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

NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#311

Post by stu2b50 »

arbuge wrote: post #182
stu2b50 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a good thing to test as a reporter. There are too many people for at least one person not to do something dumb, or fall onto while doing something dumb, so it’s good to know nothing would happen.

Disagreed. They were clearly told not to do that and didn't follow their directions. It sounds like a potential safety hazard to me. They could just have reported what you said - they were told not to touch the wheel, and are concerned that in reality this could be a problem because there are too many people for at least one person not to do something dumb, or fall onto while doing something dumb etc.

Disagree on what? What angle is this from? Their bosses? The police? As a reader of journalism, I appreciate that they tested this edge case. I am not responsible for their safety, and as autonomous adults I trust they know what they're getting themselves into.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#312

Post by mannykannot »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #298
mannykannot wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like "you're wrong, because your theory does not even correspond to evidence we have around us." The reasons why your doom-laden prognostications did not inevitably come to pass are not, however, reducible to a paragraph or two. As for being verbose, compare it to the post I was replying to.

Once again you forgot to even hint what evidence you’re talking about. It’s like you’re eager to win an argument, you want that reward, so you’re posting, but you’re too lazy to actually make an argument. So you kind of keep posting half way and declaring yourself a winner because “everything around” proves you right about… something. It’s kind of funny.

For example, your claim that “Every time people banded together to take the means of production, it resulted simply in destruction, instant corruption and a new autocratic regime built around the toughest thugs” is falsified by the history of Western Europe. If it actually were the case, Western Europe would now resemble North Korea, but instead, the means of production is well-regulated by democratic governments.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#313

Post by tchaffee »

EGreg wrote: post #303
tchaffee wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI that can replace humans at most tasks within a couple years of R&D hasn’t happened before. We've seen absolutely massive automation in manufacturing, and as you noted even in farming. And no massive unemployment as a result. I just won't believe that AI will do anything more than hugely increase productivity until I see the unemployment. People have predicted massive unemployment with every new technology advanc…

No massive unemployment? The Great Depression lasted quite a while! And we only got out of it by after a decade of building up the next job sector of things for people to work in (see three sector model in economics) Compare pictures of farms before and after automation and count the number of farmhands. Before automation, 20% of American jobs were farm-related! Read Grapes of Wrath and other books by John Steinbeck……

> The Great Depression lasted quite a while!

It wasn't caused by a big advance in technology. [1]

"There is no consensus among economists and historians regarding the exact causes of the Great Depression. However, many scholars agree that at least the following four factors played a role."

1. The stock market crash of 1929. 2. Banking panics and monetary contraction. 3. The gold standard. 4. Decreased international lending and tariffs.

Nowhere are technological advances mentioned. You can probably find an article that mentions it, but productivity increases as a cause are considered heterodox theory.

> If the only way an average person can get money and be a consumer is to sell their labor, then they will get less purchasing power over time.

Not if they are as organized and lawyer up like the folks they are negotiating with. And the numbers say you are wrong. Purchasing power has stayed about the same over the past 40 years. [2] The real problem is that workers increasingly negotiate as individuals against an organized management team who has the goal of extracting more profit for the owners, and less profit for the workers. Organized workers have far more negotiating power, but workers fail to join in and use this advantage. Who is to blame for that other than us workers ourselves?

If workers had become more unionized over the past 40 years, they would have captured more of the profits and wealth gaps would be smaller. We can see exactly this with UPS announcing lower earnings for owners in the coming years due to unions winning higher salaries.

> The wealthy can get that way without needing to pay much to human PRODUCERS. That’s the point.

How? Where exactly is the money going to come from if the producers don't have any money to spend? From where does this money magically appear and who is buying the products that the wealthy are selling?

[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/causes-of-the-great-depress...

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#314

Post by tbdenney »

samstave wrote: post #292
taeric wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side of that, "hiring an Uber" even several times a month to do a longer trip that you can't manage in any other way is much cheaper than any ownership situation for the same cars. Heck, you almost certainly save in recovered space from not owning the car. Going down the path, though, as someone that has extensively used public transit in every US city I've lived in for my adult life, I'm curious how you…

I was a daily biker in San Francisco for more than a decade... no car.... I had ZIPCAR and one month I took one on a trip and on several other excursions - and the bill for ZIPCAR that month was $850. for like minimal time... NO WAY was that "an affordable option"

$850 / $12 hour (current hourly rate for Honda CRV in SF) = 70 hours. I wouldn't call that minimal time for a month. Is there a more affordable option for on-demand car rental in SF than $12/hour all-inclusive? Seems quite reasonable to me.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#315

Post by paul7986 »

lucubratory wrote: post #116
paul7986 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hmmm your analogy doesn't totally fit and you might have drank too much of the AI tech bro kool aid ;-) These cars can be hacked as used as weapons ... for terrorist attacks. As well malfunction and lock you in driving into the bay or off a cliff or etc. Open to your rebuttal ;-)

Rebuttal to what? You accused them of being a tech cultist and then started talking nonsense about terrorist attacks that are already performed with cars and trucks and would probably be harder to do in a self-driving world, as well as fear-mongering about "hacking" when all modern cars can be hacked by ATPs anyway, and they're the only ones who'd be capable of pulling off something like what you're talking about. No…

Any computer can be hacked, so nonsense (?) and you are saying a AI robot car will never be hacked?

