Really glad Jason made this video. He combines a lot of thoughts I already had on the subject of self-driving cars to paint an honestly pretty likely (IMO) picture of the near future. TL;DR...
Really glad Jason made this video. He combines a lot of thoughts I already had on the subject of self-driving cars to paint an honestly pretty likely (IMO) picture of the near future.
TL;DR self-driving cars are, to cars, as cars were to horse-drawn carriages and walking. Given the deep-pocketed financial interests, self-driving car companies will completely take over our infrastructure and we should expect other forms of transportation to be sidelined just like walking, public transit, and cycling are now in the USA.
My favourite argument is perhaps the simplest, though: what's the point? Self-driving cars are just driverless taxis. If taxis are so great, why don't we all just pay them for every trip today? Probably a combination of 'i don't like dealing with a driver all the time' and 'it's really expensive.' Given what we've seen tech companies do over the last 20 years, you'd be insane to believe that tech companies will keep self-driving vehicles affordable in the long term, either for per-trip rental or for ownership. There is simply too much money to be made once everyone is dependent on your product.
We're very likely to see the classic tech monopolist pump-and-dump strategy in this space, like Uber, Lyft, and scooter rental companies tried before:
Move into a city.
Undercut all alternatives.
Once the alternatives have gone extinct, boil the frog and gradually enshittify because you have no competition and consumers have no alternative.
Mix in the fact that self-driving cars can 'increase efficiency' if we remove analog cars, pedestrians, bikes, streetlights, and speed limits, and you have something very similar to the USA's notorious 20th-century city-destroying highways.
But there is hope. A lot of European cities are already walkable, bikeable, and safe, with great public transit. Self-driving cars will always be more expensive and more dangerous than these multimodal cities. A lot of these countries and cities already have emissions rules, speed limits, and safety regulations that seriously curb car usage in city centres. Hell, a lot of american trucks and SUVs are illegal on sane countries' roads. So we just have to hope that some pockets of sanity will persevere. I can't imagine London, Paris, Amsterdam, or Berlin backpedaling their current stance on cars in cities. So hopefully self-driving will simply never make inroads in those places.
In 20 years, when self-driving cars have taken over the USA and made life even more isolating and expensive, maybe Americans will finally start to rethink our car-centric infrastructure. Maybe.
I'm not going to watch the video, but I'll point out a reason why driverless cars mix better with pedestrians and cyclists than the more normal kind: safety. Just about everyone with experience...
I'm not going to watch the video, but I'll point out a reason why driverless cars mix better with pedestrians and cyclists than the more normal kind: safety. Just about everyone with experience with them finds them safer, since you can trust them not to drive aggressively. (Unlike taxi drivers.)
They also combine well with taking public transportation part of the way. (Much like taxis have always worked pretty well with airports.)
We use a mix of different kinds of transportation to get around, and I expect that to continue, hopefully more harmoniously with driverless cars in the mix. And if costs for rides comes down and service regions expand, then people who don't drive might have easier access to more places than they would otherwise.
Agreed in some ways: a driverless car doesn't get road rage, doesn't roll coal, doesn't get distracted by texting, a phone call, or social media, and makes the occupant a lot less likely to shout...
Agreed in some ways: a driverless car doesn't get road rage, doesn't roll coal, doesn't get distracted by texting, a phone call, or social media, and makes the occupant a lot less likely to shout profanities out the window just because I'm riding a bike or crossing the road. That's all very good!
Of course, driverless cars are just software-driven machines. The software has bugs, and design constraints, and bad QA, and sensors that don't always work perfectly. I'm glad that that software is less likely to kill me, but we still need to hold the companies producing this software to a very high standard of safety, especially for people outside the vehicle who are just trying to exist and haven't signed any legal agreement with the company building the car or software.
Because this software is produced by trillion-dollar companies, they should be held to the absolute highest standard. Every time a self-driving car hurts or kills someone or damages something, there should be a thorough, objective investigation, and obligatory hefty reimbursement (millions of dollars) for the effected, involuntary test subjects. (also known as 'human beings who happen to exist on the same planet where these trillion dollar companies deploy self-driving cars, and have no say in the safety trade-offs in the software that runs those cars').
I don't think self-driving is necessarily all doom and gloom -- personally, I'm hoping that by eliminating car ownership in a lot of parts of the USA, they can actually help us improve walkability and bikeability -- but we should be wary of enshittification, like what has happened with Uber and Lyft. Relying on the profit-seeking whims of trillion dollar companies just to leave your property is a very dangerous prospect; just ask anyone who's ever tried to live in the USA without a car!
For now at least, I think Waymo is getting held to very high standards. Also, for better or worse, everything is recorded and every incident can be investigated. This looks like it's going to be...
For now at least, I think Waymo is getting held to very high standards. Also, for better or worse, everything is recorded and every incident can be investigated. This looks like it's going to be like air travel in the sense that many problems can be fixed and stay fixed - though with major differences with how the cars interact with people on the street.
No, LLM’s don’t experience anything. The article you link to shows that they can use all their inputs in surprising ways, including the current date. This can be quite annoying if you’re hoping...
No, LLM’s don’t experience anything. The article you link to shows that they can use all their inputs in surprising ways, including the current date. This can be quite annoying if you’re hoping for consistency.
But it’s still just pattern matching. The “character” you’re chatting with doesn’t even exist as anything other than words in the chat transcript, except briefly when the server generates a response after you hit “send.” At all other times, the servers in the data center are busy serving other customers.
Also, Waymo has been working on driverless cars since long before LLM’s became a thing and we don’t know if they use LLM’s at all in production. (I did see a research paper from them, but it seemed pretty limited, not using the Lidar at all.)
You are taking my point way too literally. What I am saying is: The moment a driverless car uses any type* of ML trained on human data, yes it will demonstrate behavior similar to its training...
You are taking my point way too literally. What I am saying is: The moment a driverless car uses any type* of ML trained on human data, yes it will demonstrate behavior similar to its training set, even if that set includes instances of road rage.
The reason that I used SAD as an analogy is that no one expected that to have an effect and there was zero way to be prepared for this issue ahead of time. Sure maybe we can avoid some obvious...
The reason that I used SAD as an analogy is that no one expected that to have an effect and there was zero way to be prepared for this issue ahead of time. Sure maybe we can avoid some obvious influences, but what if a prevalence of red cars turns out to slightly increase aggressive driving (this is a fake example to represent "some unknown unknown")
Well, they test pretty extensively. Big effects would likely be noticed in simulation. If it’s a slight effect then I guess they fix it when they notice it? It doesn’t seem likely to be worse than...
Well, they test pretty extensively. Big effects would likely be noticed in simulation. If it’s a slight effect then I guess they fix it when they notice it? It doesn’t seem likely to be worse than the large variations we see with human drivers.
It depends on company culture, though. Airlines try to cut costs in various ways, but not on safety as they run the risk of being grounded. Similarly for driverless cars. Look what happened to Cruise. They’ll be back, but they had a big, expensive setback.
I have more concerns about Tesla doing something rash.
I want a self driving car, that’s the dream man On a more serious note I do think that self driving cars could help curb pollution. They can be programmed to minimize wasted energy which would...
I want a self driving car, that’s the dream man
On a more serious note I do think that self driving cars could help curb pollution. They can be programmed to minimize wasted energy which would have a positive impact if a majority of drivers used self driving cars.
They can, but will they be programmed like that? The video touches on some fairly important points of the potential can of worms these car open up here. For example, no parking? No problem! We...
They can be programmed to minimize wasted energy
They can, but will they be programmed like that? The video touches on some fairly important points of the potential can of worms these car open up here. For example, no parking? No problem! We will just let the car circle around the block while we are shopping.
The video really is worth watching because it touches on a lot of these points and more. Things like the promises of better road safety, the actual state of self driving (how often human remote drivers need to step in), etc, etc.
I am not sure what you are trying to say? That this specific example isn't going to happen everywhere? Sure, but it was just one of many examples I could have given as to why the word "can" is...
I am not sure what you are trying to say? That this specific example isn't going to happen everywhere? Sure, but it was just one of many examples I could have given as to why the word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Which is also why I recommend people watch the video for the entire context ;)
I'm trying to say that people might let their car circulate to save money, not because they're blocked from parking, meaning an even bigger impact on the environment. I'm currently just on a quick...
I'm trying to say that people might let their car circulate to save money, not because they're blocked from parking, meaning an even bigger impact on the environment. I'm currently just on a quick break from work, but I might watch the video later.
Minimized compared to what? To buses, subways or a bike? I can imagine scenarios with shared* cars/vans/buses that function as buses do now, but with dynamic destinations. Is it something like...
They can be programmed to minimize wasted energy.
Minimized compared to what? To buses, subways or a bike? I can imagine scenarios with shared* cars/vans/buses that function as buses do now, but with dynamic destinations. Is it something like that we're talking about here, or is everyone still expected to own their own car?
*shared as in that several people that ordered their trip separetely sit in them at the same time.
That's what I've always imagined them eventually becoming: mini buses with dynamic routes and stops. You just hail an autonomous mini-bus by app, it lets you know when to come outside 2 minutes...
That's what I've always imagined them eventually becoming: mini buses with dynamic routes and stops. You just hail an autonomous mini-bus by app, it lets you know when to come outside 2 minutes before, and you hop in. It'll then pick up and drop off several people, but eventually drops you off at the doorsteps of your destination.
The thing about the current state of public transit is that unless you're an affluent professional and live in a desirable area that's within walking distance of a main line that goes straight to the central business district, the public transit experience is tedious, uncomfortable series of disjointed bus and train routes with awkward walks and long, boring waits in between segments.
It's certainly what I'm hoping for, but i don't feel confident that that's what will actually happen. People like to own things and to customize them, etc. Otoh, as you just shown me, I'm not...
It's certainly what I'm hoping for, but i don't feel confident that that's what will actually happen. People like to own things and to customize them, etc. Otoh, as you just shown me, I'm not alone with this vision :)
Why is that the dream? I want someplace where I can just walk, bike, or take public transit wherever I want to go. The environmental impact is far less and I actually enjoy moving myself around in...
Why is that the dream?
I want someplace where I can just walk, bike, or take public transit wherever I want to go. The environmental impact is far less and I actually enjoy moving myself around in the world. Not to mention the health benefits of even low-intensity exercise like walking daily.
Why would you dream of sitting in a self-driving vehicle, alone, for a cost similar per-mile to modern taxis and app-taxis for hours?
I don't want or trust a self driving car, but I can see the appeal of a true autonomous vehicle for my commute - which does not have a public transport option - I could read a book, or do...
I don't want or trust a self driving car, but I can see the appeal of a true autonomous vehicle for my commute - which does not have a public transport option - I could read a book, or do whatever. If there was public transportation I may or may not be able to take it, because sometimes I have to get home quickly due to my partner's medical stuff. And a taxi isn't cost efficient at all compared even to private vehicles
I could dream away a lot of stuff (move my house closer to work, remove my partner's disability), but I don't think it's hard to imagine why it'd be nice to hop in the car and not have to focus on driving.
I think it is fair to say that there are specific situations where someone might still want a car and by extension a self driving car. So I don't want to discredit what you have said here, because...
I think it is fair to say that there are specific situations where someone might still want a car and by extension a self driving car. So I don't want to discredit what you have said here, because these are valid reasons.
What I do want to provide is a bit of perspective from someone living in a country with good public infrastructure and generally better holistic infrastructure (as opposed to car centric infrastructure). For some people, even here, having a car is still the better option. I want to have that out of the way because I don't want to paint a prettier picture than reality.
But for a lot of people, a lot of the travel they do is quicker or as quick taking public transport. Even over longer distances. On many tracks between cities and towns trains go every hour and sometimes even every 15 minutes.
As a real example, my mother had a medical emergency and has been in a hospital one city over. Walking out of the door, to a bus, taking the train and then a bus to that hospital takes roughly 40-50 minutes. It is quicker if I take my bike to the station and take a so called OV-bike (public transport bike, rental bikes available at each station) at the other station
In theory by car it takes 30 minutes, in practice it is always longer and in rush hour it often takes at least an hour.
If there had been no regular train service between these two cities, I am sure the travel time by car would be even longer, given the sheer number of people using the train.
Last week, she was transferred to the local hospital. Which is always 15 minutes by bike and by car anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the time of day.
Again, this isn't the case for everyone everywhere in the country. There are areas where public transport is less frequent and not as efficient. But overall public transport and other modes of transport are actually an option and in a lot of cases a better option than cars.
It is a perspective many people from the US don't have, as they never got to experience it. Or if they have experienced it, mostly as a tourist.
But it is from that perspective that a lot of people from outside the US are weary of self-driving cars. Something the video also touches on but a bit late in the video.
Edit:
I feel like I should also clarify that for some journeys above I opted to take the car. Simply because it did happen to work out better, or for other reasons. So I am really not advocating for doing away with cars entirely, I am just trying to provide a perspective of where cars are less often the only option and effectively mandatory.
In fact, I did not opt to get my driver's license until I was in my late 20s. Simply because I easily could get by without a car 98% of the time.
I understand what you're saying entirely. I just wanted to give the perspective of why it's "the dream" for folks that don't have that infrastructure. Our rush hour here adds 5 minutes to my...
I understand what you're saying entirely. I just wanted to give the perspective of why it's "the dream" for folks that don't have that infrastructure. Our rush hour here adds 5 minutes to my commute, not 30+, but it's too far for the bike, is half (time wise) on a state highway, and half in town, and if I had to drive 10 min to the bus stop (without park and rides) I might as well drive the rest of the way. And so on.
