Autonomous cars are about to do to transport what the internet did to information If a time machine could slingshot us back a quarter of a century to 1992, we’d visit a world in which print and broadcast media chugged along in rude health. Everyone read newspapers, and watched television because, well, what else could you do to stay informed? In 1992, only a few hundred people knew about the World Wide Web …
What has happened rather is that it has become relatively obvious even to the average numpty that faux news is all that has ever been on offer.
There is now simply a choice of which faux news to believe.
I think this was always the case, even when we only had a few media choices. If you solely read The Times you would have a different view of events than if you read The Mirror. Now - as then - the only way of discerning truth is by comparing multiple sources and not believing anything unless confirmed by multiple original sources. Currently I'm following BBC, Times, Private Eye and Grauniad - I mostly trust what the BBC say, Private Eye lets me know what they don't say, Guardian to keep an eye on the intellectual left and Times to know what the dirty digger is up to.
However, most people don't want truth. They want their own world views and pre-conceptions confirmed and to live inside their own filter bubble. The filter bubble is what actually creates "fake news" because people with the same world view confirm the "validity" of the story.
"I think this was always the case, even when we only had a few media choices. If you solely read The Times you would have a different view of events than if you read The Mirror. Now - as then - the only way of discerning truth is by comparing multiple sources and not believing anything unless confirmed by multiple original sources."
Even that's not safe, as all the sources may say the same thing...only it's the WRONG thing.
Having an interest in history, I'm fully aware that newspapers have never really accurately reported on things even if you take what information they have into account. The reporting always reflected the prejudices of the people writing the news, and that news may or may not have accurately reflected the facts available to the writer, let alone the true course of events.
Inconvenient facts have always been omitted by some people, and the difference between omitting to mention facts and lying through omission has been much used and abused to push agendas long before the internet came along.
That said to be fair when news depended on a printing press then it was easy for people to track down and sue those responsible for utterly fictitious and fake news there was a mitigating influence on fake news.
What we already need is de-centralised reputation voting indexes, possibly via cryptographic key-chain technology, to rate individual and groups, as proposed in a Sci-Fi novel for a free energy civilisation, to constrain time wasting, deception, BS and worse. There are some separate and market specific ratings for sellers and products, but these are too disparate and don't cover enough! Probably autonomous transport will need reputation scorings too, to verify that each vehicle/provider can be trusted to do what is asked by customers, to sufficiently resist hijack, and to reasonably avoid causing various damage or inconvenience.
Biased, incomplete (deceptive), BS and useless time wasting information was routinely provided by the Mainstream Media for ages before the internet, and still is, even overt propaganda, so reading print media and listening/watching broadcast media never guaranteed that you would be well informed. This dubiousness of trust is one reason why the term and concept of "due diligence" exists.
Even with the great amount of dross, bias and deliberate BS on the internet, it is now much cheaper and sometimes easier to find valid information, including unique valid information which would otherwise be much harder to find, costly or simply not available, although this can be rather time consuming to identify and digest. The mainstream media really don't like this trend because it threatens their revenue, existence, and utility for propaganda, and their annoying pay walls won't save them. Autonomous transport will probably reveal some similar dynamics, but obviously with physical specific pros and cons too.
Yup.
But while the majority tolerate it for "information", personal and goods transport is much more critical to our daily lives. It's crunch time - will there be a black-lash and an insistence that "things work", or will we become an oppressed populous, unable to move or get food except when the corporates will it.
Alas, the problem with sarcasm is the same as the problem with cynicism: It's so <expletive> hard to keep up with the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up that reality hands us.
I think the major problem with unreliable news at Internet speed is not that there's a greatly higher fake-to-real ratio (tabloids have been around for more'n a century), but rather that the information firehose is now so big and fast that human processing faculties are overloaded, and end up (metaphorically) lying dead-shorted in a smoking, charred heap.
With the equivalent of a hundred newspapers shouting for our attention every morning, it's not really a surprise that folks pick and choose the news sources that best fir their world views. It's a formula for society to end up in a (literally) lying dead-shorted in a smoking, charred heap, but it's not a surprise.
Back on topic, surely I'm not the first person to read about ubiquitous automated parcel delivery and wonder when and how some nasty minds will try to weaponize it?
Unleash a crime wave we can't even fathom today.
Just think of the plausible deniability that a well hacked autonomous vehicle affords.
It gets even more fun if you can divert where it is going. An automated lorry with valuable goods makes an *excellent* target for hacking. A driver would notice a change in destination, but for a computer it's simply an update - it won't ask questions.
This is also what I see happen to these Amazon delivery pods and drones: this is not the delivery address you're looking for ..
Do you need to create a major traffic incident in order to block the police from arriving at the scene of your crime?
Do we have a GPS spoofer for you! Buy two, get this set of five child-shaped balloons with ballast and heat source absolutely free! But wait... there's more! Each child-shaped balloon comes with a remote-controlled launching catapult and laser-pointer sighting tool, so you can trigger road blocker remotely with pinpoint accuracy!
Despite all the contracts for these things being purchased by Uber and Lyft, the author seems to have overlooked the fact that autonomous vehicles are not a thing. We rarely even use them when the vehicle is in a controlled, human-free zone, on rails, never mind uncontrolled roads.
The pundits (to avoid a less polite word) are saying that hand in hand with autonomous vehicles is the notion of "sharing". This means that after closing time on a Saturday night, most of the cars you request are going to be splattered with sick.
Thanks, but I'm fine with MY car only being used 10% of the time.
" That sweet spot means we will be able to use an app to summon a vehicle anywhere, at any time, at a price that will be very inexpensive, because all human labor has been taken out of the equation."
How would these cars stay clean? Self-cleaning seems unlikely; and people won't keep them clean, because they won't have "ownership" (if you don't believe me... check my office bathroom at 6pm!) So either people *will* "own" them (because they will want them to stay clean*) or there will still have to be humans to clean them. (Suspect the former... not least because the car companies will want to keep the market as large as possible... even before we get to the issue of people wanting the status that comes with a particular vehicle.)
* I know many people don't _appear_ to keep their cars clean, but when it is your own mess, it somehow feels clean even if it isn't!
The point here is the "labour" will be further split, a few very wealthy fleet owners and very poorly paid cleaners who don't need to speak your language (car does that) or have any skill level like a driver's license/ taxi license (hence they can't get a better job).
Welcome to the 21st century's satanic mills...
As for buying an autonomous car, why? It will cost much more to buy, it will have (probably) onerous running costs due to the safety criticality of all those sensors, etc and the need for on going software support. Probably bugger-all resell value as well: Welcome to automotive XP - can't take that on the road sonny, its no longer got manufacturer’s support. Maybe at some point insurance will push you over to autonomous vehicles, but rent-a-fleet makes more sense when your own one is going to sit most of the day and night doing nothing while the rental ones are being paid off in that period.
The point here is the "labour" will be further split, a few very wealthy fleet owners and very poorly paid cleaners who don't need to speak your language (car does that) or have any skill level like a driver's license/ taxi license (hence they can't get a better job).
... and, of course, we all know what happens next.
Lem's futurology will newer cease to amaze me.
"Lem's futurology will newer cease to amaze me."
We also should note Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" and John Sladek's "The Reproductive System".
"As for buying an autonomous car, why? It will cost much more to buy, it will have (probably) onerous running costs due to the safety criticality of all those sensors, etc and the need for on going software support........ but rent-a-fleet makes more sense when your own one is going to sit most of the day and night doing nothing while the rental ones are being paid off in that period."
It all depends on your needs and use model. If it is a substitute for a bus or subway, then your argument holds up.
For other people not so much. Cars are often used to carry and secure stuff - often too much to just pick up and carry away. If all you have is a briefcase and a laptop, then you may be able to use the 'private bus/taxi' model you seem to be describing.
If, however, you have a briefcase, two laptops, two camera bags, some scuba gear, and a handgun or two, you can't carry it all, and you want to have a mobile place to secure your expensive and/or legally significant items. While the handguns are an optional extra, many people travel with enough stuff for their planned day - to avoid a couple of extra 80 km round trips to switch stuff, or to be able to do multiple things over the course of the day - that the options boil down to owning or leasing a car, or keeping the 'taxi' over a long period, often days or weeks.
Clearly, I'm *not* the first to think of some of these dark-side things. My first thought when hearing today's Uber-automated-cars-will-Borg-the-taxi-industry story was that there will be a serious problem with vandals fouling automated cabs in assorted unpleasant ways.
If more people were to rely on automated vehicles there'd be less privately owned cars sitting parked on the streets so more spaces.
My street is a perfect example, the house were built long before it was ever considered a single house would have two or three cars parked outside. The road is narrow, you can get cars half on the road and pavement with enough space to drive down. It's a cul-de-sac as well. It can be hectic to get out in the mornings or evenings, and if you are expecting a delivery of something large, e.g. building materials you need to go around your neighbours to be able to get the delivery truck near your property. The less privately owned cars the better in my eyes, something that could get us down to one per household would be great (yes we have a car and fortunate enough to have a big drive).
"If more people were to rely on automated vehicles there'd be less privately owned cars sitting parked on the streets so more spaces."
Actually there won't...
People mainly use their cars for getting to and from work, this is where the peak demand will be, so if there are not enough cars available, someone is either going to buy there own or change jobs (because they were fired due to being either late or never arriving).
Now there could be some "rideshare" systems which may save a few cars, but I'd put money many (who could afford it) would be willing to pay extra not to have to sit in the vehicle with some stranger.
The Vehicle OEMs won't like their market being shortened, the bulk of the tech in vehicles is reused and margins are quite high, the evolution and competition will reduce costs.
Yes early autonomous vehicles will be expensive, just as pretty much all automotive tech trickles down.
It won't be a rental setup, but the cost of a taxi fare may go down.
>If more people were to rely on automated vehicles there'd be less privately owned cars sitting parked on the streets so more spaces.
Not if everyone needs one at the same time... say 8:30am.
What happens to your booking system if there is an accident or delay earlier?
As far as the easy-clean vinyl seats go, I'm sure that would be just... lovely. BYO towel.
I think you'll find most people would just prefer to have their own car. If it all worked perfectly, it would be a boon to those replacing taxis. It doesn't work though. I think its mostly compute providers looking for a solution to a particular problem, that being, what can we flog?
"I think you'll find most people would just prefer to have their own car. If it all worked perfectly, it would be a boon to those replacing taxis. It doesn't work though. I think its mostly compute providers looking for a solution to a particular problem, that being, what can we flog?"
And what if market forces PREVENT people from buying their own cars because the risks inherent with being human raise insurance premiums out of affordability?
Beat me too it.
This is really no different than the push to get more people onto public transport - it works fine in the larger town and cities, but in rural areas?
It's about time that politicians and policy makers realised that not everyone works within even a couple of miles of where they live or have access to public decent transport. And the same will be true for these fleets of autonomous vehicles.
>This will all work for cities, but not rural areas.
The article covered a few things, so I'm not clear as to what you don't think will not work in the countryside. Could you expand on it a little?
I didn't see anything in the article of a binary 'work/won't work' nature. In the future one might use Uber in a city, whereas in the countryside you might choose to own an autonomous vehicle for your own use, but then lend or hire it out when you are not using it - your ownership would give you priority. Today, the old lady without a car who lives next door doesn't mind when she gets a lift to the supermarket - she's happy to work in with the schedule of the neighbour who drives. Shopping is flexible, a hospital appointment isn't.
