Live data from Hacker News

Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

blogs.forbes.com

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#131

As an individual who is legally blind and cannot drive, I very much welcome the day when this technology becomes wide-spread and affordable. It is extremely annoying to be in your mid 30's and have to rely on/inconvenience someone else to drive you around. So whether it were getting my own vehicle or seeing vast improvements made to less-than ideal public transportation systems, either would be great.

I was thinking that driverless cars would be a boon for people who cannot drive (for whatever reason -- visual or otherwise).

I do wonder, however, if laws will require driverless cars to have a person who is able to drive. (For legal or liability reasons in case of an equipment failure.) I do hope that doesn't happen, but it's possible.

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#132

Can anyone comment on the state of autonomous vehicles with regard to their ability to operate in mixed, human traffic? I would think that human drivers would be dangerously erratic and thus extraordinarily difficult to account for. And what do you do, as a passenger, when your driverless car induces road rage in a human driver?

Google has tested their autonomous car for >10000 miles on US roads and highways over the last few years. So yes, they handle human driver traffic.

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#133

Can anyone comment on the state of autonomous vehicles with regard to their ability to operate in mixed, human traffic? I would think that human drivers would be dangerously erratic and thus extraordinarily difficult to account for. And what do you do, as a passenger, when your driverless car induces road rage in a human driver?

Google has tested their autonomous car for >10000 miles on US roads and highways over the last few years. So yes, they handle human driver traffic.

Oh wow, I missed that those trials were on actual, trafficked roads and highways. Thanks for pointing that out, corecirculator!

Cite: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#135
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) Loss of jobs. When we're heading to a future of robotic anything that will replace an entire profession, drivers in this case. What will be the economic effect of it?

Well, we've already seen entire professions and daily tasks disappearing thanks to technology improvements. (e.g. blacksmiths, or washing clothes by hand) I think the sustainable future is one where we all work significantly less than today, and where more people do things where humans are much better than machines, such as arts/music and care (for the elderly, children, sick etc.)

I think the sustainable future is one where we all work significantly less than today

Given the large number of people I know who spend half or more of their time surfing the web at the office, I suspect that future is already here to some extent.

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parkinson's Law says this is unlikely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law It would be nice, but I can't see it happening, unfortunately. Too much of our society would need restructuring, and there are those that would fight tooth and nail against that.

I sure hope that there will be a jump at some point allowing life quality to increase, and not bureaucracies, as Parkinson's Law seems to suggest (life quality hasn't improved during the last 30 years in the developed world, referring to general happiness and well-being). I am optimistic that brave politicians will make the necessary changes at some point - the world is too rapidly-transforming for huge changes in ou…

There is no fundamental law prohibiting this rapid change from being accompanied by widespread death and destruction.

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#137
post #81

We expect people to be frightened of robotic cars for the same reason they are scared of dying in a plane crash: Some deep-seated fear of dying in a manner that isn’t our own fault. Thoughts: 1) Marketing/PR for autonomous vehicles needs to really drive home their safety, so when you hear “robot car,” you think “… saves lives.” 2) Is it hard to imagine the opposite fear in children born 10 years from now? Having seen…

Unfortunately Google is incredibly bad at sales and marketing so don't expect them to understand that their main challenge will be the public perception of driverless cars.

Yeah, that's why no one uses their products.

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#138
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you deal with the inherent inefficiency of having a separate vehicle for every passenger (or small group of passengers)? Publicness is not the only benefit of public transportation. Trains and buses are incredibly efficient per passenger mile. They also take up a lot less space than cars, and last longer and cost less per passenger to manufacture. Making a car driverless doesn't solve these problems.

The de facto standard in this country is one dedicated car per person, which spends 90% of its time sitting in a parking space. Communally shared cars will be massively more efficient than that, and, unlike buses and trains, will actually replace dedicated vehicles for a majority — some day 100% — of users. The public transportation the public uses beats the one they don't. Not to mention that communal vehicles would…

Communally shared cars would still have the problem that a large number of those personal cars are spending the same 90% of their time sitting in a parking space. Everyone's leaving for work at 8, leaving for lunch at noon and leaving for home at 5.

You'd still need roughly the same number of 'communal' cars during those peak times. Though people may be more likely to car-pool.

Even the trivial variation of most US 'flex time' starts wouldn't help much. The difference between 8 and 9 isn't great enough for very many cars to make it from a business park at 8 back out to pick up another passenger and then back to another employer before 9.

What might really help, is 'communal' cars augmenting the US's sparse transit system. e.g. The communal car takes you to the train/bus stop. A communal bus departs as soon as it can. The communal car takes you to your final destination.

