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

181–190 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#181

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

ForHackernews wrote: post #176
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that history shows there is no such thing as humans banding together and taking things back. As a group. The group has new “benevolent leaders” emerge, then they take everything and stop being benevolent very quickly, if not instantly. Animal Farm anyone? Animal Farm. Still relevant.

That sounds to me like you're repeating dogma, but even if it's true, that's fine by me. I'd rather my union steward was getting rich (for some low value of 'rich') than my CEO. Only one of them is on my side.

It’s interesting, because this is how your response sounded to me. Is there no dogma about how everyone should group together and take back the means of production? There is a very large, prominent movement about this response to capitalism.

My point is, that theory and practice differ, and when they differ it’s not the practice that is wrong, but the theory.

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. The utopia does not occur. So clearly this is not the solution for solving our problems. There are problems. And there are solutions. But you need to search elsewhere.

Your union leader is not necessarily on your side. Even if they are, not for long. The system decides how they act, and power corrupts. Watch the strike in Hollywood. Watch how the previous strike in 2007 caused the present situation in 2023, and watch how the union will end up dissolving itself as more and more people will start leaving it. I’m not happy about this. I think workers need to be able to band together in groups and negotiate in groups (called companies, for example). I’m not convinced it should be one all encompassing mob-like group with no alternatives, but that’s just me.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#182

Post by arbuge »

stu2b50 wrote: post #164
jfoster wrote: post #140

> I wondered what would happen if I touched the wheel, so I grabbed it as the Waymo merged from one lane to another. The car ignored me and drove on. Surprised they admit to this, considering earlier in the article they mention being instructed not to touch the wheel.

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.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#183

Post by ForHackernews »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #181
ForHackernews wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds to me like you're repeating dogma, but even if it's true, that's fine by me. I'd rather my union steward was getting rich (for some low value of 'rich') than my CEO. Only one of them is on my side.

It’s interesting, because this is how your response sounded to me. Is there no dogma about how everyone should group together and take back the means of production? There is a very large, prominent movement about this response to capitalism. My point is, that theory and practice differ, and when they differ it’s not the practice that is wrong, but the theory. Every time people banded together to take the means of pro…

Ok, well, as long as we're on the subject of the distinction between theory and practice I'm not worried that unionizing Amazon warehouses will bring about a new USSR.

I've worked union jobs and I've worked non-union jobs: the union jobs paid better and came with better benefits than their non-union equivalents. QED.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#184

Post by prepend »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #151
pirate787 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re not thinking through what you’re talking about, unfortunately that’s typical. Think about it, how can there be a “SHORTAGE of jobs”, when we have over 8 billion people on this planet? Are we running out of people in general? No. Is everyone employed and happy? No. So we are short of the kind of increasingly mythical people with 20 years experience in some tech that came out yesterday, we’re short of people wit…

> Is everyone employed and happy? No

Relatively speaking, it’s the best it has ever been in the history of humanity.

Of course it’s hard to measure happiness and we’ll never be perfect but we have greater safety, lower violence, more food, more work, etc etc.

I wonder if people had succeeded in stopping the tractor because it displaced workers.

Of course it displaced workers. Workers who now do more valuable work. Or even less work altogether.

100 years ago, retirement was very rare. Now people retire and live 10-30 years without work.

Robots and automation will help this trend, not hurt it.

Of course as a programmer I’ve been making myself obsolete for decades and just moving onto cooler problems. Only stupid programmers worry about “job safety” and creating brittle software that requires them to be around forever.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#185

Post by Femolo »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #143
_acco wrote: post #14

> My ride was so smooth, the novelty began to wear off, turning a trip to the future into just another journey across town. This is the only nod in the article to how futuristic and revelatory this innovation. The journalists sound so bored. I wonder if this is a function of how “around the corner” this tech has felt for so long? Have we somehow become jaded to this innovation before it has even arrived? Were journal…

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)…

This change is transforming a ton of peoples lives.

Just not yet of highly skilled labor.

So hn experience doesn't count if you want to measure the relevance or impact of this.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#186

Post by mensetmanusman »

ForHackernews wrote: post #178
ghaff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we have a labor shortage, or do we have a shortage at the wages companies are prepared to pay? There are a ton of services that I'd be happy to have people perform for me, but there's some upper limit to what I'm willing/able to pay. This applies directly or through some (capitalist) intermediary. If it's going to cost me $1,000 for you to cut my lawn, I'll either do it myself or just let it grow.

Exactly. So what happens when the amount they're willing to pay is much lower than what it costs to live? If the robo lawnmowers will cut grass (and the occasional hand or foot) for $1/hour, what happens to the people who work as landscapers? Maybe you could argue they'll shift higher up the value chain, designing gardens or planting flowers and we'll all have prettier gardens... but I'm not sure the story of the las…

The profits have raced to the top, but the net wealth generated has also been massive.

This is hopeful because a few gradual policy changes over the decades could keep the wealth creation part and help with the distribution part.

You can’t distribute what’s not there.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#187

Post by mensetmanusman »

proc0 wrote: post #76
_acco wrote: post #14

> My ride was so smooth, the novelty began to wear off, turning a trip to the future into just another journey across town. This is the only nod in the article to how futuristic and revelatory this innovation. The journalists sound so bored. I wonder if this is a function of how “around the corner” this tech has felt for so long? Have we somehow become jaded to this innovation before it has even arrived? Were journal…

There's a term for this, or at least it's a known phenomena in the AI industry for a while. It's how AI becomes transparent after wide adoption. I'm still amazed at video filters that transform your face in real time, and that is now a common feature in so many apps that most people might not consider AI.

As I have heard said, humanity’s first major experiment with AI was social media recommendations - we lost.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#189

Post by stuartjohnson12 »

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.

If there are self driving cars on the road with a "press here to instantly cause an accident" widget fixed to the dash it's a problem regardless. Testing involves trying out exceptional inputs to find out how the system responds.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#190

Post by jfoster »

stu2b50 wrote: post #164
jfoster wrote: post #140

> I wondered what would happen if I touched the wheel, so I grabbed it as the Waymo merged from one lane to another. The car ignored me and drove on. Surprised they admit to this, considering earlier in the article they mention being instructed not to touch the wheel.

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.

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?
Post reply on HN