There are of course lots of factors. An example would be that in the countryside car parking isn't as tricky as it is in the city, a factor that can make Uber or Lyft more attractive than taking your own vehicle.
People in more rural areas are already used to things taking longer - today someone in a remote hamlet might take a half-hour round trip to a shop by car, whilst their cousin in a city pops a minute up the street by foot. Of course many people in more remote areas simply give more thought as to what they will need for the next few days.
For sure, a lower population density will mean greater distribution costs ( It is only because of legislation that the Royal Mail can't charge more to deliver to more remote addresses. )
"...so I'm not clear as to what you don't think will not work in the countryside."
That's question is not addressed to me, but to Mr. Voyna i Mor. Even so I'll try to answer it, being the absolute smart pants I am. :-)
Please consider this:
Company X owns a fleet of autonomous vehicles it uses for delivering goods, either sold by themselves or by third parties. Each vehicle has a set of fixed costs -maintenance, cleaning, cost of purchase, insurance, paperwork...- and variable costs -mileage/energy/fuel...-. It's quite obvious that short range (fast) deliveries -as those inside a city- will be much much more profitable than long range, slow deliveries, as they allow each vehicle to make many trips each day . This implies that rural areas won't be connected to the network in any serious way until the cities market is reaching saturation, which will take probably several decades.
What's more, the % of the population that dwells in the countryside is already small and still dwindling, so company X might well forget entirely about the countryside. Some of the issues involved are similar to those posed by broadband deployment in rural areas.
On a side note (though related to the article):
I think everybody is being excessively optimistic regarding these "self driving vehicles" used for goods delivery. Before this is even doable at big scale, there are lots and lots of issues to fix, namely insurance, legal responsibilities, liability, taxes, infrastructure, IT security*...
And then there's the 'last ten meters problem', that means that in many places the customer will need to wait in the street for his delivery vehicle, which will generate lots of aggro every time a customer is made to wait in the rain for half an hour because some fuck up or accident. Of course the solution for this would be those humanoid robots that are being -slowly- developed, but that will push company X into yet another set of obligations and increased costs. You know the drill: insurances, taxes, liability....
Frankly, I can't imagine this taking off in any serious way in less than two or three decades at least.
Note*: IT security, as to prevent the cars being hacked for nefarious purposes, like theft, stalking, snooping, kidnapping or murder.
For people transport, autonomous people carrier vehicles will probably be better for shorter and more frequent trips than for longer distance, peak traffic, because fewer vehicles doing more journeys may be more economical/profitable. Longer trips may also pose challenges for slow charging electric vehicles, and may require extra costs like vehicle change management/hassle if the electricity storage can't be quickly swapped.
Yeah, gonna work fine until the pedestrians discover that the ecars will stop for you, unlike New York/Paris/Moscow taxis. (See the Trains comments.) The resulting gridlock can never be sorted out, because each of the following cars will be waiting for the ecar in front to move, and some geek will set an electric arm waving just to impress his buddies. Or, more likely, to gain time to cut into a van and remove its contents — the police will be there in a month or so, after they yank cars from the back of the queue so they can move in. Diverting loads will not work, just tie up traffic even more, so the load will never be arrive at any target point. In rural areas you could just tie a sheep in the road and take all the time you want, the police will be pulling sheepcars from the cities.
Next: 50 mile commutes in a Li-Ion car in LA/Silicon Valley/Dallas w/o A/C.
"Yeah, gonna work fine until the pedestrians discover that the ecars will stop for you, unlike New York/Paris/Moscow taxis."
You just need to make cars that are smart enough to run over the occasional pedestrian, to discourage the others.... a reverse 'Pour encourager les autres'.
Of course it will work for rural areas... better than the current delivery systems or people transport, because you don't have to pay a driver to trek out into the middle of nowhere and back... for rural to rural trips you can just have an unmanned charging/storage/staging site ever few tens of kilometers... again without the costs of staffing, both direct and indirect.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