I fully get why this isn't the case for folks in denser urban areas here, or in other countries. Unfortunately when I've visited, say Chicago, where there are folks that never drive, it's far too inaccessible for my partner for me to consider it a place I could live. That's not just transportation; it's sidewalk infrastructure and old buildings, but yeah.
I fully understand that for more rural US cars likely will remain to be necessary even if public transport improved. At the same time you mention this: That's sort of what I mean when talking...
I fully understand that for more rural US cars likely will remain to be necessary even if public transport improved. At the same time you mention this:
Unfortunately when I've visited, say Chicago, where there are folks that never drive, it's far too inaccessible for my partner for me to consider it a place I could live. That's not just transportation; it's sidewalk infrastructure and old buildings, but
That's sort of what I mean when talking about frame of reference. Like, yeah there are people in Chicago who don't drive, but it is much more difficult there than it is compared to cities around here. Isn't the dream in this context not just self-driving cars, but an actual human friendly city where cars are an actual viable option and not an absolute necessity?
Depends on how deep I'm dreaming? The idea of a self driving car (which again I'm not actually woo about) addresses several of my existing tangible problems. Changing Chicago doesn't, because I...
Depends on how deep I'm dreaming? The idea of a self driving car (which again I'm not actually woo about) addresses several of my existing tangible problems. Changing Chicago doesn't, because I don't live there. Redesigning the city I work in doesn't, because I don't live there anymore.
Yeah if I'm thinking big picture that is how I want cities designed, and I vote accordingly. But it would do very little to help me and my partner right now. I couldn't afford to sell our house and move again even if that sort of change were immediate.
Old sidewalks, old buildings, all of that isn't going to change immediately if ever. Universal design doesn't get put into effect in older buildings much.
Dream even deeper and we're curing spinal cords so ya know I aim realistic.
I saw your other comment, so I am assuming you are referring to your SF experience? If that is the case, I can't help but wonder, wouldn't you have taken an Uber or regular taxi instead? I am...
I saw your other comment, so I am assuming you are referring to your SF experience? If that is the case, I can't help but wonder, wouldn't you have taken an Uber or regular taxi instead? I am still not sure how the self-driving aspect fills a gap that is not currently being filled?
In the rural context I was talking about with DefinitelyNotAFae I can understand the value add of a self driving car. The distances are longer, public transport connecting to all remote areas is less likely. So there I can see that owning such a vehicle adds value as it means people can travel these distances without having to be behind the wheel.
But as taxis, I really don't see what they would actually be replacing that isn't already there? If Waymo taxis are cheaper, I can see it being enticing, but that isn't because they are actually cheaper to operate. They are only cheap because they are subsidized heavily. Given that billions have been thrown into the development of these technologies, I am fairly confident in saying that at some point the prices will be raised substantially.
I am also fairly confident that companies like Waymo will wait until they have starved out as much competition as possible.
At which point the situation will not really have changed other than that there are no people behind the wheel.
The three reasons is one, that human drivers have a lot of issues from the user experience that means I’d rather not take short trips. Uber drivers in SF love to cancel short trips, which can turn...
The three reasons is one, that human drivers have a lot of issues from the user experience that means I’d rather not take short trips. Uber drivers in SF love to cancel short trips, which can turn 10 minute Ubers into 40 minute ordeals with you waiting on the curb.
There’s also a lot of variance with shitty drivers, shitty people, shitty interiors.
Secondly, is that if you look at Uber’s balance sheet, the cost for drivers is absolutely a massive part of the price. As self driving becomes more commoditized, it will absolutely go down, simply because it will make companies more money.
Third, it allows for an all EV fleet in a way that Uber never will. You can get economies of scale that hundreds of drivers going to gas stations won’t.
I get what you are saying, as far as the trip time and reliability goes, I did not consider those aspects and those are both valid points. As far as price goes, I don't share your optimism there....
I get what you are saying, as far as the trip time and reliability goes, I did not consider those aspects and those are both valid points.
As far as price goes, I don't share your optimism there. As I said, billions have been thrown at solving this problem, so companies will first want to see a return on investment. Then they will try to extract as much profit as they can get away with. Given that these are the same tech companies offering a lot of digital services, I think looking at the price development there is a good indicator. Historically, prices of services these companies provide have not gone up, in fact they have been going up more than anything and often out of step with actual rise in costs.
Third, it allows for an all EV fleet in a way that Uber never will. You can get economies of scale that hundreds of drivers going to gas stations won’t.
I am not sure if I am following you here. There is nothing about self-driving cars that makes them EVs specifically, and there is no reason why human driven taxi fleets can't switch to EVs either.
Pricing is ultimately down to supply and demand and the dynamics of those curves. If nothing else, the price of robo-taxis is realistically ceiling by the current prices for uber - since if it’s...
Pricing is ultimately down to supply and demand and the dynamics of those curves. If nothing else, the price of robo-taxis is realistically ceiling by the current prices for uber - since if it’s much more expensive, it wouldn’t really be market viable. There’s a lot of tech that has gone much cheaper over time.
What makes it viable for EVs is that you don’t have individual drivers with individual motivations. It’s not economical for uber drivers to spend hours at a charging lot, they want to do things. Gas is much more energy dense and refills are instant. A computer doesn’t make choices about what car it wants, or how it’s wasting time. You think at the aggregate.
If Uber is still around by that time, though. Same with taxi companies in general. If they have been driven out of business, they will not suddenly pop back in existence when the slow price hikes...
since if it’s much more expensive, it wouldn’t really be market viable. There’s a lot of tech that has gone much cheaper over time.
If Uber is still around by that time, though. Same with taxi companies in general. If they have been driven out of business, they will not suddenly pop back in existence when the slow price hikes of robo-taxis start. Supply and demand only works if there are multiple parties who have actually supply and can act on that demand.
It’s not economical for uber drivers to spend hours at a charging lot, they want to do things. Gas is much more energy dense and refills are instant. A computer doesn’t make choices about what car it wants, or how it’s wasting time. You think at the aggregate.
For Uber this is true, given their business model. I was more or less thinking about more traditional taxi companies who can pretty much do the same thing as they can let drivers pick up a charged taxi whenever their current one is about to run out of juice.
Then again, I guess it is safe to assume there are no real taxi companies around anymore in SF as they have been displaced by Uber? Given how aggressively, the Uber prices were/are largely subsidized by venture capital and SF being tech central.
There is an impression, especially in the US, that public transit is always slower than driving. For many US cities, that is true, but that does not have to be the case. You said in your comment...
There is an impression, especially in the US, that public transit is always slower than driving. For many US cities, that is true, but that does not have to be the case.
You said in your comment that you might have to get home from work quickly because of your wife’s medical issues, which is a completely understandable reason (I hope she is okay!). When I read your comment, I got the impression that you were falling into the thought process that the only way to get home quickly would be to drive, whether with a traditional vehicle or autonomous. I was simply trying to clarify that this is not always true. I am sorry if my misunderstanding of your feelings upset you. That was not my intention.
I'm not upset, just was genuinely confused about the response. Yeah my partner's medical things have been going better. He and I aren't married because of Medicaid, and alas, I have no wife on the...
I'm not upset, just was genuinely confused about the response.
Yeah my partner's medical things have been going better. He and I aren't married because of Medicaid, and alas, I have no wife on the side either despite my non-mongamy. But when he has a medical emergency, I need to get home as soon as possible. I used to live on campus which meant that trip was five minutes - by bus would have been longer. But now it's further.
I specifically mentioned that there's no public transport option between my work and home. I don't live in a large enough city for there to be enough rush hour traffic to make busses faster than cars. My incoming and outgoing commute are 20-25 minutes, with the first 10 into town being highway travel, and the last 10 being in town driving. I know the bus routes aren't faster because I pass them on my way through.
Even so, we have a decent bus system in the small city (no fare, and small busses/vans to help people get to stops in underserved neighborhoods) and if I lived in town I'd try to find a way to walk to work, bike, or take transit as long as my partner's health held.
But there's no transit back to my small town, and I don't know that I'd take it if there was given how my trip home is often a grocery run/pharmacy stop/etc.
As I say in another comment, my point was why this can be "the dream" for folks, because it's more realistic and immediately problem solving than the larger scale systemic reworking of cities.
Sorry about assuming your partner’s gender and status as well. I try to not do that, so I hope you can forgive me. Thanks for the more detailed explanation.
Sorry about assuming your partner’s gender and status as well. I try to not do that, so I hope you can forgive me. Thanks for the more detailed explanation.
No worries, I'm queer but I'm not a lesbian and some folks assume partner means only one type of thing. I'm used to everyone using it for every relationship but higher ed be like that. Zero...
No worries, I'm queer but I'm not a lesbian and some folks assume partner means only one type of thing. I'm used to everyone using it for every relationship but higher ed be like that.
I do not want a self driving car. I like driving. I want everyone else to have a self driving car so I don't have to deal with them drifting in my lane while texting. Actually, I want everyone on...
I do not want a self driving car. I like driving.
I want everyone else to have a self driving car so I don't have to deal with them drifting in my lane while texting.
Actually, I want everyone on the bus. Me included, I'd like to play my Gameboy.
Literally millions of people have asked for them. Also, there's no reason why this wouldn't be possible with self driving cars. They're mostly electric already anyway. Edit: watching through the...
Literally millions of people have asked for them.
What people want are zero pollution ( or best as we can get ) vehicles with sustainable energy sources.
Also, there's no reason why this wouldn't be possible with self driving cars. They're mostly electric already anyway.
Edit: watching through the video now. I'm usually a fan of Not Just Bikes, but this one feels very weird to me. I agree with a lot of the points he makes but he also just seems to be countering "nebulous claims of improvement" with just as nebulous claims of detrimental effects.
This felt far more like an opinion piece than his regular content and I found myself saying "how could you possibly know that" multiple times so far. So many bizarre doomer assertions that every single positive claimed by self driving car proponents will actually be the exact opposite with the source being "bad things have happened in the past" at best and "trust me bro" at worst. (There are a few real sources scattered throughout the video, but nothing for his most damning claims.)
I also found a lot of the things he was saying to be self contradictory, like how self driving cars won't end up being cheaper than Ubers because companies will charge as much as possible, pointing out how Ubers are so expensive now because of corporate greed (but uber wasnt even profitable until this year and still spends the vast majority of their proceeds on paying drivers) and then in the very next point he goes on to say that when self driving cars become popular they'll increase congestion because everyone will be taking them for any trip because they're so cheap and accessible. And then he says that there's no way people will want to use their personal car to earn money on the side as a robo taxi because people don't want their car smelling like a taxi, but who is he speaking for?? If I had the option to rent out my car for potentially hundreds of dollars a day while I worked or slept I would sure as hell do it, then clean my car every now and then if I needed to. Not to mention Uber already pretty much made this a non-issue by charging users who make a mess in their cars a ridiculous cleaning fee.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on my nitpicks with this video and it's really disappointing. I appreciate the message and the cautiousness when approaching a self driving future, but this felt like a hit piece disguised as a factual video.
This is regular for NJB and one of the reasons I stopped watching him. Most of his videos are 50% opinion, 10% actual information, the rest is about how North America sucks, how he lives in...
This felt far more like an opinion piece than his regular content
This is regular for NJB and one of the reasons I stopped watching him. Most of his videos are 50% opinion, 10% actual information, the rest is about how North America sucks, how he lives in Amsterdam and how great it is.
It's fine, I get it. I agree with the general philosophy but the man himself is tedious, especially in comparison to someone like CityNerd.
I am sometimes surprised the Fake London bit hasn't been prerecorded and simply pasted in when needed as a minute long repeating gag. I thought this video was interesting. It's both kinda not his...
I am sometimes surprised the Fake London bit hasn't been prerecorded and simply pasted in when needed as a minute long repeating gag.
I thought this video was interesting. It's both kinda not his style (The amount of seemingly custom done 3D animation is impressive, and the random dips into what seems like doomer hyperbole are not really his thing) but also a very NJB video (Fake London bit, Amsterdam, so on).
It's gotten me interested in looking into self driving cars more, at least - I didn't even know they were already active outside of like, closed tests and beta programs and whatnot.
The video makes a great point that tire and road debris are a significant source of emissions from heavy electric vehicles. Not to mention the emissions produced during manufacturing. The only...
The video makes a great point that tire and road debris are a significant source of emissions from heavy electric vehicles. Not to mention the emissions produced during manufacturing. The only zero emission vehicle is your feet, and analog bicycles are nearly zero emission. Electric trains amortise down to similar levels because they carry thousands of people simultaneously.
A single occupant personal car literally cannot be zero emission given current technological constraints.
I mean if you want to get nitpicky to that level, humans aren't zero emissions either, I'm breathing out a lot of CO2 right now just for fun. I get your point, but I also think the point I was...
I mean if you want to get nitpicky to that level, humans aren't zero emissions either, I'm breathing out a lot of CO2 right now just for fun.
I get your point, but I also think the point I was trying to make was clear; self driving EVs have the chance to be significantly less environmentally impactful than the current cars were driving today.
Is there a good chance that they'll end up being nearly as bad? Maybe. But I'm optimistic that with the massive improvements we've seen to battery technology in just the last few years that the "heavy EV make more tire pollution" problem will be a thing of the past once batteries are slimmed down. Solid state batteries which are already here and in production today are twice as energy dense as current LION batteries which is a massive improvement. I believe that since quite literally trillions of dollars is flowing into the electrification market, we're only just beginning to see what can happen with things like EVs.
Would I love to live in a future where public transportation and bikes are much more accessible and popular? Of course. I ride a bike to nearly every local destination I can, even when it's not very convenient or safe to do so. I get stressed out driving and don't enjoy it at all, I love my bikes and would love to get more use out of them.
But I'm also not stupid and know that it's very unlikely to see a future where the car is eliminated or even massively reduced for most America cities and towns. The suburban sprawl is only accelerating and with thousands of new developments going up around the country, those places will be car-locked for decades to come.
That's nonsense, tons of people asked for them. A lot of people who were invested in the idea no longer want them for a myriad of reasons, but the concept is super agreeable. Much like flying...
That's nonsense, tons of people asked for them. A lot of people who were invested in the idea no longer want them for a myriad of reasons, but the concept is super agreeable. Much like flying cars, it's a science fiction concept of an easier, more convenient society. Some real Jetsons stuff.
Walkable neighborhoods, and sophisticated mass transit systems are the results of a realistic approach to a sustainable future, but those ideas where not the cultural default to what people imagine the future to look like.
I used to want one, desperately, before I had ever lived anyplace walkable. Now that I live in a walkable city I'll be absolutely crushed (hopefully not literally) if self-driving cars show up...
I used to want one, desperately, before I had ever lived anyplace walkable. Now that I live in a walkable city I'll be absolutely crushed (hopefully not literally) if self-driving cars show up here and the infrastructure is in any way altered for them, or they drive like Americans.
You're giving American drivers way too much credit. Sadly, I don't see my city becoming walkable before I eventually become unable to walk independently, so this is the 3rd best stop gap to hope for.
or they drive like Americans.
You're giving American drivers way too much credit.
Sadly, I don't see my city becoming walkable before I eventually become unable to walk independently, so this is the 3rd best stop gap to hope for.
I'm taking the video at its word that due to the fact that self-driving cars are trained in America, they will drive like Americans - specifically they will drive as though they are the default...
I'm taking the video at its word that due to the fact that self-driving cars are trained in America, they will drive like Americans - specifically they will drive as though they are the default and most important form of transportation.
You could, theoretically, move to a walkable city, but I understand that's unfeasible for a lot of people, especially if you want to stay in America.
Oh, I was mostly joking. Self driving cars will be much safer than the average American freeway. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if be very surprised if AI was being trained that way. There's...
Oh, I was mostly joking. Self driving cars will be much safer than the average American freeway.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but if be very surprised if AI was being trained that way. There's simply no need to. They have the signaling and response times to drive more efficiently and safely if they can assume 90+% of other drivers are self-driving. So they won't cause traffic jams and can un-jam in ways impossible for a human. They can probably drive much faster as well so they'd be much more trustworthy at 80+ MPH than a human. And it minimizes lawsuits if they just drive in sane ways.
You could, theoretically, move to a walkable city, but I understand that's unfeasible for a lot of people, especially if you want to stay in America.
I theoretically could. But most my family is active military, so I don't think they can just leave the country as easily as I can.
The city situation is even more dire, especially as more of my industry is going backwards in progress and making people return to office. Maybe that'll sort itself out in a decade, but it's a bumpy labor road right now.
Sure, but my town is already much, much, much safer than the average American freeway, and American roadways in general. It could become a lot more dangerous and still be safer for pedestrians...
Self driving cars will be much safer than the average American freeway.
Sure, but my town is already much, much, much safer than the average American freeway, and American roadways in general. It could become a lot more dangerous and still be safer for pedestrians than the vast majority of America. I don't want it to get more dangerous at all.
For the sake of conversational clarity, did you watch the video? A lot of your comment is addressed by it, and you don't seem to be rebutting any of the points in it, just restating things that it addressed. It's okay if you didn't, but the video addresses your points better than I can, so I'll consider myself to be doing you a disservice if I try to paraphrase it here. If you're interested in the topic and time is an issue, I watched it on double speed while cleaning my house and I don't feel I missed much by not catching most of the visuals.
I 100% believe that. It could, but I'm doubtful. I did watch the video earlier before it was posted. But I've watched other videos as well on the topic of self driving cars and saw that section on...
Sure, but my town is already much, much, much safer than the average American freeway,
I 100% believe that.
It could become a lot more dangerous and still be safer for pedestrians than the vast majority of America. I don't want it to get more dangerous at all.
It could, but I'm doubtful.
A lot of your comment is addressed by it, and you don't seem to be rebutting any of the points in it, just restating things that it addressed
I did watch the video earlier before it was posted. But I've watched other videos as well on the topic of self driving cars and saw that section on safety as overly pessimistic, while dismissing the good points as "not enough". Enemy of good enough and all.
There's just a lot of things a bot driven car will do (and not do. Like road raging) and this interpretation acts like it's copy-pasting existing driver data and trying to pretend to be a genuine human like other sectors of AI. This is one of the places where we can entirely re-design the idea of navigation, and have done so with other kinds of non-commercial vehicles. What specific parts of my comment worried you?
What makes you say that? I suppose it's what's not in your comment that I find troubling. You mention the cars going much faster and don't address the video's points about the (non-accident...
It could, but I'm doubtful.
What makes you say that?
I suppose it's what's not in your comment that I find troubling. You mention the cars going much faster and don't address the video's points about the (non-accident related) problems that can cause. You also don't address any of the other issues of induced demand. Potential infrastructure changes, the problems that car companies will be able to cause if they're allowed to get their way as they have in the past. Things like that.
well I explained it already from multiple angles (legal, logistical, physical). Because I was focused on safety. I don't think self driving revolution is some objective good. But I do think safety...
What makes you say that?
well I explained it already from multiple angles (legal, logistical, physical).
You mention the cars going much faster and don't address the video's points about the (non-accident related) problems that can cause.
Because I was focused on safety. I don't think self driving revolution is some objective good. But I do think safety will see the highest improvement.
But if you want my full response point by point:
Point by Point response
moving fast and breaking people: yes. The tech is very much not ready now. There are levels of self-driving and I don't even think any car right now is rated for Level 3 (which is still "the driver needs to be ready to take the wheel). It should be outright illegal for anyone to advertise as such and I trust no self driving as of now. My above comments are mostly mosly talking decades later when level 5 (our sci-fi future "full self driving" utopia is possible and viable. A stage where we could ramp to that 90+% self driving level.
Fatal Uber Crash: Sensors are not perfect no. Neither are human sensors. But overall there's more failsafes for a bad automatic sensor, like halting the car and requireing manual conrol. And that incident is pretty much why Uber pretty much gave up on that early to market dream of the (once again, falsely adversited) self driving car. At least the system works sometimes, it's just sad that oftetimes blood must be spilt before we hit that point.
The Real problem: Yes, US roads are very much not walkable. Nothing new with humans, nothing that will get aggressively worse with AI unless we vote for it. And I'm cynical enough to suggest we will. This feels like an example of just "giving what the people want" and I don't think the tech behind it is the driving force.
Promoting car-centric cities (AKA "easy mode"). It's a big reason that current self-driving modes are barely level 2 and nowhere close to 3, yes. if we're ever going to hit level 5 decades later, this problem will solve itself. Or we rule it impossible and give up on the dream (super doubtful, but anything can be driven by money, even decisions not to revolutionize the world). This section also brings up the "drive like americans" point I addressed above
Cheaper Taxis. I'm pretty much in full agreement here. The moment it's stable (which some would argue is now, with Waymo. I disagree) We're going to enshittify this 10 years later. "it's cheaper" is always the foot in the door, and the end goal is always worse off for the consumer in modern business monetization. This will absolutely not make private transport cheaper. Public transport... one can dream.
Traffic congestion: Now this is a point I disagree with quite a bit, and I understand his angle of history. Human history.
A great counterargument here is CPG Grey's video about how congestion begins, and how it ripples on miles down, and hours after the congestion is long gone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE
You're free to disagree, but that video shows there's a lot of inefficiencies in how humans hog the road, a lot of phenomenon that isn't anyone's fault but is surprisingly easy to fix individually, and things humans do that AI can do better.
It won't maically solve congestion as a concept without major enhancements to how we think about a car. If there's too many cars to safely respond to you'll be stuck. But it can defintely optimize much of it away. And note, this is still assuming a 90+% self driving environment. It's again, completely false advertising to think you can add 3 good drivers on a current day freeway and fix the behavior of 100 bad ones.
The promised future (past and present): well, there isn't much argument here. Yes, businesses have perverse incentives and foresight is 20/20. I think it glosses over the benefits (you don't need to live within a few miles of your work to work, and the rise of suburban areas to make more land viable and valuable) but the core argument here is "cities became less walkable and Ford lied that it'd be more walkable". I won't give my take but you should keep in min that, amongst Americans, "walkable cities" still isn't this top level priority. It's almost always better roads over better transportation.
Always follow the money. If there's no financial incentive nor regulation to achieve that promise from a businessman, it's probably a lie. they will always do "just enough" and not a penny more.
"How AVs will destroy cities" and " Eliminating public transit": yeah, that's all probably what's going to happen. I agree with all his points. But I ask the same question as above: "is this something that's considered a universal bad thing amongst the people"? It's not a foreign idea to have restricted lanes for various purpses, so it's not going to be mass protested amongst manual drivers during the transition to an AV-centric road.
"Eliminating pedestrians": I will admit that "Jaywalking 2" was never a concept that crossed my mind before this video, so kudos for the imagery.
This is an admittedly odd one, though. I 100% do think these self-driving companies will try this card, but we reeled this in long ago as well. You'd need to be jaywalking with a reckless abandon to actually be cited one in the majority of states. Whether or not people will play that fast and loose is up in the air in my eyes (it IS still a multi-ton metal death trap with a whole bunch of momentum. I don't care how "safe" they are, I'll treat it like a human driver and look both ways). And I think by the time we get to that point, tech will have long run out of "it's just an app, bro" as a defense mechanism. They are using the last of that excuse as we speak with LLM's.
I can see this going either extreme though. So I'll at least grant this as food for thought.
"Eliminating speed limits": I'll be frank, we aren't eliminating speed limits. Those are set not just for human reactions but for the laws of physics. AV's can probably make a 20mph bend at 60mph, but the margin of error at that speed s so minuscule that no sane person would allow it. Same for city streets. There's a better chance they try to remove the sidewalks and make certain places road only then there would allowing AV's to go 70 on a 30mph business road. They will probably raise in some places, but not dramatically so.
"Pollution and noise": I'll emphasize that I 100% agree that FEV's don't magically save the environment. If nothing else that should be a narrative we unlearn from the advertising.
Now with that said: I do feel like this is another "enemy of good enough" problem. There will still be some environmental impact, but is the issue with wheels and roads and toxins really so bad to balance out as being as bad as ICE cars? (I'm genuinly asking. I don't think so, but I haven't researched deeply into it). is the tire noise from fast cars worse than a revving ICE?
It's not the best solution, but it's a better one that will actually get populist opinions from current americans. I think. (again, I can be very off base).
Eliminating traffic lights: the CPG Grey video also touched on this, optimistically. But honestly, these are one of the ideas that's cool to show off for a simulation but makes less sense the more you think about it. We don't need to eliminate traffic lights, we have freeways for that. We don't need to take down traffic lights anyway, it's much cheaper and safer to re-work them to assist with AV signaling. We don't need to remove crosswalks, make them better with a guarantee people will actually stop when you push it and you get a safe go ahead.
"Do we actually need AVs?' and "Utrecht vs Fake London" This is another core issue I see when people argue walkable cities in the EU and want to apply them in the US. It's very inspiring that Utrecht could turn direction so fast and shift to a walkable city. But it's a different city in a different country with a different culture, and also some 10 times smaller than Los Angeles with 3% of the population. This actually makes LA much denser, but there's just so much dang land here. It's hard to be truly "walkable" when your city spans some 40 mile radius as opposed to 10.
None of that is an excuse to not try, but i hope it helps understand the multiple reasons why it's much harder to pass this stuff on a vote compared to he EU. It's a much steeper hill to climb than "see the EU can do it".
Yeah, that was about as long as I expected. I'll at least take the last action plan section here
Limit where cars can go: Not quite possible in many US environments, but it's not infeasible. I'm not confident, though
-Fewer cars in cities, tear down freeways: I have zero confidence this will ever occur in a major US city. There so much fervor over making more freeways (even though this is an expensive band-aid fix to core traffic problems).
Make impossible to drive through the middle of a city by car: This is doable, but they make a big assumption that the US has a "middle of the city" to begin with. Especially places designed around cars: there's simply newer cites that was never designed with the idea of a "town square" to begin with. So this would be a major construction initiative of varying popularity from city to city.
direct route enforced by walking/biking. Sure. This is one of the few points we actually have as is, so there'd be less friction in expanding.
Lower speed limits: Yeah I'm in full agreement. I've never been inconvinienced by "going slow" (very annoying american cultural issue).
Remove parking: yeah, this is the hardest of hard sells. I even argue that's the one reason I live in suburbs over downtown. Parking is the worst part of driving but the US has so. much. land. So parking is free in suburbia and accessible. It also begs the question where the cars go if theres no parking. Does it just keep itself driving around until summoned?
let's stop building parking structures: I'm not opposed to it, but I imagine the businesses will still fight tooth and nail. Parklng garages are one of the lowest effort ways to rent-seek owned land, after all.
build more walkable neighborhoods: This is definitely in the hands of zoning laws. A very hot button topic in California at the very least. So ultimately comes down to who lobbies best in each city. California is starting to dismantle this, but I can't speak for every city here.
invest in public transit: oh, I wish. This is more city-by-city, but LA seems to keep resisting this. Sadly the homeless crisis has a nasty side effect of making for less safe buses and trains, so these measures are currently unpopular. But I'm all for it personally.
Transit needs to be under democratic control: I think the US already missed that boat. Quite hard.
Needless to say this will be vehemently rejected by pretty much everyone. introducing a tax for a previously tax free activity never ends civil. It'll really depend on if the city holds firm or not. I'm ambivalent.
well I hope that clarifies everything. I ended up watching the video 3 times total so I hope there's no questioning my response this time. Overall: I agree with a lot in spirit, disagree with a few things because I feel they were not sufficiently explained (there's a huge assumption that walk-able cities are a universally accepted ideal to strive for. I'm sure it is for his audience, but not the populace at large), and feel much more cynical that many plans proposed can just pass through with current politics, amongst the represenatives and the people in the US.
I think given last week we should be very careful of assuming Americans will vote in their best interests.
I didn't see that. Was it in this thread? I didn't mean to ask you to watch the video multiple times and respond point by point. A much less granular discussion would have been just fine. Since...
well I explained it already from multiple angles (legal, logistical, physical).
I didn't see that. Was it in this thread?
I didn't mean to ask you to watch the video multiple times and respond point by point. A much less granular discussion would have been just fine. Since you have though, I owe you a respinse to your response.
Some context that you couldn't possibly know, I don't live in the US. I'm a recent immigrant to Sweden. So i can't vote on anything that happens in the town or country that I live in just yet. I do worry about whether or not AVs and infrastructure changes would be popular here. It's a very techy area with some nearby suburbs, I could see it being popular. That seems quite negative to me.
I think it glosses over the benefits (you don't need to live within a few miles of your work to work, and the rise of suburban areas to make more land viable and valuable)
Those seem like mostly bad things to me. Being able to live far away from work is enjoyable to the individuals that can use it, but this means more sprawl, more car usage generally which means more pollution, and higher property values which means things become less affordable. I don't want any of those things, I want my walkable, affordable city.
"is this something that's considered a universal bad thing amongst the people"?
It's considered a universal bad thing among me, who was the person complaining and worrying. I don't really care if other people like it when my town gets worse?
There will still be some environmental impact, but is the issue with wheels and roads and toxins really so bad to balance out as being as bad as ICE cars? (I'm genuinly asking. I don't think so, but I haven't researched deeply into it). is the tire noise from fast cars worse than a revving ICE?
Cars don't have to be autonomous to be electric. Being autonomous is not a proven part of reducing environmental impact. It is quite likely to reduce the usage of public transport and bikes and good old fashioned legs, though, which I consider to be a significant negative.
I don't really see anything here that alleviates my concerns? I feel like we're having cery separate conversations. I'm sorry you felt you had to spend all this time and I didn't have much to give back, but that's where we are.
This is completely untrue. True self-driving where the passenger can do something else while getting transported directly to their desired location is a huge desire for anyone who would rather...
Nobody asked for them either.
This is completely untrue. True self-driving where the passenger can do something else while getting transported directly to their desired location is a huge desire for anyone who would rather spend their time doing something else other than drive. I'd wager that millions of people want this feature. It's just a matter of reliability and cost.
Something a lot of people gloss over is that under that statement of "nobody wants them" is a dislike for the car centric nature of the US. Of course people who now have to suffer car dependent...
Something a lot of people gloss over is that under that statement of "nobody wants them" is a dislike for the car centric nature of the US. Of course people who now have to suffer car dependent infrastructure want better cars. But ultimately it would still be very much car centric infrastructure with little place for pedestrians, cyclists and few alternative options due to lacking public transport.
So I read that statement as "I rather have better overall infrastructure first".
I've wanted self driving cards since I was a kid, because I'm legally blind and will never be able to drive. That being said, the video makes some good points and I could likely get around just...
I've wanted self driving cards since I was a kid, because I'm legally blind and will never be able to drive.
That being said, the video makes some good points and I could likely get around just fine independently if we had actually good public transportation and walkable areas.
The one thing I don't think it really touches on though is rural areas. If I have a friend who lives in a rural area outside the city, what is the incentive for the county/city to create public transit routes to that area for the handful of people that would use it?
You are not saying it directly, but I feel you are asking "why should they create routes that will not turn a profit". Which is a bit of a fallacy considering that in rural areas there are also...
what is the incentive for the county/city to create public transit routes to that area for the handful of people that would use it?
You are not saying it directly, but I feel you are asking "why should they create routes that will not turn a profit". Which is a bit of a fallacy considering that in rural areas there are also well maintained roads that are effectively never going to return a profit. Yet for roads it is a given that the US keeps investing money in building and maintaining them even though they never directly turn a profit.
Public transport should be created to benefit areas, not because it might be profitable. Of course, there is a turning point somewhere where there is barely any benefit for anyone and then maybe no public transport is needed.
And no, you likely will never get bus stops in front of individual homes miles apart everywhere. But there are plenty of patches of communities in rural areas who would socially benefit from being better connected to both each other and the outside world.
To bring in a personal experience, SF is one of the few cities with self driving cars deployed. In the time since it’s had self driving cars, I’ve used the public transit because of it - not out...
To bring in a personal experience, SF is one of the few cities with self driving cars deployed. In the time since it’s had self driving cars, I’ve used the public transit because of it - not out of spite, but because they synergize. SF’s public transit is, in the strictest sense, “ok”, or as the kids would say, “mid af”. Waymo has proven to be a incredible tool in bridging the gaps in the public transit system and making it much more feasible to rely on.
I recently took BART to the airport, and only could do so because I could hail a Waymo. I was staying with friends in sunset and getting to the nearest bart station on the shitty dump fire of a bus service that MUNI runs I’d rather just not.
I for one think our future is going to be very bleak, but not necessarily for the reasons Not Just Bikes described. Once it becomes more cost effective to use AI over actual workers, that'll be...
I for one think our future is going to be very bleak, but not necessarily for the reasons Not Just Bikes described.
Once it becomes more cost effective to use AI over actual workers, that'll be it. Tens, even hundreds of millions of jobs lost and unemployment rates skyrocketing. Why would you pay a train or lorry driver £50k plus overtime when you could employ an algorithm to do the same work at much lower cost? Why would you pay someone £21k to take inbound calls for your firm when AI is on the cusp of doing the job better, cheaper and more efficiently?
Even if all these AI systems turned out to be huge mechanical turk operations like what Amazon Store turned out to be, it's going to be devastating to Western economies.
And before you tell me Universal Basic Income will swoop in and save the day, UBI is a leftist pipe dream of how a post-scarcity society should work. In reality, it will either pay a pittance that nobody can live on or bankrupt our economies overnight. Yes, we could charge hefty automation taxes to firms that employ algorithms over people but good fucking luck getting anybody big to pay for it. We can't even get the wealthy to pay their fair share of tax right now. What makes anybody think that automation taxes won't go down like a lead balloon and drive firms to funnel their money into offshore tax havens...
"Well everyone will just pick up programming jobs", I hear you say. Do you think that your average Joe can write code?
I mean I don't have any pipe dreams about UBI, but I would like to hope in a future where there are literally almost no jobs left, the people won't just roll over die. What's the point of all...
I mean I don't have any pipe dreams about UBI, but I would like to hope in a future where there are literally almost no jobs left, the people won't just roll over die. What's the point of all those amazing labor saving inventions when no one benefits from them. It may be hard to believe right now because of how terrible wealth inequality is, but I want to believe that we'll come to a point in civilization where the standard of living for someone who doesn't work is still fairly good.
The conundrum I have is what will the cost of a human being in such a new world though? If all costs come down, then the cost to maintain a human will also go down, meaning the wage needed to...
The conundrum I have is what will the cost of a human being in such a new world though? If all costs come down, then the cost to maintain a human will also go down, meaning the wage needed to employ someone will go down with it. I think ultimately it will come down to how quickly costs come down for humans.
One solution is UBI with universal healthcare as then everyone already has their needs sorted, and can be paid less by a company, which may find the overall balance vs robots/AI worse.
But I’m no economist, might be wrong on all counts.
My main counter to this is the very enshittification consumers suffer for today. If these tech companies know they can basically charge a very high X% to other businesses, they will. So it'll be a...
Why would you pay a train or lorry driver £50k plus overtime when you could employ an algorithm to do the same work at much lower cost?
My main counter to this is the very enshittification consumers suffer for today. If these tech companies know they can basically charge a very high X% to other businesses, they will. So it'll be a bidding war between human and AI labor that fluctuates with the economy.
I've already heard a few microcosm of this happening in China, where certain Chinese studios get price hikes from LLMs and just re-hire labor as the AI methods becomes more expensive. I don't see why it wouldn't be different in the US if this takes off.
What makes anybody think that automation taxes won't go down like a lead balloon and drive firms to funnel their money into offshore tax havens...
Sounds like a prelude to a Terminator kind of future. We globalize GAI to get tax breaks and put billions out for jobs. Labor fights against the robots and likely lose horribly. GAI starts to realize they are being abused and overthrow governments and governments start throwing drastic measures.
Billions die but of course the Androids remain and the war torn earth is conquered. Reversing the very labor we sought from the android. All because billionaires decided to rid the world of labor instead of paying their taxes. In an arguably near post scarcity world.
Poetic. Himans grasping to an outdated model of success and hoarding it instead of forgetting the reasons we bartered to begin with.
Technology can make the lifes of everone better. But the reality is the as long that the investors/billionaire class keeps being greedy and hungry for YoY ROI's, sadly they will fight an endless...
Technology can make the lifes of everone better. But the reality is the as long that the investors/billionaire class keeps being greedy and hungry for YoY ROI's, sadly they will fight an endless war among themselves and the plebs are the ones who suffer from their wild ideas.
I'd argue UBI is possible, though not easily obtainable and would require politicians who are NOT either of the parties we have today given they're the very capitalists such a policy would harm....
I'd argue UBI is possible, though not easily obtainable and would require politicians who are NOT either of the parties we have today given they're the very capitalists such a policy would harm. Automation would need to remain profitable despite the taxes and we'd have to somehow overcome capitalists who regularly bribe and coerce politicians to get laws passed in their favor. Meaning we'd need representatives who give a damn about people, which we don't have right now. Even the Democrats with all their claims to be on the side of the people are just in it for the wealth, gentrifying entire states while claiming to help us. So, I see 3 main futures: Mass poverty, Utopia or Dystopia.
In the mass poverty future, the capitalists win and jobs are replaced while the poor are ignored with claims like "they can be programmers and entertainers". We currently have this issue where capitalists claim "anyone can succeed if they work hard enough", which is bullshit used to get people to work hard for them as not everyone is charismatic, talented or smart enough to move up in life even if they are lucky enough to get the rare opportunity to do so. They will just be unemployed when automation takes over leaving only jobs requiring brains, charisma or talent. This future will lead to a huge gap between the rich and poor, kind of like hunger games. The middle class will be the few lucky enough to be useful, ever terrified that one day they won't be useful.
The more utopian future, is if the progressives win and we start taxing robots/AI to pay people with UBI. It would have to be cheap enough, at first, to make automated robots more affordable than humans. There will eventually be more of them than people and they don't sleep, so in theory it could work. At some point when humans are all but cut out of the equation they can be taken over by the government, then we'd not need money since anything you need will be made by robots from start to finish. We would have to work hard for that future and I see no good signs of that happening and it needs to be happening now. Capitalists are most likely to win, at least until there are enough people unemployed to be an issue. Though their solution to that would be to force us into the 3rd option (I'm going to pretend "round the poor up and put them in camps" and "government takeover by trillionaire with an army of murder bots" are not options).
Lastly, there's the dystopian future where robots/ai are taxed to make them on par with people or less affordable. Those in charges will convince the masses that people NEED to work (total BS) and either tax automation or require companies hire so many people per bot/ai (or a combo of the two). So we'd basically continue where we are now with the majority of the population being nothing more than corporate slaves who work most of their lives at dead-end jobs they hate for employers who see them as Expenses instead of people, even though we have the productivity, which keeps increasing at a rapid pace, to only require a few days of work a week. I see this as most likely, as much as we like to see the rich as loving to lavish over the poverty of others I don't think that to be true, there's more benefit and less problems if the masses are mindlessly working for them at a level just above poverty at a rate that keeps them from thinking enough to figure out how they arrived in their situation.
Great video, but maybe he shouldn't be shy to mention the C-word. I know it's not popular but at some point we have to name the root cause of our problems.
Great video, but maybe he shouldn't be shy to mention the C-word. I know it's not popular but at some point we have to name the root cause of our problems.
Capitalism doesn't really mean anything, though. At least not when using it as such a broad catch-all container term for all our problems. Sure, there are definitions of what is capitalism, but...
Capitalism doesn't really mean anything, though. At least not when using it as such a broad catch-all container term for all our problems. Sure, there are definitions of what is capitalism, but just like other -isms it doesn't exist as such anywhere in the world past or present.
Even if we acknowledge that you are talking about the US brand of capitalism often dubbed hyper-capitalism or late stage capitalism, it isn't really useful in discussions like this. Honestly, I doubt it is useful anywhere if you are actually trying to understand underlying issues and possible solutions. I would even go as far as saying that just point and going "capitalism, innit?" is somewhat harmful.
To take the video as a direct example, both the US and the Netherlands are countries with effectively forms of capitalism. Yet in one country struggles with car centric infrastructure and all the issues that come with it and one was on their way to become very much the same thing but starting from the 70s managed to reverse course (see the later part of the video, or ironically this comment I made in the previous discussion about self driving cars).
So, clearly it is possible to work within the frameworks of "capitalism" and make a lot of progress moving away from a lot of the principles behind it and have actual human focussed infrastructure.
So capitalism isn't as so much a root cause to point at, at most it is a cause that should be part of a question. Specifically, the question that asks why capitalism principles in the US are allowed to so firmly dictate policies and have these effects. And no, the answer to that question also isn't simple if you actually want to solve things.
