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

Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

ben-evans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

joewadcan wrote: post #21

This is a great write up but misses how gov't regulation could actually force a winner-takes-all distribution. States (like CA and NV) have already started to draw up their own autonomous driving regulations and the DOT is planning to support this evolution with Federal standards. It's reasonable to assume that these standards will get more stringent over time as accidents, insurance, and compatibility become forced…

> It's reasonable to assume that these standards will get more stringent over time as accidents, insurance, and compatibility become forced issues (likely though lawsuits). The companies that have the data and systems to meet these standards will be able to keep up

There's a term for this twin to regulatory capture. In essence, the amount of regulation in an industry scales with the age and development of the industry. Difficulty of entrance scales scales with regulation. Combine this with any economies of scale and network effects present, and you have a state-subsidised incumbency bias.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

djyaz1200 wrote: post #7

Autonomous cars are going to kill people, lots of people. They are going to kill passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians etc. It has already happened and will continue. Even though autonomous cars will be (and Tesla argues already are) safer than human drivers the fact that these deaths will be at the hands of machines rather than people will outrage the public. The industry will become even more heavily regulated, and t…

> the fact that these deaths will be at the hands of machines rather than people will outrage the public

I keep hearing, and used to assume, this. But observe public reaction to e.g. the Tesla autopilot accident: measured and muted.

Counterbalancing negative reactions to machines are generational shifts in our perception of technology. I haven't seen a study on this, but from memory, what was the last new (or, for franchises, first-in-franchise) film that portrayed a man-vs-machine war? The closer we get to a population of people mostly born after the mid-1980s, the better the reaction appears to likely be.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#33

Post by Tiktaalik »

joewadcan wrote: post #21

This is a great write up but misses how gov't regulation could actually force a winner-takes-all distribution. States (like CA and NV) have already started to draw up their own autonomous driving regulations and the DOT is planning to support this evolution with Federal standards. It's reasonable to assume that these standards will get more stringent over time as accidents, insurance, and compatibility become forced…

The government regulatory standards could be so tough that there would be no real quality differentiation between autonomous car vendors, as all vendors would have to meet the same incredibly high standards of safety.

An outcome could well be that both Tesla and Google both meet the high government standards, but in doing so they've had to create such high performing autonomous systems that the consumer can't tell the difference. They both work equally perfectly because they have to be to be allowed on the road.

If this is the case then the autonomous system becomes a non-factor in the purchase of a car. Either you're in the market for an autonomous car or you're not.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#34

Post by ruytlm »

mabbo wrote: post #29

One way to help prevent a winner-take-all situation is to have more open protocols for some of the hard problems. An example that I feel needs to be done right now: an open protocol for signaling intent. Today we have left and right blinkers, brake lights, the horn, and some 'body' language when you use the whole vehicle to show your intent. But with fully autonomous cars, we could be giving out signals that are rich…

Highly agree.

While reading this article, I had a paranoid convergence of ideas.

I was reading another article the other day about stock trading strategies, and how some particular strategies only work if a small number of people are using them; once they go mainstream, they lose their advantage.

The example used was a whole lot of funds jumping into a particular strategy, which then effectively killed the strategy's effectiveness, and everybody lost.

My paranoid fear is something similar in autonomous vehicles; a vicious cycle of systems reacting to each other, because they're not able to communicate directly.

Like when you're walking towards someone, and you both try to step to the side to let the other pass, but you step to the same side; then you correct by stepping the other way, but so does the other person.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#35

Post by swiley »

cperciva wrote: post #26
djyaz1200 wrote: post #7

Autonomous cars are going to kill people, lots of people. They are going to kill passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians etc. It has already happened and will continue. Even though autonomous cars will be (and Tesla argues already are) safer than human drivers the fact that these deaths will be at the hands of machines rather than people will outrage the public. The industry will become even more heavily regulated, and t…

I'm confident that autonomous cars will handle mechanical failures and other "black swan" events far better than human drivers do. Human drivers are unlikely to encounter any such incident more than once, and so are unable to learn from them; but autonomous cars can learn from all of the weird situations encountered by other cars.

But you can read about them and hear from others.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#36

Post by normalfaults »

ruytlm wrote: post #34
mabbo wrote: post #29

One way to help prevent a winner-take-all situation is to have more open protocols for some of the hard problems. An example that I feel needs to be done right now: an open protocol for signaling intent. Today we have left and right blinkers, brake lights, the horn, and some 'body' language when you use the whole vehicle to show your intent. But with fully autonomous cars, we could be giving out signals that are rich…

Highly agree. While reading this article, I had a paranoid convergence of ideas. I was reading another article the other day about stock trading strategies, and how some particular strategies only work if a small number of people are using them; once they go mainstream, they lose their advantage. The example used was a whole lot of funds jumping into a particular strategy, which then effectively killed the strategy's…

I wonder if there is an economic/academic term for this? Vicious Cycle?

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#37

Post by maxerickson »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32
djyaz1200 wrote: post #7

Autonomous cars are going to kill people, lots of people. They are going to kill passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians etc. It has already happened and will continue. Even though autonomous cars will be (and Tesla argues already are) safer than human drivers the fact that these deaths will be at the hands of machines rather than people will outrage the public. The industry will become even more heavily regulated, and t…

> the fact that these deaths will be at the hands of machines rather than people will outrage the public I keep hearing, and used to assume, this. But observe public reaction to e.g. the Tesla autopilot accident: measured and muted. Counterbalancing negative reactions to machines are generational shifts in our perception of technology. I haven't seen a study on this, but from memory, what was the last new (or, for fr…

The Matrix comes to mind as a movie that portrayed the aftermath of an apocalyptic war between man and machine.

There's quite a few recent rogue AI movies, but they typically have a few characters stopping the machine rather than a war. Avengers 2, I Robot, Eagle Eye.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#38

Post by mypalmike »

swiley wrote: post #35
cperciva wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confident that autonomous cars will handle mechanical failures and other "black swan" events far better than human drivers do. Human drivers are unlikely to encounter any such incident more than once, and so are unable to learn from them; but autonomous cars can learn from all of the weird situations encountered by other cars.

But you can read about them and hear from others.

Yes, but practice is how you get good at anything.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#39

Post by mypalmike »

6d6b73 wrote: post #24
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and when the sensors start failing?

System will know that they are failing. this is not rocket science.

And this is one reason they will be better to rent than own. How many times have you had a perfectly drivable car with some failing sensor? In an autonomous vehicle, such sensor failures will essentially brick the vehicle until it's fixed.

Re: Winner-take-all effects in autonomous cars

#40

Post by salt-licker »

This write-up overlooks that hardware integration is neither free nor easy. Tesla has a huge advantage over an 'autonomy in a box' model because 1. It only has to support 2 or 3 car models and 2. It has full control over all design decisions.

Imagine trying to calibrate your third-party self-driving software for every different car geometry, sensor placement, transmission system, and steering sensitivity across a few different car manufacturers. If you screw it up for one car model, people die and it's your fault.

Now let's say waymo chooses a sole partner to avoid this, GM, for example. Now waymo and GM have to work together to build a car, with a huge expertise barrier between the two teams. Will GM be willing to redesign their decades-old electronics platform around Waymo's self-driving system? Will Waymo put in the effort to make their sensors easily maintainable by GM mechanics? If the relationship doesn't last forever, much of this effort is wasted.

Tesla has expertise on both sides and has a mandate across the organization to make the integrated system work. Not to mention a huge head start handling UX and safety regulations in the field. They may not have a monopoly, but I expect them to be the first to level 5 and the leader in autonomous driving market share for years to come.

Post reply on HN