Live data from Hacker News

Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#31
post #13

I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here. Even once self-driving cars are mature, they'll occasionally screw up and sometimes kill someone. And Uber's cars are so incredibly far from mature that operating without legal cover is... just insane. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the hopes of getting ahead of the pack, s…

>I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here

Simple: distract investors long enough to somehow make ride sharing profitable.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#32

This is ridiculous analysis. If Uber loses (or wins) this DMV "permission" battle they don't magically win the "existence" battle. The state never forfeits its right to challenge whatever it wants to challenge, whenever it wants to challenge it. And if the state loses in court it can even change the law and fight again - no private entity has that power. To the extent Uber is doing something clever, it probably has s…

> And if the state loses in court it can even change the law and fight again - no private entity has that power.

Sadly, not at all – Uber will just sue in some court of some trade deal, and find a way to get around that. Just like so many companies have done before.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#33
Human drivers can feel relatively safe around other cars because of mutually assured destruction. You are both afraid of dying if you make a significant mistake.

Self-driving cars will never have this fear holding them back from making mistakes. They don't care if they die. How can you feel safe around that? You could argue there is actually an incentive to let them crash once in awhile, because the valuable real world data will be phoned home and used to improve the product for the small price of a human life.

Once corruption sets in down the road, cars with autopilot capabilities will simplify kidnapping and assassination. Simply activate the backdoor remote piloting feature and crash your target's car (or the Uber car they're a passenger in) into a tree at 70 mph, or lock the doors and drive to a pickup location to complete the kidnapping.

Driving in a traditional car wouldn't protect the target, because a group with ubiquitous optional remote control over self-driving cars could also force surrounding cars to enter kamikaze mode and ram the target off the road.

Governments will demand some kind of backdoor like this at some point. It's not a question of if, but when. At that point, we'll have to trust that they'll never abuse it (lol) and that no third parties will ever be able to hack it remotely.

Even if you think the government is your friend, the first worm using a remote code execution exploit that hops from car to car via Bluetooth and activates its payload on a specific date will be able to kill tens of millions of people.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#34
post #17
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea the laws uber broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody cared about and ultimately didn't harm anyone (other than in a competition harms incumbents). But beta testing their cars on real streets could lead to disaster. Even from a non-legal PR risk perspective, it's dicey. If one of these things runs over a cute kid, the attempt to skirt the law will backfire. That said challenging the law isn't necessarily sk…

Like minimum wage laws. Right.

Or proper insurance.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#35
post #25
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…

That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential risk, this move might make sense. ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of…

How many people does delaying the progress of self driving cars kill?

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#36
post #33

Human drivers can feel relatively safe around other cars because of mutually assured destruction. You are both afraid of dying if you make a significant mistake. Self-driving cars will never have this fear holding them back from making mistakes. They don't care if they die. How can you feel safe around that? You could argue there is actually an incentive to let them crash once in awhile, because the valuable real wor…

I won't comment on the apocalypse scenarios you described, because the possibility is obviously there. But regarding the MAD scenario on roads, I believe with self-driving cars you're trading off ability to survive in very rare cases (like split-second decision after reading the face of the driver about to crash into you) for having the usual accident causes (speeding, distracted driving) not happen.

My hope in the transition period is that the presence of self-driving cars on roads will finally force the drivers to start obeying traffic laws - which should pretty much eliminate the MAD consideration altogether.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#37
post #25
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…

That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential risk, this move might make sense. ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of…

> That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of view.

Since when does Uber care? They never refilled their morality tank since the first time it was reported running empty.

Ironically, if the Tesla scenario is true, this pretty much looks like Good vs Evil battle, SV edition.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#38
post #24

uber. i have nothing against improving these services, but doing it with such blatant disregard to the law. if this was just some guy on the street, or even most businesses the authorities would come down on them like a ton of bricks... but its a silicon valley posterchild so we don't. its so difficult to see and not feel anger about it. if i don't do my due diligence or act intelligently i feel uncomfortable like i'…

Maybe Uber is secretly in legislative pentesting business - working to probe just how much laws they can break and still get away with it.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#39
post #30
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Tesla has a permit to operate autonomous vehicles in California and Uber does not. What am I missing here? How does Uber not complying with a state law tangle up Tesla?

Tesla has a permit, but private Tesla owners don't. Uber may be able put a judge in a position where he/she either has to require Tesla owners all get testing permits to use autopilot, or let Uber operate more or less unchecked. A win/win for Uber.

Ah I see, that makes sense.

Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence

#40
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential risk, this move might make sense. ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of…

How many people does delaying the progress of self driving cars kill?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN