Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#41

Post by anirul » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:53 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #22

peatmoss wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them. There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost and hassle. I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

Insurances are probably going to go up if you want to drive your own car. It is probably going to be unaffordable for almost everyone to own a car because of this!

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#42

Post by Lawtonfogle » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:53 PM UTC

fillskills wrote: post #34

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll still need parking, but you can put it underground in lights out parking facilities.

Yep. The goal being to reduce that 15% to something like 2-3%. I wouldn't be surprised if car ownership becomes 0% by the time my kids grow up. Cars will essentially become like trains - owned and operated by companies trying to make a profit. You just pay for the ride or get a monthly pass.

The down side is that not only is all of your data on your movements tracked, but it is also being sold to others, including the government. Another nail in privacy's coffin.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#43

Post by peatmoss » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 9:08 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #21

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll still need parking, but you can put it underground in lights out parking facilities.

Or you can have it do useful tasks. Have a car fleet that's passenger-only during peak times, but couriers packages/freight during its downtime.

This is an excellent point. 95% idle rate of vehicle fleet is a huge opportunity frontier for businesses. Whoever figures out how to capitalize most on this is going to win big. I don't think it's an accident that Uber has been experimenting with hauling other kinds of things in its cars.

I think it's possible we may see a time when most vehicles stay in the network, and rarely need to sit idle. That would be ideal certainly!

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#44

Post by peatmoss » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 9:19 PM UTC

ma2rten wrote: post #20

fillskills wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too

And don't forget the economic impact. Think about all those people whos job it is to drive: truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers.

This is a real problem that society is going to need to solve. But the safety and environmental upsides of replacing human drivers are going to be huge too. I certainly hope the market creates new opportunities for displaced blue-collar workers, but I'm not optimistic on that point.

Short of utopian sounding solutions like the basic wage, I'm really not sure how our economy will take care of people as we automate more and more formerly manual tasks.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#45

Post by theklub » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

ClassyHacker wrote: post #11

Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.

Yeh computers never have problems.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#46

Post by Nicholas_C » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 11:22 PM UTC

t2015_08_25 wrote: post #39

Nicholas_C wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. No, he implied that computers are faster acting and probably wouldn't have hit the kid in the first place.

And i'm saying they will hit kids, just like the Volvo hit the pedestrian.

I think the idea is that they will hit less kids.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#47

Post by mastre_ » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 11:38 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #22

peatmoss wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them. There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost and hassle. I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

> I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them.

Do people like other things as well? Assuming you don't eat, use your laptop, watch a movie, read a book, or play video games currently while you drive, not having to drive so you can do these other things can be appealing. Especially when it's the same braindead commute to/from work every day, day after day.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#48

Post by peatmoss » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 11:53 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #42

fillskills wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The goal being to reduce that 15% to something like 2-3%. I wouldn't be surprised if car ownership becomes 0% by the time my kids grow up. Cars will essentially become like trains - owned and operated by companies trying to make a profit. You just pay for the ride or get a monthly pass.

The down side is that not only is all of your data on your movements tracked, but it is also being sold to others, including the government. Another nail in privacy's coffin.

Anonymous vehicular travel is dead or soon-to-be-dead anyway. Police are routinely using license plate scanners for parking enforcement and for checking vehicle alert status. Toll facilities are using license plate scanning to bill you for congestion fees. Smart phone apps report your whereabouts sometimes by choice, sometimes not.

This isn't to say that pervasive tracking of individuals' whereabouts isn't a problem. I just think that self-driving cars aren't going to make the situation any worse than it is / will already be (exact timing is modulo your present jurisdiction).

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#49

Post by mattcornell » Tue, Sep 15, 2015, 2:58 AM UTC

Google really needs to be thinking further ahead. Since they're not interested in decreasing car-based transportation (imagine if they spent all that money on a first world train system), then with climate change and rising sea levels, I suggest they get into self-driving boats. And nanotech sunscreen.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#50

Post by t2015_08_25 » Tue, Sep 15, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

Nicholas_C wrote: post #46

t2015_08_25 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And i'm saying they will hit kids, just like the Volvo hit the pedestrian.

I think the idea is that they will hit less kids.

Kindly consider my words - I'm not insulting technology, I'm pointing out corporate greed: The proportion of self-driving cars that have hit people is already greater than the proportion of human-driven cars that have hit people.

The fact that the Volvo hit someone is not because it was programmed incorrectly. It was because it was responding correctly to its configuration as its producers envisioned it:

It ignores and runs over pedestrians unless the owner pays Volvo extra.

In the future everyone's dreaming of, cars won't hit people, but they will continue to hit people unless owners pay extra to corporations. That's not progress, that's extortion.