That way the cars are doing shorter round-trips, serving more people (necessitating fewer cars) and people are more apt to use the public transport because they aren't worried about the current big problems of US transit: 1. parking at the transit stop 2. how to get from the transit destination to where they really want to go 3. what happens if you miss the train/bus time (the car can just complete the trip)

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#139
post #103
post #81

We expect people to be frightened of robotic cars for the same reason they are scared of dying in a plane crash: Some deep-seated fear of dying in a manner that isn’t our own fault. Thoughts: 1) Marketing/PR for autonomous vehicles needs to really drive home their safety, so when you hear “robot car,” you think “… saves lives.” 2) Is it hard to imagine the opposite fear in children born 10 years from now? Having seen…

3) Loss of jobs. When we're heading to a future of robotic anything that will replace an entire profession, drivers in this case. What will be the economic effect of it?

Marshall Brain wrote the very interesting (IMHO) "Robotic Nation" in the exploration of your question:

http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

And, to save time, here are the standard HN responses:

1. Marshall Brain commits the Lump of Labor Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy): The lump of labor fallacy holds that the total amount of work is fixed. This is considered fallacious because increasing productivity also increases the size of the economy, thus creating new jobs in the process. IOW, the total amount of work is not fixed.

or

2. The industrial revolution destroyed all sorts of jobs (of say, craftsmen), but ended up employing as many or more as factory workers. Similarly with the information revolution. Etc... All of these out of work truck drivers will become... massage therapists.

My critique of the lump of labor fallacy argument is that it seems to hold as long as our ability to consume can keep up with productivity gains. But what if there's a natural ceiling to our ability to consume; what happens when we produce more than we can consume? Or, when luxury ephemeral goods become trivially cheap (say, watching YouTube videos).

I'm not an economist, so I strive to remain agnostic on this question, but it still seems far from settled to me. Even if you believe that things will eventually shake out and workers displaced by automation will find new jobs, we still may be in for an uncomfortable period of high unemployment and disruption as the economy adjusts. (AKA, productivity shocks.)

Re: Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

#140
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) Loss of jobs. When we're heading to a future of robotic anything that will replace an entire profession, drivers in this case. What will be the economic effect of it?

Well, we've already seen entire professions and daily tasks disappearing thanks to technology improvements. (e.g. blacksmiths, or washing clothes by hand) I think the sustainable future is one where we all work significantly less than today, and where more people do things where humans are much better than machines, such as arts/music and care (for the elderly, children, sick etc.)

While I agree with this, I think one of its less desirable side effects will be to increase the ranks of the poor.

Automation will replace a number of things: 1) Driving. 2) Wait staff (waiters / waitresses) 3) Piloting 4) Checkout 5) Reception services 6) Restocking / Inventory management 7) Fast food cooking staff 8) Hair styling / cutting 9) Surgery 10) Mining 11) Logging 12) Farming 13) Masonry 14) Security / Monitoring

These changes will be gradual, like in Machining where it used to be a machinist, his tools, and a mill. Now the mill is CNC and he's more of a programmer. The guy running the tool is more of an operator.

As automation capabilities get better we'll see robots like the DaVinci surgery robot for things like Hair Salons, where a single operator/stylist can style hair for 10 customers simultaneously. But that stylist will have more technical training than stylists of today do. So most stylists will be out of work, the smaller and smaller percentage of people who are both creative stylists and have the technical ability to run these salons will displace them.

I see the following mechansims at work in the US today which is pushing us toward that future.

1) Efficiency (or competing on cost vs quality) is 'winning' (or displacing) quality service products on the market.

2) The education and capacity of the both 25th percentile from our youth is incapable of basic problem solving.

3) The risk from employee theft (shrinkage) works against #1 making automation solutions justifiable to employers.

When possible transferring the risk/responsibility for service delivery to the consumer is more cost effective than training under-educated employees or hiring people with health benefits.

It might seem implausible but I remember when scanners were introduced into supermarkets. The canonical low margin business. They helped margins because less experienced cashiers could check out customers as quickly as more experienced cashiers did. It also resulted in fewer errors (by the cashier). I remember joking that at some point you would just walk behind the register and check yourself out.

Well once the automation around collecting cash and other payments became good enough, that is exactly what has happend. There are several stores in my area where you have the option of checking out yourself. On a recent trip there was one 'real' cashier and all the self checkout lines were open (8 stations) with one supervisor.

The technology enables the automation the economics drive the adoption. Things like pay kiosks now are quite able to take any of cash, checks, credit or debit cards. That gets hardened at ticket buying machines, then jumps to cash registers, I expect it to be in taxi cabs next.

So the 'social justice' question is what do we do with people who are structurally unemployable? Sure they have some responsibility for that (education and basic problem solving skills are lacking) but once they get past their rebellious youth and realize that nothing they will do can prevent them from growing old, and now they want to go back and 'fix' those lacks, how can we best facilitate that?

The advancment of automation and the elimination of jobs that can be done by people is neither a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing. It just is. And I don't see us changing the economics or the technology which would inhibit it. Advances will be made, applicability to wider and wider problem sets will be possible, by and large its an economic 'win' to have a machine do something rather than a human.

You've probably seen the 'buy American, look for made in America' programs that people run. No doubt we'll see 'for made in America by People' campaigns as well.

Post reply on HN