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

241–250 of 348 posts

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#241

Post by chankstein38 »

_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 feel like it was literally just riding in a car. Sure the car had no driver but what I took from this article is that there was nothing significant or interesting about the whole experience, which is exactly what we'd want if the goal is a future where these are common.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#242

Post by cjalmeida »

taurath wrote: post #131
quickthrower2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does having no driver suddenly enable this? No-driver will make it more economical eventually because: 1. There is no hourly wage to pay a driver. 2. The car can be utilized 24/7 (or most likely 16/7 based on demand, but much better than 8/5 of a typical shift driver). > What is it about having no driver that suddenly makes cars green, free up space on the road, etc? A confluence of things: electric cars, the c…

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.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#243

Post by tchaffee »

EGreg wrote: post #202
tchaffee wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning seems logical at first glance so I can understand why you would come to your conclusions. History shows you to be wrong. It doesn't take a high IQ to use a machine to hugely increase your productivity. And in some cases the machine is easier to operate. I'll take a car over a horse any day. Salaries for low skill jobs in the US are going up. UPS drivers now get paid close to $200k. The labor shortage i…

Past results are not an indicator of future performance. There is no economic law that guarantees human labor will always be in demand. 70 years ago one man could sustain an entire household on one paycheck, his work was valued and the company man worked decades until he got a pension. Today, both sexes work long hours just to afford a tiny apartment, they have to switch jobs every couple years and even started doing…

> Past results are not an indicator of future performance.

Sure, but we can't predict the future, so it's the best model we have.

> Today, both sexes work long hours just to afford a tiny apartment, they have to switch jobs every couple years and even started doing the gig economy on the side to get by.

What you've missed is that productivity (as measured by GDP) has gone way up. Someone captured those profits. Which is why we see such massive wealth gaps.

> Sure, some humans will be more productive, but then we’ll need less of them.

This has never happened before. I could be wrong and maybe it will happen, but the most technologically advanced country in the world has companies competing for workers and salaries going up. This is in the face of massive automation.

> And with AI, it’s easier to just have the AI learn the new “irreplaceable” skills much faster than retraining millions of humans.

> No amount of unionizing by horses would change that.

If horses were the ones buying your products and creating your wealth, then they would actually have a pretty big say. What us workers fail to understand is just how essential we are to the economy. We need to organize and demand our fair share of the productivity gains.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#244

Post by conjecTech »

Diffusion3166 wrote: post #197

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 incorp…

I'm a big urbanist (that also worked on AVs for a couple years), haven't owned a car for almost all of my adult life, and view it as a step in the right direction for a few reasons.

1 - I think the impact of parking is actually more insidious and detrimental than roads by themselves. AVs will have high utilization of a much smaller pool of vehicles and remove the need for the huge parking lots we currently have. The land-use issues from parking are perhaps the largest impediment (together with the requirements/zoning) to the density which would allow transit to outcompete private cars.

2 - The centralization of wealth is one thing, but the real economies of fewer, newer vehicles will be a boon for almost everyone. The cost of the automobile operation is about 1/4 of the average uber fare. That is a lot of room for price compression. Perhaps more will be going to a large corporation, but there will be a huge consumer surplus as well.

3 - The reduction in the size of the car fleet will likely reduce the lobbying power of the automobile industry, which may in turn lead to changes to the urban environment(bike lanes, transit expansions) which will likely shift mode share away from cars.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#245

Post by tchaffee »

3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #173
ForHackernews wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UPS drivers now get paid close to $200k. The key being that UPS drivers are unionized . If your argument is that the increasingly obsolete humans need to band together and take wealth back from the owners of the robots, then I agree.

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.

This is easy to demonstrate as false. The US Revolution and many others that followed put far more power into the hands of the average person. And unionized workers earn more almost everywhere you go. Union leaders probably do take more than they deserve, but not as much as the company owners would if you were negotiating as an individual against their organized management and legal team. So yeah, you do have to pay someone to lead your organization. But going without an organization is kind of nuts when the other side pays for one.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#246

Post by jackmott42 »

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…

We have a shortage of fulfilling jobs too, and a shortage of jobs that pay enough to ever afford a home.

Ever wonder why people are bored enough to make up Qanon conspiracies, believe them, and start an insurrection over total nonsense? Too many people with nothing to do and nothing to live for.

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#247

Post by froidpink »

conjecTech wrote: post #244
Diffusion3166 wrote: post #197

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 incorp…

I'm a big urbanist (that also worked on AVs for a couple years), haven't owned a car for almost all of my adult life, and view it as a step in the right direction for a few reasons. 1 - I think the impact of parking is actually more insidious and detrimental than roads by themselves. AVs will have high utilization of a much smaller pool of vehicles and remove the need for the huge parking lots we currently have. The…

Wouldn't the reduction in cost of rides vs Uber create massive demand for self-driving car rides, increasing congestion?

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#248

Post by w______roy »

Diffusion3166 wrote: post #197

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 incorp…

Especially [1]. So many millions of American jobs are driving. Rideshare drivers, sure, but taxi drivers, couriers, delivery drivers, truckers, etc. The economic incentive to switch to driverless tech will be really strong, more than white collar AI automation, I think. So... what's the plan? That these drivers will all live in a hellscape where robot cars patrol their streets, surveilling them as they struggle against poverty?

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#249

Post by mistrial9 »

__s wrote: post #203
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…

How was it a Luddite take? Luddites argued that robots undercut quality by offering a price that couldn't be competed with, but ultimately with an inferior product. The person you're replying to is suggesting humans are unskilled apes incapable of competing with robots on both price & quality

importantly "Luddites" stood up for themselves as humans doing skilled work for income

Re: NY Times Rides in Waymo Robotaxis in SF

#250

Post by ncr100 »

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

I'd pay more for Exciting, and Safe rides.
Post reply on HN