Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
> "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate."
If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit?
From the DMV legislation:
> (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged.
To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear:
> (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
It's a valid political position to believe that people don't need government regulation (laws) to behave themselves, not make mistakes, and not take risks that might lead to mistakes. It's the libertarian/anarchist viewpoint, as mentioned. But that's not how the government in San Francisco, California, or the US works.
Those of us who don't hold to the libertarian or anarchist positions believe that it's a good thing for laws to prohibit risky decisions that are probably going to be totally fine, if the not-fine case is particularly bad. For instance, that's why there are food inspection departments; even if you don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to poison people, there are a set of risky behaviors (not refrigerating things promptly, not washing things, etc.) that stand a small chance of getting people sick, and we believe it's worth stopping those, even if it slows down production, and even if we can't completely eliminate people getting sick.
Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are:
- have insurance with up to $5 million
- the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as well as defensive driving training
Those both sound like reasonable, common-sense things to have. I'd also want a company testing their vehicle to have insurance and know how to drive their car. But at the same time if this permit didn't exist, how much less safe would the world be? Really?
They're not stress testing the software, they're not analyzing the code, they aren't testing the competency of the people who built the software, etc, etc. They aren't doing any of that for a good reason. So ultimately this is mostly just theatre or an exercise in letting Uber know who the boss is.
Because I highly doubt Uber doesn't have the insurance or experienced drivers. Nor do I think there will be any significant amount of tech companies wrecking havoc on California because they didn't think to buy auto insurance before starting an automobile software company, save a permit.
Uber apparently tried to evade this minimal level of scrutiny. Looks like it didn't work.
[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...
Additionally insurance and drivers licenses are already regulated.
I'm still not convinced of the necessity. The hammer is always looking for a new nail.
The bar for expanding bureaucracy and adding highly specific oversight is so low and so commonplace that you're labeled a techno-libertarian for questioning the basic economic cost (realistic benefits vs tradeoffs) of doing so.
You may feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching over these specific companies testing process. That doesn't automatically mean the world has been made safer as a result of their time spent writing complex legislation, building regulatory systems, enforcing it, slowing down development of technology, battling cases in court, pushing companies to other states/countries, etc.
Unfortunately questioning the realistic utility of such regulation is no longer the default and is dismissed as the foolishness of some silicon valley tech people disconnected from real life...
Anybody testing autonomous vehicles has this data. They just have to send it in.
Given that we know existing car manufacturers have faked or covered up safety data in the past, you're putting a lot of faith in the goodness of tech companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_on_Clean...
...I'm the one questioning the utility in of California's system of control. My faith in either actor's earnest participation is therefore not of much use.
I do know customers value safety and honesty of companies they buy/use cars from, and so do the investors who back these companies. Which are the people who keep these companies in business. That pressure exists independently of these permits. Which is why one must realistically question the utility of special government oversight.
The difference between your devil's-advocate worldview and my worldview is I think not in our perception of facts - we both agree that the government isn't super competent right now - but in our optimism. You (or your viewpoint) isn't optimistic that government regulation will ever get good, and would rather just stop trying, but is pretty confident that individual humans and companies are unlikely to be abusive, or to cause much damage if they are. I'm resigned to expecting that someone, somewhere, will try to get away with the bare minimum required, and in the absence of regulation will just be too stupid to realize they're risking people's lives until people die. But I do have higher expectations of government regulation, and believe that it can be good or at least we can work towards it being good.
(Also, government regulation doesn't have to involve the government doing things. Several industries have so-called "self-regulatory organizations", which mostly exist because of the implicit threat that the government could start regulating more heavily. That is, the SROs only exist because of government letting industry know who the boss is, so there's a distinct positive effect of that posture! The SROs aren't perfect, but to first order everyone is better off: the government isn't interfering with things they don't understand, yet actual, competent oversight with meaningful enforcement powers exists. Self-driving cars are too small an industry at present to meaningfully self-regulate, but it certainly sounds like they won't be very shortly.)
That's about as coherent a statement as 'it's the progressive/communist viewpoint'
There is a huge gap between Zero Government anarchism and the belief that government authority should be limited so it does not grow to oppress.
Uh, pedestrians in crosswalks, apparently. I'd also add:
1) drivers who were lied to about their potential take home pay 2) customers who will have to eat 50% fare hikes once Uber gains monopoly power in order for them to ever become profitable. 3) employees who work under a CEO who lauds the company as "Boober" in honor of all the fringe benefits he gets for running it. 4) investors who will lose value once the company finally implodes.
[0] Funny thing about the morally exceptional: I can't think of any which continue to improve our current day-to-day lives.
[1] Improvement is subjective. But objectively (compared to centuries past), our housing situation has gotten better (more roofs, less exposure to the cold/heat), the average human doesn't worry about getting sick from bad water or getting bitten by a snake while in their bed, the average human dies less to disease and overall dies at a later age, and the average human is able to spend more time on hobbies rather than necessities.
