Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 293 posts

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#101

Post by prewett »

prewett wrote: post #52
ladberg wrote: post #4

The important paragraph that most people probably care about: Soon, Google Maps will default to the route with the lowest carbon footprint when it has approximately the same ETA as the fastest route. In cases where the eco-friendly route could significantly increase your ETA, we’ll let you compare the relative CO2 impact between routes so you can choose. Always want the fastest route? That’s OK too — simply adjust yo…

This is a great example of why I figured Google Maps for navigation. I don't use Maps to express my environmental values, I use it to get from A to B the fastest way. If they default to something else, they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product. I have no interest in activist software.

Wow, I'm impressed, I've never been downvoted to -4 before. I wouldn't have expected that this would be the post to get that, though.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#102

Post by devmunchies »

doubleunplussed wrote: post #68
dataflow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe humans are causing climate change? If so, how do you envision it should be addressed that doesn't involve us changing our habits?

A carbon tax. If addressing climate change relies on people changing habits against their selfish interests, then we are doomed. The externality should be internalised with a carbon tax. It's the simple, most obvious solution and it will cause selfish interest and ethical choices to align when it comes to carbon emission.

I prefer a "green credit" to a "carbon tax".

A tax will always be passed on to the consumer, even if the govt taxes Ford, it will just make the car more expensive.

Using game theory, a question could be "how do we get Ford to make more electric cars, improve efficiency of electric car production, and incentivize them to advertise electric cars?"

My take is that businesses drive change, not consumers. On the whole, consumers are told what they want.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#103

Post by klyrs »

blitz_skull wrote: post #71
prewett wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of why I figured Google Maps for navigation. I don't use Maps to express my environmental values, I use it to get from A to B the fastest way. If they default to something else, they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product. I have no interest in activist software.

“I have no interest in activist software” that’s my exact sentiment. Provide the option, sure. Plenty of people care enough to use it. But don’t force it on me. I’ll find software that actually wants to serve its purpose.

What if they released the exact same product as "minimize fuel cost if it doesn't take more time" and set that to default? You can still change to "fastest" if that's your preference.

My personal annoyance: their walking directions assume you don't know parkour and there isn't even an option for that

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#104

Post by throwaway0a5e »

5cents wrote: post #93
Alex3917 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no issue with this. The bigger issue I have with Google Maps is that it makes zero effort to avoid dangerous routes. If two routes for a ~45 min drive are within 30 seconds of another, why would I want to risk death by taking the one with an extremely dangerous left turn through oncoming traffic? It makes zero sense.

This looks like a governmental issue in my eyes: it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the roads are reasonable safe and the traffic reasonable regulated, not Google's. If a route is dangerous, something should be done with the route itself (not the suggestion). But if Maps' suggestions breaks regulations and propose an illegal route, I agree!

The roads are mostly reasonable and safe. There are always going to be turns and intersections that are more difficult than the others. Google (and every other consumer map provider for that matter) has a habit of picking unnecessarily complex routes to shave a few seconds. Unnecessarily routing through difficult intersections and using a dozen side streets to cut the corner off a route are just specific examples of that.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#105

Post by mint2 »

5cents wrote: post #93
Alex3917 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no issue with this. The bigger issue I have with Google Maps is that it makes zero effort to avoid dangerous routes. If two routes for a ~45 min drive are within 30 seconds of another, why would I want to risk death by taking the one with an extremely dangerous left turn through oncoming traffic? It makes zero sense.

This looks like a governmental issue in my eyes: it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the roads are reasonable safe and the traffic reasonable regulated, not Google's. If a route is dangerous, something should be done with the route itself (not the suggestion). But if Maps' suggestions breaks regulations and propose an illegal route, I agree!

But what you’re saying is all roads that technically conform to standards are equal in safety or should be. That does not seem realistic or practical. For example windy mountain roads vs urban freeways. Or unprotected left turns versus protected left turns. Should unprotected left turns be made illegal.

Why can’t a third party routing software assess safety? It’s not a realistic expectation to expect all roads to be equivalent in safety.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#106

Post by TheSmiddy »

devmunchies wrote: post #102
doubleunplussed wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A carbon tax. If addressing climate change relies on people changing habits against their selfish interests, then we are doomed. The externality should be internalised with a carbon tax. It's the simple, most obvious solution and it will cause selfish interest and ethical choices to align when it comes to carbon emission.

I prefer a "green credit" to a "carbon tax". A tax will always be passed on to the consumer, even if the govt taxes Ford, it will just make the car more expensive. Using game theory, a question could be "how do we get Ford to make more electric cars, improve efficiency of electric car production, and incentivize them to advertise electric cars?" My take is that businesses drive change, not consumers. On the whole, co…

When the carbon tax* was introduced in Australia our tax free threshold was increased from $6k to $18k which more than covered the increase in costs caused by the tax.

*This has since been repealed, a decision I strongly disagree with.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#108

Post by Nasrudith »

danaliv wrote: post #67
prewett wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of why I figured Google Maps for navigation. I don't use Maps to express my environmental values, I use it to get from A to B the fastest way. If they default to something else, they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product. I have no interest in activist software.

> they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product No they aren't. They're being completely transparent about this and giving you the option to keep the old behavior with a one-time settings change. So what's the problem exactly?

To literally answer your rhetorical question: dark patterns. Not that I think the behavior is wrong - choosing the more energy efficent of two comparable manuevers just makes sense in general. But "Changes to default behavior to change consumer outcomes." are literally dark patterns and rhetorically likened to mind control whenever they want to cast a company or industry as a villain.

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#109

Post by prewett »

ehsankia wrote: post #88
danaliv wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are actively getting in the way of why I would use their product No they aren't. They're being completely transparent about this and giving you the option to keep the old behavior with a one-time settings change. So what's the problem exactly?

Google also explicitly says that it only does it when the ETAs are very close, so realistically, it will still be doing what you want. It feels pretty extreme to write such an angry comment about maybe getting a route than 1-2% slower.

Wasn't intended to be angry. It's more frustration that I used to love Google Maps, but over the years it just gets less and less useful. I can't see street names like I used to, for instance. Now I have to have the overhead of choosing a route, when I used to know that the default is the fastest. Sure, I can turn it off in settings. But at what point does this get to be Windows Explorer, where the first thing I do on a new Windows install is invert pretty much all the settings?

I guess maybe I'd like a little bit of say in how the software I use gets updated. I don't know how that would be implemented, but this got me thinking that maybe there is a way that this software thing could be move a little closer towards a partnership than the autocratic "hey we're going to arbitrarily change this piece of software you use frequently". (You can see similar thoughts with people complaining how Big Sur uses more space, or the complaints when GMail changed things to be less dense.)

Re: Redefining what a map can be with new information and AI

#110

Post by crygin »

datavirtue wrote: post #72
oh_sigh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quoted paragraph clearly states that the lower-emissions route will only be given by default when there are multiple routes with a similar ETA. So it will never tell you to take a route that takes longer just to reduce your emissions, without also telling you about the shorter route with higher emissions. Since you have seemingly already abandoned google maps due to their activism before reading this story, what…

How is the fastest route not the least carbon footprint?

The reason for the enactment of the nationwide 55mph speed limit in 1974 wasn't safety, it was oil prices.
Post reply on HN