It previously happened in Charlottesville sometime ago (https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2015/5/1/20...) and will surely happen again but possibly not just one car but a fleet as others in this thread agree/noted.

There's two sides ..either you're all for them or on the fence or against. Im on the fence with trusting Waymo more then Cruise as Waymo's been at it for more then a decade but am concerned about all things I noted.

I did not insult anyone it was tongue and cheek. As well i was just responding to the drinking and driving analogy which my argument and that are two different ones.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#316

Post by tchaffee »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #298
mannykannot wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like "you're wrong, because your theory does not even correspond to evidence we have around us." The reasons why your doom-laden prognostications did not inevitably come to pass are not, however, reducible to a paragraph or two. As for being verbose, compare it to the post I was replying to.

Once again you forgot to even hint what evidence you’re talking about. It’s like you’re eager to win an argument, you want that reward, so you’re posting, but you’re too lazy to actually make an argument. So you kind of keep posting half way and declaring yourself a winner because “everything around” proves you right about… something. It’s kind of funny.

I haven't seen any evidence in any of your comments. You try to persuade (which is not evidence), but I haven't been persuaded.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#317

Post by stu2b50 »

bmicraft wrote: post #302
jfoster wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That did cross my mind, but how far should they really take it? Should they also deflate a tire to see how the vehicle responds to that?

Now that you mention it, I'm really curious if it could correct it's steering enough to stay in the lane with a deflated tire

I'm pretty sure it would detect the flat tire, alert a technician, and refuse to move.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#318

Post by jfoster »

clsec wrote: post #230
jfoster wrote: post #136

> we tried to duplicate the experience a tourist might have bopping around the city in a driverless taxi. Tourists are probably going to be the last cohort to get access to Waymo.

Why is that? It's a fully public taxi service that will probably be heavily marketed in Fisherman's Wharf/Pier 39.

They're only opening it up to residents bit by bit. They've shown no interest in opening it up to tourists.

Presumably it will only be available for tourists once it's available to absolutely anyone.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#319

Post by talldatethrow »

pirate787 wrote: post #149
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The realization a self-driving car is not infinitely exciting is how bubbles pop. This particular bubble was formed mostly by Tesla hyping up the coming of their fleet of millions of robotaxis that will turn every other car immediately obsolete, “like owning a horse”, and Teslas will 100x in price, and Tesla will be the most valuable company in the world. And all that, over a product they still can’t ship (and won’t)…

Your Luddite take is profoundly wrong, and has been consistently proven wrong at every single technological turn in history. We have more robots than even today, and yet a labor SHORTAGE. Eliminating the tedious and dangerous task of driving is an enormous benefit to humanity that will save 30,000+ lives a year in the US alone. We will end the misery caused to millions from injury and tragedy, and the billions of dol…

There will always be a labor shortage in a way, but that doesn't translate to wages.

In 1990, my dad started earning 4x minimum wage. He was a recent immigrant that barely spoke English, but he could be the foreman of a shop in the SF Bay area that built cabinets because he was a bright guy.

Now 30 years later, he is the senior project manager for a much more successful version of the same company. He is an expert in his field. He works on $2million CABINET projects for Google campus or Rivian's offices. He makes $70 an hour. A little over 4x minimum wage.

Something had gone wrong.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#320

Post by taurath »

cjalmeida wrote: post #242
taurath wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These efficiencies could be getting born out by the existing ride share apps but the promised efficiencies haven’t come to fruition at all yet. All subscription services like this have had high promises of cheaper and more economical service but they struggle to stay on par with legacy things they replace. Streaming services are rapidly approaching cable. Uber and Lyft are often more expensive than a yellow cab. Ther…

A fleet driver making $25/h already costs more than $80K per year, at lower utilization and less flexibility.

I think you’re missing my point - I don’t think it’s going to be cheap, or even economical compared to a cheap self owned vehicle, any time soon. I’m predicting it won’t be cheaper than Uber or Lyft until 3rd or 4th generations, especially when they try to earn a profit.
Post reply on HN