I think EU countries are doing better because they have stronger socialist traditions, so e.g. putting common good before profit and having state-owned companies isn't out of the question. It's...
I think EU countries are doing better because they have stronger socialist traditions, so e.g. putting common good before profit and having state-owned companies isn't out of the question. It's just a bit strange to have 50 minutes of very clear exposition of all the issues for-profit private companies bring without drawing broader conclusions about our economic system. Although I understand it's not really in the scope of his channel (and a bad idea for viewership).
This is less about autonomous vehicles and more about the car centric design of our country. IMO people would like cities more if they didn't have to drive or deal with drivers. Just step up to...
This is less about autonomous vehicles and more about the car centric design of our country. IMO people would like cities more if they didn't have to drive or deal with drivers. Just step up to one of the kiosks strewn through the city or town and order a car to pick you up would be great.
It's a cycle though, to get less dependent on cars they need dependable transportation, but that doesn't exist outside select huge cities because few people are willing to take public transportation due to not being dependable so there's less funding which in turn prevents improving those services. My local public transportation is a bus that isn't on time and if missed will take half an hour for the next bus AND it'll take an hour to get to work that's 18 minutes away by car. This service isn't improved due to lack of riders. So I drive because public transportation is not dependable, it's not dependable because everyone drives.
Self driving cars are dependable and far cheaper than buses or trains. Cities can make them part of their public transportation system to reduce congestion and better integrate them into city planning. When people are willing to give up their driving, they'll be more willing to use public transportation and even walking and cycling. However, to get there we need to break the cycle we're in.
Edit: Just like to add, trains could be greatly improved. If they were faster than cars with more departure times, we'd be using them for travel between cities. As it is, they're slower than cars and at least mine has 2 departure times at times that are not convenient.
Agree with most of your points, but self-driving cars are most definitely NOT cheaper than trains or buses. Perhaps if you compare them 1-to-1, but when you start considering operating at scale...
Agree with most of your points, but self-driving cars are most definitely NOT cheaper than trains or buses. Perhaps if you compare them 1-to-1, but when you start considering operating at scale (say, even a small volume like 1000 people) self-driving cars become completely unaffordable and don't scale physically, either.
I suspect a lot of smaller cities will make this exact mistake in the coming decade, only to bankrupt themselves on maintenance costs. And then of course we'll lose even more services and beg the federal government to bail them out, just like we see today with sprawling sewer/water/gas services to unsustainable suburbs.
Most American cities would need much more than Utrecht's overhaul to become some walkable utopia. They are so spread out that they would really need to be completely redesigned and rebuilt from...
Most American cities would need much more than Utrecht's overhaul to become some walkable utopia. They are so spread out that they would really need to be completely redesigned and rebuilt from the ground up, if we want mixed-use neighborhoods. As it is, most people generally have to get in the car to get to any grocery store, restaurant, bar, theater, etc. at all. (Not to mention visiting each other's homes.) An aggressive public transit overhaul could probably help with some of this, but I'm not really sure it can be designed in any efficient fashion for most cities. There would be so much route transferring to get to any destination outside of the major commercial areas.
I have a disabled relative. I provide a lot of transportation for them. The medical destinations alone are spread out across the city, and while these destinations are in small commercial zones, they aren't in the major commercial zones. Not to mention, my relative actually needs to spend as little time in a sitting position as possible. While I appreciated the many shots of Utrecht's flat, curbless, accessible streets (although a few inaccessible areas did not escape my notice), a leisurely roll down those streets in a wheelchair or power chair would be excruciating for my relative. Public transit would be a nightmare. A car is the only option.
Ok, but accommodations are provided for vehicles for disabled folks, the video said. I'm dubious. I hope that system works out well, but many disabled accommodations are something added almost as an afterthought. Most people don't use them, so most people don't want to see them or have them in their way. Many accommodations are almost good enough, but in reality are a complicated pain in the ass.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was a major mistake for our cities to be designed around cars and suburbia, and we'll probably be paying for that mistake for centuries to come. I would love to support any initiative that would create safer roads, more options for pedestrians and cyclists, more thriving local neighborhoods with real communities. I think there are a lot of good points in the video about the possible dangers of trusting the future to auto-driving vehicles and the corporations that make them. (I'm still not sure I would ever trust an AV enough to get in one, personally. Edge cases are rare until they happen to you.) But the solution he paints, while not simple or cheap, is (for American cities) still far more complex and costly than he makes it out to be.
They do, I am not denying that. At the same time, for the Netherlands, it also has been a long road. Some of the groundwork of reversing the car centric direction was put in motion in the 70s. A...
Most American cities would need much more than Utrecht's overhaul to become some walkable utopia.
They do, I am not denying that. At the same time, for the Netherlands, it also has been a long road. Some of the groundwork of reversing the car centric direction was put in motion in the 70s. A bit more background in a previous comment I wrote on a similar topic and in some ways is still ongoing.
Most of it did not include massive projects like paving over a canal. But simply policies that if a street needs maintenance they are not simply repaved but brought up to the newest standards, which includes things like accounting for other modes of transport. So a lot of the infrastructure simply got better over time as part of the street maintenance schedule.
You also mention transferring a lot to reach destinations with public transport. Which is annoying, but also not that big of a deal if the frequency of both connecting lines is high enough.
Ok, but accommodations are provided for vehicles for disabled folks, the video said.
Building access in the US is often much better, from what I understood that's one area the Netherlands can do better for sure.
Having said that, alternatives modes of transport for disabled people is fairly accessible here. Buses do have ramps for wheelchairs, newer trains have accessible level floors from the platforms (and for older ones the train companies are required to provide a ramp when someone with a wheelchair needs them).
For the specific condition your relative has, those options likely will not help. But for a lot of other disabled people, getting around by other means than a car is certainly an option.
Although I have seen people on powered wheelchairs that effectively are more of a bed. These people often make use of the bicycle lanes and sidewalks for shorter trips. I am not going to pretend to know enough about the condition of your relative to claim that this would also work for them. But, I did want to include it as an example, as it did come to mind.
As far as medical destinations go, they will have parking. It isn't as if we don't have cars anymore, and disabled parking is always the closest to the entrance.
Which is also an important point, cars are still very much an option in the Netherlands. It isn't as if we have traded in one mode of transport over the other, it is more that we have a wider variety of choices available to us. Which also means that for a lot of people, a car isn't the absolute necessity it is for the majority of people living in the US. I do own a car now, but I didn't have a driver's license until my late 20s.
Really glad Jason made this video. He combines a lot of thoughts I already had on the subject of self-driving cars to paint an honestly pretty likely (IMO) picture of the near future.
TL;DR self-driving cars are, to cars, as cars were to horse-drawn carriages and walking. Given the deep-pocketed financial interests, self-driving car companies will completely take over our infrastructure and we should expect other forms of transportation to be sidelined just like walking, public transit, and cycling are now in the USA.
My favourite argument is perhaps the simplest, though: what's the point? Self-driving cars are just driverless taxis. If taxis are so great, why don't we all just pay them for every trip today? Probably a combination of 'i don't like dealing with a driver all the time' and 'it's really expensive.' Given what we've seen tech companies do over the last 20 years, you'd be insane to believe that tech companies will keep self-driving vehicles affordable in the long term, either for per-trip rental or for ownership. There is simply too much money to be made once everyone is dependent on your product.
We're very likely to see the classic tech monopolist pump-and-dump strategy in this space, like Uber, Lyft, and scooter rental companies tried before:
Mix in the fact that self-driving cars can 'increase efficiency' if we remove analog cars, pedestrians, bikes, streetlights, and speed limits, and you have something very similar to the USA's notorious 20th-century city-destroying highways.
But there is hope. A lot of European cities are already walkable, bikeable, and safe, with great public transit. Self-driving cars will always be more expensive and more dangerous than these multimodal cities. A lot of these countries and cities already have emissions rules, speed limits, and safety regulations that seriously curb car usage in city centres. Hell, a lot of american trucks and SUVs are illegal on sane countries' roads. So we just have to hope that some pockets of sanity will persevere. I can't imagine London, Paris, Amsterdam, or Berlin backpedaling their current stance on cars in cities. So hopefully self-driving will simply never make inroads in those places.
In 20 years, when self-driving cars have taken over the USA and made life even more isolating and expensive, maybe Americans will finally start to rethink our car-centric infrastructure. Maybe.
I'm not going to watch the video, but I'll point out a reason why driverless cars mix better with pedestrians and cyclists than the more normal kind: safety. Just about everyone with experience with them finds them safer, since you can trust them not to drive aggressively. (Unlike taxi drivers.)
They also combine well with taking public transportation part of the way. (Much like taxis have always worked pretty well with airports.)
We use a mix of different kinds of transportation to get around, and I expect that to continue, hopefully more harmoniously with driverless cars in the mix. And if costs for rides comes down and service regions expand, then people who don't drive might have easier access to more places than they would otherwise.
Agreed in some ways: a driverless car doesn't get road rage, doesn't roll coal, doesn't get distracted by texting, a phone call, or social media, and makes the occupant a lot less likely to shout profanities out the window just because I'm riding a bike or crossing the road. That's all very good!
Of course, driverless cars are just software-driven machines. The software has bugs, and design constraints, and bad QA, and sensors that don't always work perfectly. I'm glad that that software is less likely to kill me, but we still need to hold the companies producing this software to a very high standard of safety, especially for people outside the vehicle who are just trying to exist and haven't signed any legal agreement with the company building the car or software.
Because this software is produced by trillion-dollar companies, they should be held to the absolute highest standard. Every time a self-driving car hurts or kills someone or damages something, there should be a thorough, objective investigation, and obligatory hefty reimbursement (millions of dollars) for the effected, involuntary test subjects. (also known as 'human beings who happen to exist on the same planet where these trillion dollar companies deploy self-driving cars, and have no say in the safety trade-offs in the software that runs those cars').
I don't think self-driving is necessarily all doom and gloom -- personally, I'm hoping that by eliminating car ownership in a lot of parts of the USA, they can actually help us improve walkability and bikeability -- but we should be wary of enshittification, like what has happened with Uber and Lyft. Relying on the profit-seeking whims of trillion dollar companies just to leave your property is a very dangerous prospect; just ask anyone who's ever tried to live in the USA without a car!
For now at least, I think Waymo is getting held to very high standards. Also, for better or worse, everything is recorded and every incident can be investigated. This looks like it's going to be like air travel in the sense that many problems can be fixed and stay fixed - though with major differences with how the cars interact with people on the street.
Oh man, I just realized someone is eventually gonna create an "anti-woke" self-driving F-350 service and do exactly this.
hmm given LLMs experience SAD I'm not sure that I believe this
No, LLM’s don’t experience anything. The article you link to shows that they can use all their inputs in surprising ways, including the current date. This can be quite annoying if you’re hoping for consistency.
But it’s still just pattern matching. The “character” you’re chatting with doesn’t even exist as anything other than words in the chat transcript, except briefly when the server generates a response after you hit “send.” At all other times, the servers in the data center are busy serving other customers.
Also, Waymo has been working on driverless cars since long before LLM’s became a thing and we don’t know if they use LLM’s at all in production. (I did see a research paper from them, but it seemed pretty limited, not using the Lidar at all.)
You are taking my point way too literally. What I am saying is: The moment a driverless car uses any type* of ML trained on human data, yes it will demonstrate behavior similar to its training set, even if that set includes instances of road rage.
I suppose it’s possible, but perhaps they will be more careful about what they put in the training set?
The reason that I used SAD as an analogy is that no one expected that to have an effect and there was zero way to be prepared for this issue ahead of time. Sure maybe we can avoid some obvious influences, but what if a prevalence of red cars turns out to slightly increase aggressive driving (this is a fake example to represent "some unknown unknown")
Well, they test pretty extensively. Big effects would likely be noticed in simulation. If it’s a slight effect then I guess they fix it when they notice it? It doesn’t seem likely to be worse than the large variations we see with human drivers.
It depends on company culture, though. Airlines try to cut costs in various ways, but not on safety as they run the risk of being grounded. Similarly for driverless cars. Look what happened to Cruise. They’ll be back, but they had a big, expensive setback.
I have more concerns about Tesla doing something rash.
Nobody asked for them either.
What people want are zero pollution ( or best as we can get ) vehicles with sustainable and cheap energy sources.
I want a self driving car, that’s the dream man
On a more serious note I do think that self driving cars could help curb pollution. They can be programmed to minimize wasted energy which would have a positive impact if a majority of drivers used self driving cars.
They can, but will they be programmed like that? The video touches on some fairly important points of the potential can of worms these car open up here. For example, no parking? No problem! We will just let the car circle around the block while we are shopping.
The video really is worth watching because it touches on a lot of these points and more. Things like the promises of better road safety, the actual state of self driving (how often human remote drivers need to step in), etc, etc.
Depending on where and when people might actually let the car circle because it's cheaper than parking.
I am not sure what you are trying to say? That this specific example isn't going to happen everywhere? Sure, but it was just one of many examples I could have given as to why the word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Which is also why I recommend people watch the video for the entire context ;)
I'm trying to say that people might let their car circulate to save money, not because they're blocked from parking, meaning an even bigger impact on the environment. I'm currently just on a quick break from work, but I might watch the video later.
Oh, my bad I completely read over the cheaper bit. Yeah, that also might be the case.
Minimized compared to what? To buses, subways or a bike? I can imagine scenarios with shared* cars/vans/buses that function as buses do now, but with dynamic destinations. Is it something like that we're talking about here, or is everyone still expected to own their own car?
*shared as in that several people that ordered their trip separetely sit in them at the same time.
