Take a look at this. A Tesla Robotaxi in Austin pauses, seems to reconsider a right-hand turn through some bollards, and then decides: “I’m just gonna send it.”
Take a look at this. A Tesla Robotaxi in Austin pauses, seems to reconsider a right-hand turn through some bollards, and then decides: “I’m just gonna send it.”
The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.
“Decreased cost” will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers. Once they manage to drive (hah) those out of the market, they’ll start enshittifying and surcharging wherever they can.
“You’re absolutely right to be upset. I should have notified you ahead of time that this section of the highway is closed and I cannot complete the trip you paid for.” “Then exit the highway, dammit!” “Very well. The upgrade has been charged to your card.” “The fuck you mean, upgrade?” “I’m sorry, I should have been clearer on this. You just purchased the Road Map modules for municipalities within 30 miles of our current location in order for me to consider alternate routes not involving the highway. Now please enjoy this entertainment while I select the optimal route.” 90 seconds of ads pass “New route selected. Estimated arrival: three hours and fifty-three minutes. Overtime extensions have been charged preemptively.”
Not really?
Are we really so blinded by (understandable) Tesla hate that we’re reducing ourselves to anecdotes to counter data and studies, the thing we’ve been complaining about from conservatives for decades now?
That wasn’t a serious comment on that general topic. I had a paragraph typed up on that, then realised I’m not versed enough in the state of that field to speak on it. It’s to be understood as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the fact that “they’re safer” is a funny juxtaposition against a post about a safety failure.
If you do want me to contribute my poorly qualified opinion, I do believe that a thoroughly interconnected network of automated mobility can be safer than human control. I suspect that the technical bar for that would be fairly high, but humans are notoriously prone to error, road rage, distraction etc.
The question I’m more concerned about isn’t whether we could, but whether we should. Individual transport being so thoroughly surveilled is even worse than the surveillance of public transport, and in our current world, I don’t think I can safely condone that trend.
The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt. These things collectively have millions of miles on them. If you want counter evidence I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.
I meant to the provider, not the end user.
And that line was just a comment on a juxtaposition I found funny. Don’t take it too seriously.
I just replied to another comment to the same effect; I’m aware of terrible drivers being an issue. My concern is less whether it increases the road safety and more whether it helps societal safety.
Yeah, I don’t think that should ever be an endorsement criterion for anything at all. Any savings that don’t also save money for the user are just straight up greed, funelling money into the providers’ pockets (and if we’re honest, mostly their executives and shareholders, not their workers).
It wasn’t. It was an answer to the question that was asked.
I interpreted the original question “what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?” as referring to the value for society at large. I concede the potential safety improvement as a counterpoint to “solves no problem at all”, I just don’t really believe that the money savings will manifest for society at large (unless, of course, we manage to get rid of the whole “disrupt, monopolise, exploit, enshittify” mechanism).