TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Google wants driverless cars, but do we?

23 pointsby boskonycover 8 years ago

15 comments

sqeakyover 8 years ago
Yes, yes we want them.<p>Idiotic things like this in the article miss the point:<p>&gt; And yet this trend has never been voted on or discussed seriously by our politicians<p>We already voted with our dollars and will continue to do so (and our politicians suck).<p>The article also has stupid shit like:<p>&gt; The truth is, no one knows for sure how many lives could be saved by driverless cars, because data on the role of human error in crashes is incomplete and misleading<p>Human error is the cause for all accidents, barring freak accidents like sinkholes and tornadoes (both hitting my state recently :( ). This one is so simple to reason about. Think about the cause of any accident, even the ones where clearly some technology failed. Even a rear-end caused by brake failure is the fault of the driver for ignoring his dashboard and not fixing the car often enough.<p>A self-driving car can and will refuse to drive if the brakes go back (provided all the sensors don&#x27;t go bad at the same time too). A self driving will have unlimited patience for slowness. A self driving car will never be drunk or drive tired.
评论 #13214035 未加载
评论 #13214098 未加载
评论 #13214238 未加载
评论 #13214179 未加载
jimmywangerover 8 years ago
Literally ever single one of his points could be made about any other technological innovation, ever. (Obviously a bit of a hyperbole, but it&#x27;s not far off from the truth. Try replacing driverless cars with seatbelts, and it reads remarkably similarly.)
JamilDover 8 years ago
&gt; The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today.<p>There&#x27;s absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
评论 #13214589 未加载
评论 #13213778 未加载
评论 #13213922 未加载
评论 #13213942 未加载
评论 #13214029 未加载
Eridrusover 8 years ago
In case you were wondering which hack wrote this hit piece.<p>&gt; Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a lawyer, is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine.<p>So, no surprises here.
harshawover 8 years ago
I read this more as &quot;Everything talking about driverless cars is the optimistic future&quot; and not a real world understanding of the challenges of widespread culture change this would require.<p>Yes, the change is technological, but the biggest impact is cultural. You assume that everyone is going to love self driving cars, but has anyone studied people to see if they are accepting? Many people just want to jump in their cars and go.. they haven&#x27;t figured out the destination yet. Or maybe they are just scared - they have been driving for a long time and don&#x27;t want to give it up.<p>When I drive 10 hours to visit my parents, I don&#x27;t like it. But do I mind driving to the train station every day? I get to feel the road under the wheels, drive a little bit fast in corners, etc. Do I put my car in sport mode so its fun? hell yeah. Maybe if you truly have no affinity for car culture all these things are irrelevant.
评论 #13214544 未加载
dumbfounderover 8 years ago
Every point made by this article made me angry.<p>Some of the points made by the article:<p>-We don&#x27;t know exactly how many people will be saved each year!<p>-We might make fewer cars!<p>-Our politicians haven&#x27;t decided whether or not we want them!<p>-We can just disable phones in moving cars so people don&#x27;t drive distracted!<p>Jamie Lincoln Kitman, you make me angry.<p>[Edit: formatting]
评论 #13214192 未加载
deadringerrover 8 years ago
Personal anecdote: I&#x27;ve been living without a personal car for 4 years now thanks to my city&#x27;s dedication to public transportation, choosing to live close to where I work, and using literally every car share service available when the need arises. The only part of driving itself I consistently enjoy is listening to my music louder than normal. If I buy a car in the future it will absolutely be entirely electric and have autonomous functionality.
wonder_erover 8 years ago
Author&#x27;s byline clarifies why he&#x27;s surfacing pretty unimaginative critiques:<p>&gt; Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a lawyer, is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine.
nojvekover 8 years ago
People hate losing control. We know how shit our answer machines are. Google says there algorithms are good but there is no open benchmark of various driving scenarios for which every self driving algorithm should pass.<p>Even openpilot gives a big Blob of binary that I should trust.<p>It&#x27;s my goddamn life. I&#x27;m not going to let a company whose #1 goal is to make me click as many ads as they can run my car.
asdzover 8 years ago
&gt; Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a lawyer, is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine.<p>for sure you&#x27;re against it<p>when driverless car is out and everyone is adopt to it, the whole automobile industry together with oil &amp; gas will be disrupted<p>but your company shouldn&#x27;t be affected as you can review on all the driverless car :) :)
Toenexover 8 years ago
Yes. One day, in the not too distant future people will look back aghast at how we tolerated the number of deaths on our roads.
xutopiaover 8 years ago
It&#x27;s a matter of time before it happens.
dfabulichover 8 years ago
Mass automation is undermining our democracy in a very specific way: it&#x27;s acting as the ultimate &quot;resource curse.&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Resource_curse" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Resource_curse</a><p>&quot;Countries with an abundance of natural resources, specifically non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.&quot;<p>Scholars debate the causes of the resource curse, but one popular theory has to do with the way autocrats fund themselves relative to democracies.<p>Autocrats, it turns out, need a lot of wealth to pay their cronies. No dictator rules alone; they need someone to run the military, someone to collect the taxes, and someone to enforce the laws. Those people have to be paid, and handsomely, or they&#x27;ll overthrow the dictator (or just allow the dictator to be overthrown). This is called &quot;selectorate theory&quot; and this video is a great introduction. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rStL7niR7gs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=rStL7niR7gs</a><p>Oil wealth, specifically, undermines democracy because when autocrats have access to oil wealth, they don&#x27;t need to depend on their citizens very much. (Indeed, many autocratic countries rich with oil wealth just allow other countries to come in and drill it, keeping local labor entirely out of the loop.)<p>Resource-cursed autocracies tend to democratize when the oil wealth runs out and they need to rely on the people&#x27;s productivity to deliver wealth to cronies. When autocrats are forced to allow people to educate themselves and communicate with one another, democracy ensues.<p>It can work the other way, too. In every democracy, there&#x27;s a group of folks asking themselves a question: is now the time to try a coup, to replace democracy with an autocracy? As the value of capital increases and the value of human labor decreases, the advantages of staging a coup becomes more and more enticing.<p>For years we&#x27;ve thought of human labor as the &quot;ultimate resource.&quot; But it turns out that human labor isn&#x27;t the ultimate resource. Robot labor that&#x27;s just as good if not better than human labor is a resource beyond any we&#x27;ve ever seen.<p>But that means that we&#x27;re discovering&#x2F;inventing the <i>ultimate resource curse.</i><p>We <i>might</i> use automation to fund universal basic income, or a class of elites could use it to undermine &quot;unnecessary&quot; citizens (the &quot;unnecessariat&quot;), establishing a corporate fascism.<p>When we depend on human productivity for our tax base, we need to keep us all well educated and healthy. But soon, we won&#x27;t depend on human labor.<p>&quot;Is now the time?&quot; they&#x27;re asking. And, increasingly, the answer is &quot;yes.&quot;
ASalazarMXover 8 years ago
Yes. Next question.
utternerdover 8 years ago
Yes. Yes, I do.