That's what I've always imagined them eventually becoming: mini buses with dynamic routes and stops. You just hail an autonomous mini-bus by app, it lets you know when to come outside 2 minutes before, and you hop in. It'll then pick up and drop off several people, but eventually drops you off at the doorsteps of your destination.
The thing about the current state of public transit is that unless you're an affluent professional and live in a desirable area that's within walking distance of a main line that goes straight to the central business district, the public transit experience is tedious, uncomfortable series of disjointed bus and train routes with awkward walks and long, boring waits in between segments.
It's certainly what I'm hoping for, but i don't feel confident that that's what will actually happen. People like to own things and to customize them, etc. Otoh, as you just shown me, I'm not alone with this vision :)
Why is that the dream?
I want someplace where I can just walk, bike, or take public transit wherever I want to go. The environmental impact is far less and I actually enjoy moving myself around in the world. Not to mention the health benefits of even low-intensity exercise like walking daily.
Why would you dream of sitting in a self-driving vehicle, alone, for a cost similar per-mile to modern taxis and app-taxis for hours?
I don't want or trust a self driving car, but I can see the appeal of a true autonomous vehicle for my commute - which does not have a public transport option - I could read a book, or do whatever. If there was public transportation I may or may not be able to take it, because sometimes I have to get home quickly due to my partner's medical stuff. And a taxi isn't cost efficient at all compared even to private vehicles
I could dream away a lot of stuff (move my house closer to work, remove my partner's disability), but I don't think it's hard to imagine why it'd be nice to hop in the car and not have to focus on driving.
I think it is fair to say that there are specific situations where someone might still want a car and by extension a self driving car. So I don't want to discredit what you have said here, because these are valid reasons.
What I do want to provide is a bit of perspective from someone living in a country with good public infrastructure and generally better holistic infrastructure (as opposed to car centric infrastructure). For some people, even here, having a car is still the better option. I want to have that out of the way because I don't want to paint a prettier picture than reality.
But for a lot of people, a lot of the travel they do is quicker or as quick taking public transport. Even over longer distances. On many tracks between cities and towns trains go every hour and sometimes even every 15 minutes.
As a real example, my mother had a medical emergency and has been in a hospital one city over. Walking out of the door, to a bus, taking the train and then a bus to that hospital takes roughly 40-50 minutes. It is quicker if I take my bike to the station and take a so called OV-bike (public transport bike, rental bikes available at each station) at the other station
In theory by car it takes 30 minutes, in practice it is always longer and in rush hour it often takes at least an hour.
If there had been no regular train service between these two cities, I am sure the travel time by car would be even longer, given the sheer number of people using the train.
Last week, she was transferred to the local hospital. Which is always 15 minutes by bike and by car anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the time of day.
Again, this isn't the case for everyone everywhere in the country. There are areas where public transport is less frequent and not as efficient. But overall public transport and other modes of transport are actually an option and in a lot of cases a better option than cars.
It is a perspective many people from the US don't have, as they never got to experience it. Or if they have experienced it, mostly as a tourist.
But it is from that perspective that a lot of people from outside the US are weary of self-driving cars. Something the video also touches on but a bit late in the video.
Edit:
I feel like I should also clarify that for some journeys above I opted to take the car. Simply because it did happen to work out better, or for other reasons. So I am really not advocating for doing away with cars entirely, I am just trying to provide a perspective of where cars are less often the only option and effectively mandatory.
In fact, I did not opt to get my driver's license until I was in my late 20s. Simply because I easily could get by without a car 98% of the time.
I understand what you're saying entirely. I just wanted to give the perspective of why it's "the dream" for folks that don't have that infrastructure. Our rush hour here adds 5 minutes to my commute, not 30+, but it's too far for the bike, is half (time wise) on a state highway, and half in town, and if I had to drive 10 min to the bus stop (without park and rides) I might as well drive the rest of the way. And so on.
I fully get why this isn't the case for folks in denser urban areas here, or in other countries. Unfortunately when I've visited, say Chicago, where there are folks that never drive, it's far too inaccessible for my partner for me to consider it a place I could live. That's not just transportation; it's sidewalk infrastructure and old buildings, but yeah.
I fully understand that for more rural US cars likely will remain to be necessary even if public transport improved. At the same time you mention this:
That's sort of what I mean when talking about frame of reference. Like, yeah there are people in Chicago who don't drive, but it is much more difficult there than it is compared to cities around here. Isn't the dream in this context not just self-driving cars, but an actual human friendly city where cars are an actual viable option and not an absolute necessity?
Depends on how deep I'm dreaming? The idea of a self driving car (which again I'm not actually woo about) addresses several of my existing tangible problems. Changing Chicago doesn't, because I don't live there. Redesigning the city I work in doesn't, because I don't live there anymore.
Yeah if I'm thinking big picture that is how I want cities designed, and I vote accordingly. But it would do very little to help me and my partner right now. I couldn't afford to sell our house and move again even if that sort of change were immediate.
Old sidewalks, old buildings, all of that isn't going to change immediately if ever. Universal design doesn't get put into effect in older buildings much.
Dream even deeper and we're curing spinal cords so ya know I aim realistic.
Sorry, I forgot to reply yesterday and I feel that I should have.
I totally understand, certainly given the personal circumstances you include there.
Sure, and self driving cars are one way to bridge the gap between reality and the “dream”.
I saw your other comment, so I am assuming you are referring to your SF experience? If that is the case, I can't help but wonder, wouldn't you have taken an Uber or regular taxi instead? I am still not sure how the self-driving aspect fills a gap that is not currently being filled?
In the rural context I was talking about with DefinitelyNotAFae I can understand the value add of a self driving car. The distances are longer, public transport connecting to all remote areas is less likely. So there I can see that owning such a vehicle adds value as it means people can travel these distances without having to be behind the wheel.
But as taxis, I really don't see what they would actually be replacing that isn't already there? If Waymo taxis are cheaper, I can see it being enticing, but that isn't because they are actually cheaper to operate. They are only cheap because they are subsidized heavily. Given that billions have been thrown into the development of these technologies, I am fairly confident in saying that at some point the prices will be raised substantially.
I am also fairly confident that companies like Waymo will wait until they have starved out as much competition as possible.
At which point the situation will not really have changed other than that there are no people behind the wheel.
The three reasons is one, that human drivers have a lot of issues from the user experience that means I’d rather not take short trips. Uber drivers in SF love to cancel short trips, which can turn 10 minute Ubers into 40 minute ordeals with you waiting on the curb.
There’s also a lot of variance with shitty drivers, shitty people, shitty interiors.
Secondly, is that if you look at Uber’s balance sheet, the cost for drivers is absolutely a massive part of the price. As self driving becomes more commoditized, it will absolutely go down, simply because it will make companies more money.
Third, it allows for an all EV fleet in a way that Uber never will. You can get economies of scale that hundreds of drivers going to gas stations won’t.
I get what you are saying, as far as the trip time and reliability goes, I did not consider those aspects and those are both valid points.
As far as price goes, I don't share your optimism there. As I said, billions have been thrown at solving this problem, so companies will first want to see a return on investment. Then they will try to extract as much profit as they can get away with. Given that these are the same tech companies offering a lot of digital services, I think looking at the price development there is a good indicator. Historically, prices of services these companies provide have not gone up, in fact they have been going up more than anything and often out of step with actual rise in costs.
I am not sure if I am following you here. There is nothing about self-driving cars that makes them EVs specifically, and there is no reason why human driven taxi fleets can't switch to EVs either.
Pricing is ultimately down to supply and demand and the dynamics of those curves. If nothing else, the price of robo-taxis is realistically ceiling by the current prices for uber - since if it’s much more expensive, it wouldn’t really be market viable. There’s a lot of tech that has gone much cheaper over time.
What makes it viable for EVs is that you don’t have individual drivers with individual motivations. It’s not economical for uber drivers to spend hours at a charging lot, they want to do things. Gas is much more energy dense and refills are instant. A computer doesn’t make choices about what car it wants, or how it’s wasting time. You think at the aggregate.
If Uber is still around by that time, though. Same with taxi companies in general. If they have been driven out of business, they will not suddenly pop back in existence when the slow price hikes of robo-taxis start. Supply and demand only works if there are multiple parties who have actually supply and can act on that demand.
For Uber this is true, given their business model. I was more or less thinking about more traditional taxi companies who can pretty much do the same thing as they can let drivers pick up a charged taxi whenever their current one is about to run out of juice.
Then again, I guess it is safe to assume there are no real taxi companies around anymore in SF as they have been displaced by Uber? Given how aggressively, the Uber prices were/are largely subsidized by venture capital and SF being tech central.
In a city with a good public transit system, taking it is often quicker than going by car.
I'm aware, but that's completely unrelated to my comment. So I don't understand what your intent was with this reply.
There is an impression, especially in the US, that public transit is always slower than driving. For many US cities, that is true, but that does not have to be the case.
You said in your comment that you might have to get home from work quickly because of your wife’s medical issues, which is a completely understandable reason (I hope she is okay!). When I read your comment, I got the impression that you were falling into the thought process that the only way to get home quickly would be to drive, whether with a traditional vehicle or autonomous. I was simply trying to clarify that this is not always true. I am sorry if my misunderstanding of your feelings upset you. That was not my intention.
I'm not upset, just was genuinely confused about the response.
Yeah my partner's medical things have been going better. He and I aren't married because of Medicaid, and alas, I have no wife on the side either despite my non-mongamy. But when he has a medical emergency, I need to get home as soon as possible. I used to live on campus which meant that trip was five minutes - by bus would have been longer. But now it's further.
I specifically mentioned that there's no public transport option between my work and home. I don't live in a large enough city for there to be enough rush hour traffic to make busses faster than cars. My incoming and outgoing commute are 20-25 minutes, with the first 10 into town being highway travel, and the last 10 being in town driving. I know the bus routes aren't faster because I pass them on my way through.
Even so, we have a decent bus system in the small city (no fare, and small busses/vans to help people get to stops in underserved neighborhoods) and if I lived in town I'd try to find a way to walk to work, bike, or take transit as long as my partner's health held.
But there's no transit back to my small town, and I don't know that I'd take it if there was given how my trip home is often a grocery run/pharmacy stop/etc.
As I say in another comment, my point was why this can be "the dream" for folks, because it's more realistic and immediately problem solving than the larger scale systemic reworking of cities.
Sorry about assuming your partner’s gender and status as well. I try to not do that, so I hope you can forgive me. Thanks for the more detailed explanation.
No worries, I'm queer but I'm not a lesbian and some folks assume partner means only one type of thing. I'm used to everyone using it for every relationship but higher ed be like that.
Zero judgement from me
I do not want a self driving car. I like driving.
I want everyone else to have a self driving car so I don't have to deal with them drifting in my lane while texting.
Actually, I want everyone on the bus. Me included, I'd like to play my Gameboy.
a self-driving bus/tram/train/monorail would be the best outcome for everyone!
Literally millions of people have asked for them.
Also, there's no reason why this wouldn't be possible with self driving cars. They're mostly electric already anyway.
Edit: watching through the video now. I'm usually a fan of Not Just Bikes, but this one feels very weird to me. I agree with a lot of the points he makes but he also just seems to be countering "nebulous claims of improvement" with just as nebulous claims of detrimental effects.
This felt far more like an opinion piece than his regular content and I found myself saying "how could you possibly know that" multiple times so far. So many bizarre doomer assertions that every single positive claimed by self driving car proponents will actually be the exact opposite with the source being "bad things have happened in the past" at best and "trust me bro" at worst. (There are a few real sources scattered throughout the video, but nothing for his most damning claims.)
I also found a lot of the things he was saying to be self contradictory, like how self driving cars won't end up being cheaper than Ubers because companies will charge as much as possible, pointing out how Ubers are so expensive now because of corporate greed (but uber wasnt even profitable until this year and still spends the vast majority of their proceeds on paying drivers) and then in the very next point he goes on to say that when self driving cars become popular they'll increase congestion because everyone will be taking them for any trip because they're so cheap and accessible. And then he says that there's no way people will want to use their personal car to earn money on the side as a robo taxi because people don't want their car smelling like a taxi, but who is he speaking for?? If I had the option to rent out my car for potentially hundreds of dollars a day while I worked or slept I would sure as hell do it, then clean my car every now and then if I needed to. Not to mention Uber already pretty much made this a non-issue by charging users who make a mess in their cars a ridiculous cleaning fee.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on my nitpicks with this video and it's really disappointing. I appreciate the message and the cautiousness when approaching a self driving future, but this felt like a hit piece disguised as a factual video.
This is regular for NJB and one of the reasons I stopped watching him. Most of his videos are 50% opinion, 10% actual information, the rest is about how North America sucks, how he lives in Amsterdam and how great it is.
It's fine, I get it. I agree with the general philosophy but the man himself is tedious, especially in comparison to someone like CityNerd.
I honestly think his whole channel could be summed up in a couple of videos. They’d be nice videos. But it’s just a broken record at this point.
I am sometimes surprised the Fake London bit hasn't been prerecorded and simply pasted in when needed as a minute long repeating gag.
I thought this video was interesting. It's both kinda not his style (The amount of seemingly custom done 3D animation is impressive, and the random dips into what seems like doomer hyperbole are not really his thing) but also a very NJB video (Fake London bit, Amsterdam, so on).
It's gotten me interested in looking into self driving cars more, at least - I didn't even know they were already active outside of like, closed tests and beta programs and whatnot.
The video makes a great point that tire and road debris are a significant source of emissions from heavy electric vehicles. Not to mention the emissions produced during manufacturing. The only zero emission vehicle is your feet, and analog bicycles are nearly zero emission. Electric trains amortise down to similar levels because they carry thousands of people simultaneously.
