer humans on the road at the end of the day. A low bar to clear.

lightbritefight 1y ago
Self-driving car companies dont want a unfiied signalling platform or other "open for all" infrastructure updates. They want to own self-driving, to lock you into a subscription on their platform. Literally the only open source self driving platform, from trillion to billion to million dollar companies is comma.ai, founded by Geohot. Thats it. Its actually very good, and I bet they would welcome these upgrades, but that would be a consortium of one underdog pushing for them.
- Pelam 1y ago
  Ie. a political problem as the grandparent said. Corporations generally follow a narrow somewhat predictable pattern towards some local maxima of their own value extraction. Since world is not zero sum, it produces value for others too. Where politics (should) enter the picture is where we somehow can see a more global maxima (for all citizens) and try to drive towards it through some political, hopefully democratic means. (Laws, standards, education, investment, infra etc)
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Yeah, that must be it. It's a conspiracy.
  - StanislavPetrov 1y ago
    This is all happening right out in the open.
ulfw 1y ago

atleastoptimal 1y ago

Everything anyone could say about bad AI driving could be said about bad human drivers. Nevertheless, Waymo has not had a single fatal accident despite many millions of passenger miles and is safer than human drivers.

fallous 1y ago
Everything? How about legal liability for the car killing someone? Are all the self-driving vendors stepping up and accepting full legal liability for the outcomes of their non-deterministic software?
- atleastoptimal 1y ago
  Thousands have died directly due to known defects in manufactured cars. Those companies (Ford, others) still are operating today. Even if driverless cars killed more people than humans they would see mass adoption eventually. However they are subject to farr higher scrutiny than human drivers and even so make fewer mistakes, avoid accidents more frequently and can't get drunk, tired, angry, or distracted.
  - notyourav 1y ago
    A faulty break pad or an engine doesn’t take decisions that might endanger people. Self-driving cars do. They might also get hacked pretty thoroughly. For the same reason, I’d probably never buy a home robot with more capabilities then a vacuum cleaner.
    - atleastoptimal 1y ago
      Current non-self-driving cars on the road can be hacked https://www.wired.com/story/kia-web-vulnerability-vehicle-hack-track/ https://www.wired.com/story/kia-web-vulnerability-vehicle-ha... But even if they can theoretically be hacked, so far Waymos are still safer and more reliable than human drivers. The biggest danger someone has riding in one is someone destroying it for vindictive reasons.

rafaelero 1y ago

I feel like you are trapped in the first assessment of this problem. Yes, we are not there yet, but have you thought about the rate of improvement? Is that rate of improvement reliable? Fast? That's what matters, not where we are today.

badestrand 1y ago
You could say that about any time in history. When the steam engine or mechanical loom were invented there were millions of people like you who predicted that mankind will be out of jobs soon and guess what happened? There's still a lot of things to do in this world and there still will be a lot to do (aka "jobs") for a loooong time.
- rafaelero 1y ago
  Nothing in the rate of improvement of a steam engine suggest it would be able to drive a car or do the job of an attorney.

bloaf 1y ago

I think it is important to remember that "decades" here means <20 years. Remember that in 2004 it was considered sufficiently impossible that basically no one had a car that could be reliably controlled by a computer, let alone driven by computer alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2004) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2004) I also think that most job domains are not actually more nuanced or complex than driving, at least from a raw information perspective. Indeed, I would argue that driving is something like a worst-case scenario when it comes to tasks: * It requires many different inputs, at high sampling rates, continuously (at the very least, video, sound, and car state) * It requires loose adherence to laws in the sense that there are many scenarios where the safest and most "human" thing to do is technically illegal. * It requires understanding of driving culture to avoid making decisions that confuse/disorient/anger other drivers, and anticipating other drivers' intents (although this can be somewhat faked with sufficiently fast reaction times) * It must function in a wide range of environments: there is no "standard" environment If we compare driving to other widespread-but-low-wage jobs (e.g. food prep, receptionists, cleaners) there are generally far more relaxed requirements: * Rules may be unbreakable as opposed to situational, e.g. the cook time for burgers is always the same. * Input requirements may be far lower. e.g. an AI receptionist could likely function with audio and a barcode scanner. * Cultural cues/expectations drive fewer behaviors. e.g. an AI janitor just needs to achieve a defined level of cleanliness, not gauge people's intent in real-time. * Operating environments are more standardized. All these jobs operate indoors with decent lighting.

baconbrand 1y ago
I’m pretty sure you could generate a similar list for any human job. It’s strange to me watching the collective meltdown over AI/jobs when AI doesn’t do jobs, it does tasks.

andrei_says_ 1y ago

As someone who lives in LA, I don’t think self-driving cars existed at the time of the Rodney King LA riots and I am not aware of any other riots since.

idontpost 1y ago
[dead]
StanislavPetrov 1y ago
Let me be the first to welcome you out of your long slumber!
- andrei_says_ 1y ago
  Let me welcome you to the concept of believing one’s own eyes when they contradict Mr Murdoch’s reality distortion field.

