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

191–200 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#191

Post by jfoster »

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #189
arbuge wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if that were the case and someone did it, journalists would get plenty of opportunity to get in on that story. They don't have to be the first to trigger every failure mode.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#192

Post by treis »

ttul wrote: post #80
fastball wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want a driverless RV that will drive me between all the National Parks in the US while I work remotely from the back via a Starlink dish mounted to the roof.

The solution to homelessness too! No need to find a parking spot. Just drive all night. Could it drive very slowly and charge the batteries using solar? Hmmm

Probably not during the night

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#193

Post by treis »

bitsage wrote: post #102
barbariangrunge wrote: post #21

But… why couldn’t we just build more and better trains?

I’m of the same mindset. A cab is still a cab to me, even if it’s autonomous. We’ll still have to deal with traffic all the same. Uber and Lyft showed us ride share even worsens congestion in cities. As a result, in dense locales, taking the train can often be quicker and cheaper than hailing or ordering a ride during rush hour. While other developed nations show us it’s possible to reduce our accident rate per mile…

>We’ll still have to deal with traffic all the same.

It's not the same because the time can be productive or used for leisure. Plus far less stressful and tiring than driving.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#194

Post by JKCalhoun »

Gravityloss wrote: post #158
_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…

My flying saucer was only going mach three. At this rate it was going to take hours to get to Singapore. What made it worse was the Starlink was janky and scrolling the influencer feed on my Oculus was only 120 FPS. Turned it off and started window whale spotting. Though they were so common now it got boring pretty fast too.

Found William Gibson.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#195

Post by more_corn »

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)…

I, for one, welcome a boring self driving car experience. Unfortunately they tend to be exciting. And in the case of Tesla lethal. In the case of cruise mostly annoying and mildly terrifying.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#196

Post by rufus_foreman »

ForHackernews wrote: post #169
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…

Do we have a labor shortage, or do we have a shortage at the wages companies are prepared to pay? There's a largely unexamined assumption built into capitalism that there exists a market clearing wage where humans will be incentivized to provide labor and owners will reap a profit. But what if that assumption is breaking down? My most "valuable" skill is writing software, but it may soon be the case that ChatGPT 9 ca…

"A shortage, in economic terms, is a condition where the quantity demanded is greater than the quantity supplied at the market price"

-- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortage.asp

We have a labor shortage. Economists don't assume that markets will clear. There are many reasons why they often don't.

Given that wages are about as high as they have ever been in our lifetimes, and unemployment is about as low as it has ever been in our lifetimes, it is an odd time to go Luddite.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#197

Post by Diffusion3166 »

Am I the only one finding it hard to be excited for this? It seems like automated taxis:

0. Encourage the use of cars in cities rather than public transit & walkability.

1. Centralize wealth by replacing payments to many drivers with payments to one large company.

2. Allow for further surveillance of individuates. It seems likely that Google will eventually create ad inventory by adding screens to the cars and incorporate travel history into peoples marketing profiles.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#198

Post by bko »

taurath wrote: post #119
_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…

> 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? The end customer experience is nearly identical to having a quiet driver. A taxi is still a taxi. Someone having their own self driving car would be a big change. Being able to not own a car because of cheap shared self driving vehicles would be intere…

The exciting part to me would be the cost. If about 50% or taxi fares to to the driver, add some more expenses for more capital in the car and other measures you're looking at a totally different price point where it becomes more economical for things like commuting. And there would eventually be other efficiencies when cars are more designed as driverless that could theoretically drive the cost even lower.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#199

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

ForHackernews wrote: post #183
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unionized Amazon warehouses are the strongest kick in the butt that Amazon needs to automate this entire union out of existence. Once again. See Hollywood. Strike. “No AI” said the signs. Result? Studios amping up AI hiring like crazy.

Humans are into humans. But capitalism isn’t, that much. It doesn’t care about what substrate it’s made of. Its soul is made of money.

Unions make things better for workers in the short term because a business can’t adapt that quick. It’s like a racket. Same like when a lone worker faces few gigantic corporations and they all offer bad jobs. It’s like a racket. But rackets don’t last. Adaptation kicks and the layers shift. And AI is the biggest adaptation ever. It adapts us out of being necessary. Human leverage drops to near zero and with it the union leverage, also.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#200

Post by tenpies »

edude03 wrote: post #161
_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 goal is that it should be boring. When you take an uber normally you really only pay attention to the driver if they're really bad at driving or they're talking to you - so being bored by a self driving car to me is high praise

And if anything I would place a premium on boredom. I am paying, in part, to have my attention back.

The complete opposite for me would be something like Tesla's "self-driving" where I'm effectively an unpaid driving instructor for the equivalent of a drunk teenager that randomly shifts between F1 driver and actively suicidal.

Post reply on HN