A single occupant personal car literally cannot be zero emission given current technological constraints.
I mean if you want to get nitpicky to that level, humans aren't zero emissions either, I'm breathing out a lot of CO2 right now just for fun.
I get your point, but I also think the point I was trying to make was clear; self driving EVs have the chance to be significantly less environmentally impactful than the current cars were driving today.
Is there a good chance that they'll end up being nearly as bad? Maybe. But I'm optimistic that with the massive improvements we've seen to battery technology in just the last few years that the "heavy EV make more tire pollution" problem will be a thing of the past once batteries are slimmed down. Solid state batteries which are already here and in production today are twice as energy dense as current LION batteries which is a massive improvement. I believe that since quite literally trillions of dollars is flowing into the electrification market, we're only just beginning to see what can happen with things like EVs.
Would I love to live in a future where public transportation and bikes are much more accessible and popular? Of course. I ride a bike to nearly every local destination I can, even when it's not very convenient or safe to do so. I get stressed out driving and don't enjoy it at all, I love my bikes and would love to get more use out of them.
But I'm also not stupid and know that it's very unlikely to see a future where the car is eliminated or even massively reduced for most America cities and towns. The suburban sprawl is only accelerating and with thousands of new developments going up around the country, those places will be car-locked for decades to come.
That's nonsense, tons of people asked for them. A lot of people who were invested in the idea no longer want them for a myriad of reasons, but the concept is super agreeable. Much like flying cars, it's a science fiction concept of an easier, more convenient society. Some real Jetsons stuff.
Walkable neighborhoods, and sophisticated mass transit systems are the results of a realistic approach to a sustainable future, but those ideas where not the cultural default to what people imagine the future to look like.
I used to want one, desperately, before I had ever lived anyplace walkable. Now that I live in a walkable city I'll be absolutely crushed (hopefully not literally) if self-driving cars show up here and the infrastructure is in any way altered for them, or they drive like Americans.
You're giving American drivers way too much credit.
Sadly, I don't see my city becoming walkable before I eventually become unable to walk independently, so this is the 3rd best stop gap to hope for.
I'm taking the video at its word that due to the fact that self-driving cars are trained in America, they will drive like Americans - specifically they will drive as though they are the default and most important form of transportation.
You could, theoretically, move to a walkable city, but I understand that's unfeasible for a lot of people, especially if you want to stay in America.
Oh, I was mostly joking. Self driving cars will be much safer than the average American freeway.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but if be very surprised if AI was being trained that way. There's simply no need to. They have the signaling and response times to drive more efficiently and safely if they can assume 90+% of other drivers are self-driving. So they won't cause traffic jams and can un-jam in ways impossible for a human. They can probably drive much faster as well so they'd be much more trustworthy at 80+ MPH than a human. And it minimizes lawsuits if they just drive in sane ways.
I theoretically could. But most my family is active military, so I don't think they can just leave the country as easily as I can.
The city situation is even more dire, especially as more of my industry is going backwards in progress and making people return to office. Maybe that'll sort itself out in a decade, but it's a bumpy labor road right now.
Sure, but my town is already much, much, much safer than the average American freeway, and American roadways in general. It could become a lot more dangerous and still be safer for pedestrians than the vast majority of America. I don't want it to get more dangerous at all.
For the sake of conversational clarity, did you watch the video? A lot of your comment is addressed by it, and you don't seem to be rebutting any of the points in it, just restating things that it addressed. It's okay if you didn't, but the video addresses your points better than I can, so I'll consider myself to be doing you a disservice if I try to paraphrase it here. If you're interested in the topic and time is an issue, I watched it on double speed while cleaning my house and I don't feel I missed much by not catching most of the visuals.
I 100% believe that.
It could, but I'm doubtful.
I did watch the video earlier before it was posted. But I've watched other videos as well on the topic of self driving cars and saw that section on safety as overly pessimistic, while dismissing the good points as "not enough". Enemy of good enough and all.
There's just a lot of things a bot driven car will do (and not do. Like road raging) and this interpretation acts like it's copy-pasting existing driver data and trying to pretend to be a genuine human like other sectors of AI. This is one of the places where we can entirely re-design the idea of navigation, and have done so with other kinds of non-commercial vehicles. What specific parts of my comment worried you?
What makes you say that?
I suppose it's what's not in your comment that I find troubling. You mention the cars going much faster and don't address the video's points about the (non-accident related) problems that can cause. You also don't address any of the other issues of induced demand. Potential infrastructure changes, the problems that car companies will be able to cause if they're allowed to get their way as they have in the past. Things like that.
well I explained it already from multiple angles (legal, logistical, physical).
Because I was focused on safety. I don't think self driving revolution is some objective good. But I do think safety will see the highest improvement.
But if you want my full response point by point:
Point by Point response
moving fast and breaking people: yes. The tech is very much not ready now. There are levels of self-driving and I don't even think any car right now is rated for Level 3 (which is still "the driver needs to be ready to take the wheel). It should be outright illegal for anyone to advertise as such and I trust no self driving as of now. My above comments are mostly mosly talking decades later when level 5 (our sci-fi future "full self driving" utopia is possible and viable. A stage where we could ramp to that 90+% self driving level.
Fatal Uber Crash: Sensors are not perfect no. Neither are human sensors. But overall there's more failsafes for a bad automatic sensor, like halting the car and requireing manual conrol. And that incident is pretty much why Uber pretty much gave up on that early to market dream of the (once again, falsely adversited) self driving car. At least the system works sometimes, it's just sad that oftetimes blood must be spilt before we hit that point.
The Real problem: Yes, US roads are very much not walkable. Nothing new with humans, nothing that will get aggressively worse with AI unless we vote for it. And I'm cynical enough to suggest we will. This feels like an example of just "giving what the people want" and I don't think the tech behind it is the driving force.
Promoting car-centric cities (AKA "easy mode"). It's a big reason that current self-driving modes are barely level 2 and nowhere close to 3, yes. if we're ever going to hit level 5 decades later, this problem will solve itself. Or we rule it impossible and give up on the dream (super doubtful, but anything can be driven by money, even decisions not to revolutionize the world). This section also brings up the "drive like americans" point I addressed above
Cheaper Taxis. I'm pretty much in full agreement here. The moment it's stable (which some would argue is now, with Waymo. I disagree) We're going to enshittify this 10 years later. "it's cheaper" is always the foot in the door, and the end goal is always worse off for the consumer in modern business monetization. This will absolutely not make private transport cheaper. Public transport... one can dream.
Traffic congestion: Now this is a point I disagree with quite a bit, and I understand his angle of history. Human history.
A great counterargument here is CPG Grey's video about how congestion begins, and how it ripples on miles down, and hours after the congestion is long gone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE
You're free to disagree, but that video shows there's a lot of inefficiencies in how humans hog the road, a lot of phenomenon that isn't anyone's fault but is surprisingly easy to fix individually, and things humans do that AI can do better.
It won't maically solve congestion as a concept without major enhancements to how we think about a car. If there's too many cars to safely respond to you'll be stuck. But it can defintely optimize much of it away. And note, this is still assuming a 90+% self driving environment. It's again, completely false advertising to think you can add 3 good drivers on a current day freeway and fix the behavior of 100 bad ones.
Always follow the money. If there's no financial incentive nor regulation to achieve that promise from a businessman, it's probably a lie. they will always do "just enough" and not a penny more.
"How AVs will destroy cities" and " Eliminating public transit": yeah, that's all probably what's going to happen. I agree with all his points. But I ask the same question as above: "is this something that's considered a universal bad thing amongst the people"? It's not a foreign idea to have restricted lanes for various purpses, so it's not going to be mass protested amongst manual drivers during the transition to an AV-centric road.
"Eliminating pedestrians": I will admit that "Jaywalking 2" was never a concept that crossed my mind before this video, so kudos for the imagery.
This is an admittedly odd one, though. I 100% do think these self-driving companies will try this card, but we reeled this in long ago as well. You'd need to be jaywalking with a reckless abandon to actually be cited one in the majority of states. Whether or not people will play that fast and loose is up in the air in my eyes (it IS still a multi-ton metal death trap with a whole bunch of momentum. I don't care how "safe" they are, I'll treat it like a human driver and look both ways). And I think by the time we get to that point, tech will have long run out of "it's just an app, bro" as a defense mechanism. They are using the last of that excuse as we speak with LLM's.
I can see this going either extreme though. So I'll at least grant this as food for thought.
"Eliminating speed limits": I'll be frank, we aren't eliminating speed limits. Those are set not just for human reactions but for the laws of physics. AV's can probably make a 20mph bend at 60mph, but the margin of error at that speed s so minuscule that no sane person would allow it. Same for city streets. There's a better chance they try to remove the sidewalks and make certain places road only then there would allowing AV's to go 70 on a 30mph business road. They will probably raise in some places, but not dramatically so.
"Pollution and noise": I'll emphasize that I 100% agree that FEV's don't magically save the environment. If nothing else that should be a narrative we unlearn from the advertising.
Now with that said: I do feel like this is another "enemy of good enough" problem. There will still be some environmental impact, but is the issue with wheels and roads and toxins really so bad to balance out as being as bad as ICE cars? (I'm genuinly asking. I don't think so, but I haven't researched deeply into it). is the tire noise from fast cars worse than a revving ICE?
It's not the best solution, but it's a better one that will actually get populist opinions from current americans. I think. (again, I can be very off base).
Eliminating traffic lights: the CPG Grey video also touched on this, optimistically. But honestly, these are one of the ideas that's cool to show off for a simulation but makes less sense the more you think about it. We don't need to eliminate traffic lights, we have freeways for that. We don't need to take down traffic lights anyway, it's much cheaper and safer to re-work them to assist with AV signaling. We don't need to remove crosswalks, make them better with a guarantee people will actually stop when you push it and you get a safe go ahead.
"Do we actually need AVs?' and "Utrecht vs Fake London" This is another core issue I see when people argue walkable cities in the EU and want to apply them in the US. It's very inspiring that Utrecht could turn direction so fast and shift to a walkable city. But it's a different city in a different country with a different culture, and also some 10 times smaller than Los Angeles with 3% of the population. This actually makes LA much denser, but there's just so much dang land here. It's hard to be truly "walkable" when your city spans some 40 mile radius as opposed to 10.
None of that is an excuse to not try, but i hope it helps understand the multiple reasons why it's much harder to pass this stuff on a vote compared to he EU. It's a much steeper hill to climb than "see the EU can do it".
Yeah, that was about as long as I expected. I'll at least take the last action plan section here
-Fewer cars in cities, tear down freeways: I have zero confidence this will ever occur in a major US city. There so much fervor over making more freeways (even though this is an expensive band-aid fix to core traffic problems).
Needless to say this will be vehemently rejected by pretty much everyone. introducing a tax for a previously tax free activity never ends civil. It'll really depend on if the city holds firm or not. I'm ambivalent.
well I hope that clarifies everything. I ended up watching the video 3 times total so I hope there's no questioning my response this time. Overall: I agree with a lot in spirit, disagree with a few things because I feel they were not sufficiently explained (there's a huge assumption that walk-able cities are a universally accepted ideal to strive for. I'm sure it is for his audience, but not the populace at large), and feel much more cynical that many plans proposed can just pass through with current politics, amongst the represenatives and the people in the US.
I think given last week we should be very careful of assuming Americans will vote in their best interests.
I didn't see that. Was it in this thread?
I didn't mean to ask you to watch the video multiple times and respond point by point. A much less granular discussion would have been just fine. Since you have though, I owe you a respinse to your response.
Some context that you couldn't possibly know, I don't live in the US. I'm a recent immigrant to Sweden. So i can't vote on anything that happens in the town or country that I live in just yet. I do worry about whether or not AVs and infrastructure changes would be popular here. It's a very techy area with some nearby suburbs, I could see it being popular. That seems quite negative to me.
Those seem like mostly bad things to me. Being able to live far away from work is enjoyable to the individuals that can use it, but this means more sprawl, more car usage generally which means more pollution, and higher property values which means things become less affordable. I don't want any of those things, I want my walkable, affordable city.
It's considered a universal bad thing among me, who was the person complaining and worrying. I don't really care if other people like it when my town gets worse?
Cars don't have to be autonomous to be electric. Being autonomous is not a proven part of reducing environmental impact. It is quite likely to reduce the usage of public transport and bikes and good old fashioned legs, though, which I consider to be a significant negative.
I don't really see anything here that alleviates my concerns? I feel like we're having cery separate conversations. I'm sorry you felt you had to spend all this time and I didn't have much to give back, but that's where we are.
I want self driving cars. I ride them quite often when I’m in SF. They’re nice.
This is completely untrue. True self-driving where the passenger can do something else while getting transported directly to their desired location is a huge desire for anyone who would rather spend their time doing something else other than drive. I'd wager that millions of people want this feature. It's just a matter of reliability and cost.
Something a lot of people gloss over is that under that statement of "nobody wants them" is a dislike for the car centric nature of the US. Of course people who now have to suffer car dependent infrastructure want better cars. But ultimately it would still be very much car centric infrastructure with little place for pedestrians, cyclists and few alternative options due to lacking public transport.
So I read that statement as "I rather have better overall infrastructure first".
Sadly, the environment is meanwhile a partisan issue. I can't say the same for self driving cars.
I've wanted self driving cards since I was a kid, because I'm legally blind and will never be able to drive.
That being said, the video makes some good points and I could likely get around just fine independently if we had actually good public transportation and walkable areas.
The one thing I don't think it really touches on though is rural areas. If I have a friend who lives in a rural area outside the city, what is the incentive for the county/city to create public transit routes to that area for the handful of people that would use it?