I'm surprised you ignore all those so easily.
It's entirely rational to join a VFD out of self interest.
Not at all! You get the knowledge that the men and women standing beside you at an emergency will be there when it's your house/barn/grain silo that goes up.
The open source industry is far from unbridled altruism.
Voluntary fire brigades, et al:
My bad on the miscommunication, I was talking about "throughout history": As a result what I meant was: I can't think of any [morally exceptional people] which [past their own lifetimes] continue to improve our current day-to-day lives.
You are correct though that morally exceptional people do have a (slight) positive impact to my day-to-day. I just haven't seen a case where their contributions transcended time. Similar to the contributions of say: Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Bell, person who first repeatedly sparked fire, etc.
The contributions of religious figures transcend time. But you could argue either way about their contributions being beneficial to our day-to-day. Again it would be debatable if it was in the best interest of these religious figures to spread their personal ideology. Either of these debates would be inherently biased towards your take on religion.
Perhaps the concept you're looking for is "anti-authoritarian", although it's entirely possible to be anti-authoritarian without being willing to break laws as one sees fit.
I originally got into tech because I hate my life and thought that tech was this outlet that could actually make some change. I come from a world of violence and abuse and never really cared for the powers that be. Tech seemed like the answer.
So my question to the people who don't feel this way: why are you in tech? Serious question. Tech only seems interesting because you can move fast. What value do you find from working in this field if you don't feel this way? If you have to work inside some system?
This comes from a person who lived in an abusive household most of my life and still struggling to find something outside of QA while I work on my own projects, but I don't really get the appeal of this field if all you want is a house with kids and work within the system. It comes off as mediocre to me. So as a person reaching almost 30 who hates life the way it is and wants to see a change, please explain to me what you get out of this.
Thanks for those who answer this seriously.
Purely anecdotal but I enjoy tech because I enjoy building things and the rabbit hole that is technology is near unendingly deep.
The salaries are great, benefits are great, paid time off is great. It's hard to complain.
But there's plenty of other reasons to be in tech: The promise of money is almost as good as the finance industry; The ability to touch a lot of lives and improve people's quality of life is another possibility; The desire to understand technology as it exponentially permeates our lives was another aspect of my decision.
There's a lot of interesting tech where you don't run afoul of regulation but you still massively change lives for the better. Take cell phones - that's been a huge change in the world, and at no point did anyone need to break laws or skirt regulations to make it happen. (I'm not even sure how they could; the only thing that comes to mind is using disallowed frequencies, and even that would have been so much more harmless than anything involving cars.) But they've made an immeasurably huge change in the world, for the better.
Or take the Internet. Or take Wikipedia. Or Twitter. Or mobile camera technology. Or e-commerce. Or the technologies required to run large research clusters to develop new medications. None of these things are things where the system is fundamentally opposed to what you're doing. There may be regulatory fights, sure; someone will be worried about e-commerce and taxes, or encryption and law enforcement, or whatever. You're moving fast, and the system is confused; yes, fight the system.
But you're not calling the very concept of the rule of law into question. That's where I disagree with the libertarian/anarchist technocratic movement: the fact that someones you disagree with the law doesn't mean you have to consider it illegitimate.
Speed is important, but isn't the biggest priority to me. It's best when things move quickly, of course... but my first priority as a professional engineer is to do things correctly, ethically, and safely. It's a point of personal pride.
I don't think there's any part of that that's in conflict with changing the world for the better. Move fast and break things; just don't break other people in the process.
Of course, there's a big difference in what's at stake when building a website, versus someone building a rocket / self-driving car / nuclear reactor / life-critical system. The engineering practices need to be adjusted accordingly in each case.
Similarly, I got into tech because I was a smart kid who was good with computers and so it's a well paying field that I find easy and enjoyable. I'm also someone who's always been very much "within the system" and therefore try to be aware of my privileges. Don't underestimate the value of "house with kids and work within the system". Plenty of refugees dying on beaches for the possibility of a chance of maybe having that. Even within the comfortable West, it looks a lot more attractive when you're closer to 40 than 30.
Mind you, the reason I didn't go into CS research when I might have had the opportunity was because it was very obviously so much of a dead end; at least with startups there's a chance of people using your product.
You are misusing those terms, as belovedeagle pointed out.
> ... will never be regarded as an engineering profession > It's like we rebelled against adulthood
Who is "us"? Many, if not most, software engineers would welcome being able to refuse doing anything morally questionable. Many are unhappy about companies disregard for safety, security, privacy, respect for users.
Yet, most are powerless in a world of at-will employment, H1B shackles, NDAs, and lack of professional organizations to protect those who disagree with their employer on ethical grounds.
who cares?