motorest 1y ago

> What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had (...) I think you're confusing your cherry-picked comparison with reality. LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any commercial chatbot service. Software engineering is being affected as well, and it requires far greater know-how, experience, and expertise to meet the hiring bar. > And when you talk about applying this same tech, so confidently, to domains far more nuanced and complex than (...) Yes, your tech job is also going to be decimated. It's not a matter of having PMs write code. It's an issue of your junior SDE armed with a LLM being quite able to clear your bug backlog in a few days while improving test coverage metrics and refactoring code back from legacy status. If a junior SDE can suddenly handle the workload that previously you required a couple of medior and senior developers, why would a company keep around 4 or 5 seasoned engineers when an inexperienced one is already able to handle the workload? That's where the jobs will vanish. Even if demand remains there, it dropped considerably as to not justify retaining so many people in a company's payroll. And what are you going to do, them? Drive a Uber?

taormina 1y ago
> LLMs are eliminating the need to have a vast array of positions on payrolls. From copywriters to customer support, and even creative activities such as illustration and even authoring books, today's LLMs are already more than good enough to justify replacing people with the output of any commercial chatbot service. I'd love a source to these claims. Many companies are claiming that they are able to layoff folks because of AI, but in fact, AI is just a scapegoat to counteract the reckless overhiring due to free money in the market over the last 5-10 years and investors are demanding to see a real business plan and ROI. "We can eliminate this headcount due to the efficiency of our AI" is just a fancy way to make the stock price go up while cleaning up the useless folks. People have ideas. There are substantially more ideas than people who can implement ideas. As with most technology, the reasonable expectation is to assume that people are just going to want more done by the now tool powered humans, not less things.

andrepd 1y ago

To be fair, self-driving cars don't need to be perfect 0 casualty modes of transportation, they just need to be better than human drivers. Since car crashes kill 2 million people each year (and maim another 2 or 3), this is a low bar to clear... Of course, the actual answer is that rail and cycling infrastructure are much more efficient than cars in any moderately dense region. But that would mean funding boring regular companies focused on providing a product or service for adequate profit, instead of exciting AI web3 high tech unicorn startups.

mofeien 1y ago

> What makes you think that? Self driving cars [...] AI is intentionally being developed to be able to make decisions in any domain humans work in. This is unlike any previous technology. The more apt analogy is to other species. When was the last time there was something other than homo sapiens that could carry on an interesting conversation with homo sapiens. 40,000 years? And this new thing has been in development for what? 70 years? The rise in its capabilities has been absolutely meteoric and we don't know where the ceiling is.

klabb3 1y ago
> we don't know where the ceiling is. The ceiling for current AI, while not provably known, can reasonably be upper bounded to human aggregate ability since these methods are limited to patterns in the training data. The big surprise was how many and sophisticated patterns were hiding in the training data (human written text). This current wave of AI progress is fueled by training data and compute in ”equal parts”. Since compute is cheaper, they’ve invested in more compute but failed scaling expectations since training data remained similarly sized. Reaching super-intelligence through training data is paradoxical, because if it were known it wouldn’t be super-human. The other option is breaking out of the training data enclosure by relying on other methods. That may sound exciting but there’s no major progress I’m aware of that points that direction. It’s a little like being back to square one, before this hype cycle started. The smartest people seem to be focused on transformers, due to getting boatloads of money from companies or academia pushing them because of fomo.

socalgal2 1y ago

Do you live in SF (the city, not the Bay Area as a whole) or West LA? I ask because in these areas you can stand on any city street and see several self driving cars go by every few minutes. It's irrlevant that they've had a few issues. They already work and people love them. It's clear they will eventually replace every uber/lyft driver, probably every taxi driver, they'll likely replace every doordash/grubhub driver with vehicles design to let smaller automated delivery carts go the last few blocks. They may also replace every truck driver. Together that's around 5 million jobs in the USA. Once they're let on the freeways their usage will expand even faster.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
inferiorhuman 1y ago
It's irrlevant that they've had a few issues. The last Waymo I saw (a couple weeks ago) was stuck trying to make a right turn on to Market St. It was conveniently blocking the pedestrian crosswalk for a few cycles before I went around it. The time before that one got befuddled by a delivery truck and ended up blocking both lanes of 14th Street. Before Cruise imploded they were way worse. I can't say that these self-driving cars have improved much since I moved out of the city a few years back.

einarfd 1y ago

Driverless taxis is IMO the wrong tech to compare to. It’s a high consequence, low acceptance of error, real time task. Where it’s really hard to undo errors. There is a big category of tasks that isn’t that. But that are economically significant. Those are a lot better fit for AI.

avidphantasm 1y ago

> A human driver is still far more adaptive and requires a lot less training than AI I get what you are saying, but humans need 16 years of training to begin driving. I wouldn’t call that not a lot.

player1234 1y ago
I trained no driving my first 16 years of life, seems like fuckkng hell your upbringing training nothing but driving the first 16 years. Your parents should be locked up.
avidphantasm 1y ago
And the problem for Capitalists and other anti-humanists is that this doesn’t scale. Their hope with AI, I think, is that once they train one AI for a task, it can be trivially replicated, which scales much better than humans.

perryizgr8 1y ago

> They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently they were burnt to a crisp in the LA riots All of this is very common for human driven cars too.