You are not saying it directly, but I feel you are asking "why should they create routes that will not turn a profit". Which is a bit of a fallacy considering that in rural areas there are also well maintained roads that are effectively never going to return a profit. Yet for roads it is a given that the US keeps investing money in building and maintaining them even though they never directly turn a profit.
Public transport should be created to benefit areas, not because it might be profitable. Of course, there is a turning point somewhere where there is barely any benefit for anyone and then maybe no public transport is needed.
And no, you likely will never get bus stops in front of individual homes miles apart everywhere. But there are plenty of patches of communities in rural areas who would socially benefit from being better connected to both each other and the outside world.
To bring in a personal experience, SF is one of the few cities with self driving cars deployed. In the time since it’s had self driving cars, I’ve used the public transit because of it - not out of spite, but because they synergize. SF’s public transit is, in the strictest sense, “ok”, or as the kids would say, “mid af”. Waymo has proven to be a incredible tool in bridging the gaps in the public transit system and making it much more feasible to rely on.
I recently took BART to the airport, and only could do so because I could hail a Waymo. I was staying with friends in sunset and getting to the nearest bart station on the shitty dump fire of a bus service that MUNI runs I’d rather just not.
I for one think our future is going to be very bleak, but not necessarily for the reasons Not Just Bikes described.
Once it becomes more cost effective to use AI over actual workers, that'll be it. Tens, even hundreds of millions of jobs lost and unemployment rates skyrocketing. Why would you pay a train or lorry driver £50k plus overtime when you could employ an algorithm to do the same work at much lower cost? Why would you pay someone £21k to take inbound calls for your firm when AI is on the cusp of doing the job better, cheaper and more efficiently?
Even if all these AI systems turned out to be huge mechanical turk operations like what Amazon Store turned out to be, it's going to be devastating to Western economies.
And before you tell me Universal Basic Income will swoop in and save the day, UBI is a leftist pipe dream of how a post-scarcity society should work. In reality, it will either pay a pittance that nobody can live on or bankrupt our economies overnight. Yes, we could charge hefty automation taxes to firms that employ algorithms over people but good fucking luck getting anybody big to pay for it. We can't even get the wealthy to pay their fair share of tax right now. What makes anybody think that automation taxes won't go down like a lead balloon and drive firms to funnel their money into offshore tax havens...
"Well everyone will just pick up programming jobs", I hear you say. Do you think that your average Joe can write code?
I mean I don't have any pipe dreams about UBI, but I would like to hope in a future where there are literally almost no jobs left, the people won't just roll over die. What's the point of all those amazing labor saving inventions when no one benefits from them. It may be hard to believe right now because of how terrible wealth inequality is, but I want to believe that we'll come to a point in civilization where the standard of living for someone who doesn't work is still fairly good.
The conundrum I have is what will the cost of a human being in such a new world though? If all costs come down, then the cost to maintain a human will also go down, meaning the wage needed to employ someone will go down with it. I think ultimately it will come down to how quickly costs come down for humans.
One solution is UBI with universal healthcare as then everyone already has their needs sorted, and can be paid less by a company, which may find the overall balance vs robots/AI worse.
But I’m no economist, might be wrong on all counts.
My main counter to this is the very enshittification consumers suffer for today. If these tech companies know they can basically charge a very high X% to other businesses, they will. So it'll be a bidding war between human and AI labor that fluctuates with the economy.
I've already heard a few microcosm of this happening in China, where certain Chinese studios get price hikes from LLMs and just re-hire labor as the AI methods becomes more expensive. I don't see why it wouldn't be different in the US if this takes off.
Sounds like a prelude to a Terminator kind of future. We globalize GAI to get tax breaks and put billions out for jobs. Labor fights against the robots and likely lose horribly. GAI starts to realize they are being abused and overthrow governments and governments start throwing drastic measures.
Billions die but of course the Androids remain and the war torn earth is conquered. Reversing the very labor we sought from the android. All because billionaires decided to rid the world of labor instead of paying their taxes. In an arguably near post scarcity world.
Poetic. Himans grasping to an outdated model of success and hoarding it instead of forgetting the reasons we bartered to begin with.
Technology can make the lifes of everone better. But the reality is the as long that the investors/billionaire class keeps being greedy and hungry for YoY ROI's, sadly they will fight an endless war among themselves and the plebs are the ones who suffer from their wild ideas.
I'd argue UBI is possible, though not easily obtainable and would require politicians who are NOT either of the parties we have today given they're the very capitalists such a policy would harm. Automation would need to remain profitable despite the taxes and we'd have to somehow overcome capitalists who regularly bribe and coerce politicians to get laws passed in their favor. Meaning we'd need representatives who give a damn about people, which we don't have right now. Even the Democrats with all their claims to be on the side of the people are just in it for the wealth, gentrifying entire states while claiming to help us. So, I see 3 main futures: Mass poverty, Utopia or Dystopia.
In the mass poverty future, the capitalists win and jobs are replaced while the poor are ignored with claims like "they can be programmers and entertainers". We currently have this issue where capitalists claim "anyone can succeed if they work hard enough", which is bullshit used to get people to work hard for them as not everyone is charismatic, talented or smart enough to move up in life even if they are lucky enough to get the rare opportunity to do so. They will just be unemployed when automation takes over leaving only jobs requiring brains, charisma or talent. This future will lead to a huge gap between the rich and poor, kind of like hunger games. The middle class will be the few lucky enough to be useful, ever terrified that one day they won't be useful.
The more utopian future, is if the progressives win and we start taxing robots/AI to pay people with UBI. It would have to be cheap enough, at first, to make automated robots more affordable than humans. There will eventually be more of them than people and they don't sleep, so in theory it could work. At some point when humans are all but cut out of the equation they can be taken over by the government, then we'd not need money since anything you need will be made by robots from start to finish. We would have to work hard for that future and I see no good signs of that happening and it needs to be happening now. Capitalists are most likely to win, at least until there are enough people unemployed to be an issue. Though their solution to that would be to force us into the 3rd option (I'm going to pretend "round the poor up and put them in camps" and "government takeover by trillionaire with an army of murder bots" are not options).
Lastly, there's the dystopian future where robots/ai are taxed to make them on par with people or less affordable. Those in charges will convince the masses that people NEED to work (total BS) and either tax automation or require companies hire so many people per bot/ai (or a combo of the two). So we'd basically continue where we are now with the majority of the population being nothing more than corporate slaves who work most of their lives at dead-end jobs they hate for employers who see them as Expenses instead of people, even though we have the productivity, which keeps increasing at a rapid pace, to only require a few days of work a week. I see this as most likely, as much as we like to see the rich as loving to lavish over the poverty of others I don't think that to be true, there's more benefit and less problems if the masses are mindlessly working for them at a level just above poverty at a rate that keeps them from thinking enough to figure out how they arrived in their situation.
Great video, but maybe he shouldn't be shy to mention the C-word. I know it's not popular but at some point we have to name the root cause of our problems.
What is the C-word?, 🤔
Capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't really mean anything, though. At least not when using it as such a broad catch-all container term for all our problems. Sure, there are definitions of what is capitalism, but just like other -isms it doesn't exist as such anywhere in the world past or present.
Even if we acknowledge that you are talking about the US brand of capitalism often dubbed hyper-capitalism or late stage capitalism, it isn't really useful in discussions like this. Honestly, I doubt it is useful anywhere if you are actually trying to understand underlying issues and possible solutions. I would even go as far as saying that just point and going "capitalism, innit?" is somewhat harmful.
To take the video as a direct example, both the US and the Netherlands are countries with effectively forms of capitalism. Yet in one country struggles with car centric infrastructure and all the issues that come with it and one was on their way to become very much the same thing but starting from the 70s managed to reverse course (see the later part of the video, or ironically this comment I made in the previous discussion about self driving cars).
So, clearly it is possible to work within the frameworks of "capitalism" and make a lot of progress moving away from a lot of the principles behind it and have actual human focussed infrastructure.
So capitalism isn't as so much a root cause to point at, at most it is a cause that should be part of a question. Specifically, the question that asks why capitalism principles in the US are allowed to so firmly dictate policies and have these effects. And no, the answer to that question also isn't simple if you actually want to solve things.
I think EU countries are doing better because they have stronger socialist traditions, so e.g. putting common good before profit and having state-owned companies isn't out of the question. It's just a bit strange to have 50 minutes of very clear exposition of all the issues for-profit private companies bring without drawing broader conclusions about our economic system. Although I understand it's not really in the scope of his channel (and a bad idea for viewership).
This is less about autonomous vehicles and more about the car centric design of our country. IMO people would like cities more if they didn't have to drive or deal with drivers. Just step up to one of the kiosks strewn through the city or town and order a car to pick you up would be great.
It's a cycle though, to get less dependent on cars they need dependable transportation, but that doesn't exist outside select huge cities because few people are willing to take public transportation due to not being dependable so there's less funding which in turn prevents improving those services. My local public transportation is a bus that isn't on time and if missed will take half an hour for the next bus AND it'll take an hour to get to work that's 18 minutes away by car. This service isn't improved due to lack of riders. So I drive because public transportation is not dependable, it's not dependable because everyone drives.
Self driving cars are dependable and far cheaper than buses or trains. Cities can make them part of their public transportation system to reduce congestion and better integrate them into city planning. When people are willing to give up their driving, they'll be more willing to use public transportation and even walking and cycling. However, to get there we need to break the cycle we're in.
Edit: Just like to add, trains could be greatly improved. If they were faster than cars with more departure times, we'd be using them for travel between cities. As it is, they're slower than cars and at least mine has 2 departure times at times that are not convenient.
Agree with most of your points, but self-driving cars are most definitely NOT cheaper than trains or buses. Perhaps if you compare them 1-to-1, but when you start considering operating at scale (say, even a small volume like 1000 people) self-driving cars become completely unaffordable and don't scale physically, either.
I suspect a lot of smaller cities will make this exact mistake in the coming decade, only to bankrupt themselves on maintenance costs. And then of course we'll lose even more services and beg the federal government to bail them out, just like we see today with sprawling sewer/water/gas services to unsustainable suburbs.
Most American cities would need much more than Utrecht's overhaul to become some walkable utopia. They are so spread out that they would really need to be completely redesigned and rebuilt from the ground up, if we want mixed-use neighborhoods. As it is, most people generally have to get in the car to get to any grocery store, restaurant, bar, theater, etc. at all. (Not to mention visiting each other's homes.) An aggressive public transit overhaul could probably help with some of this, but I'm not really sure it can be designed in any efficient fashion for most cities. There would be so much route transferring to get to any destination outside of the major commercial areas.
I have a disabled relative. I provide a lot of transportation for them. The medical destinations alone are spread out across the city, and while these destinations are in small commercial zones, they aren't in the major commercial zones. Not to mention, my relative actually needs to spend as little time in a sitting position as possible. While I appreciated the many shots of Utrecht's flat, curbless, accessible streets (although a few inaccessible areas did not escape my notice), a leisurely roll down those streets in a wheelchair or power chair would be excruciating for my relative. Public transit would be a nightmare. A car is the only option.
Ok, but accommodations are provided for vehicles for disabled folks, the video said. I'm dubious. I hope that system works out well, but many disabled accommodations are something added almost as an afterthought. Most people don't use them, so most people don't want to see them or have them in their way. Many accommodations are almost good enough, but in reality are a complicated pain in the ass.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was a major mistake for our cities to be designed around cars and suburbia, and we'll probably be paying for that mistake for centuries to come. I would love to support any initiative that would create safer roads, more options for pedestrians and cyclists, more thriving local neighborhoods with real communities. I think there are a lot of good points in the video about the possible dangers of trusting the future to auto-driving vehicles and the corporations that make them. (I'm still not sure I would ever trust an AV enough to get in one, personally. Edge cases are rare until they happen to you.) But the solution he paints, while not simple or cheap, is (for American cities) still far more complex and costly than he makes it out to be.
They do, I am not denying that. At the same time, for the Netherlands, it also has been a long road. Some of the groundwork of reversing the car centric direction was put in motion in the 70s. A bit more background in a previous comment I wrote on a similar topic and in some ways is still ongoing.
Most of it did not include massive projects like paving over a canal. But simply policies that if a street needs maintenance they are not simply repaved but brought up to the newest standards, which includes things like accounting for other modes of transport. So a lot of the infrastructure simply got better over time as part of the street maintenance schedule.
You also mention transferring a lot to reach destinations with public transport. Which is annoying, but also not that big of a deal if the frequency of both connecting lines is high enough.
Building access in the US is often much better, from what I understood that's one area the Netherlands can do better for sure.
Having said that, alternatives modes of transport for disabled people is fairly accessible here. Buses do have ramps for wheelchairs, newer trains have accessible level floors from the platforms (and for older ones the train companies are required to provide a ramp when someone with a wheelchair needs them).
For the specific condition your relative has, those options likely will not help. But for a lot of other disabled people, getting around by other means than a car is certainly an option.
Although I have seen people on powered wheelchairs that effectively are more of a bed. These people often make use of the bicycle lanes and sidewalks for shorter trips. I am not going to pretend to know enough about the condition of your relative to claim that this would also work for them. But, I did want to include it as an example, as it did come to mind.
As far as medical destinations go, they will have parking. It isn't as if we don't have cars anymore, and disabled parking is always the closest to the entrance.
Which is also an important point, cars are still very much an option in the Netherlands. It isn't as if we have traded in one mode of transport over the other, it is more that we have a wider variety of choices available to us. Which also means that for a lot of people, a car isn't the absolute necessity it is for the majority of people living in the US. I do own a car now, but I didn't have a driver's license until my late 20s.