spacKingChamath

Sure it makes sense that density per neighborhood would vary for testing and in the future will vary by demand.

Any new technology is going to have challenges as it scales. I think the expectation that the system is only used in public once its perfect is extremely ideal. The systems are doing really well at being safe (there are no human deaths linked to AVs nor any severe accidents despite over 1 million + miles driven).

There are only a couple hundred AV cars on the road. They are not causing the level of congestion you are trying to suggest.

Remember that these companies cannot earn money from rides right now because the CPUC has not given them the permit to do so. Once that permit is granted, the monetary incentive will be very strong. There is cost to the company for also operating an empty vehicle that they will not want to pay either. I think the incentives are aligned on both sides.

There is more money longer term in a complete AV system then in personal car ownership. You can see it in GM market capitalization today. They are worth ~30 billion while Cruise is estimated to also be worth 30 billion. Making money off each mile is way more lucrative then selling a vehicles most people don't update for 3-7 years at a time. And it will be better for the consumer because it means more miles per vehicles which = less total vehicles.

People in the industry and those who support it are excited because of the positives impacts it can make. Not because its scifi tech.

At scale the cost per mile of an AV will be below that of an equivalent personal car because of all these factors - High utilization means you are not paying for a car that spends 80% of its life parked and removes the costs associated with that - Insurance, maintenance, and parking costs are reduced because of efficiency gains in a fleet configuration vs personally handling all those things - Fixed upfront cost that goes down considerably as number of vehicles increases

Testing is happening in SF probably because the data shows that SF residents are high utilization users of vehicles and don't use public transit as much as you think. Ex Uber and lyft to 200k trips in SF alone everyday. SF is a difficult city to drive in so it shows real capability and a lot of the people working on this tech happen to live in and around SF.

Autonomous cars are here today. The things you are suggesting will require all car companies to align on new standards and develop tools for the government to interface with there new standard equipment and than deploy that infrastructure. That will require years more of work. AVs use the infrastructure that is there already.

New equipment is not free. It will add costs to vehicles and someone will pay for it. More fees (ex for speeding) are always a bigger burden on the poor.

You won't be satisfied until you accept that the public has demonstrated that they want low occupancy vehicles by using there dollars.

People enjoy the privacy, flexibility, convenience, and safety of having a vehicle space to themselves vs public transport. Even in economies which have heavily incentivized public transport (Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong), people still pay large costs to get access to the incentives I mentioned above. AVs are much better than personal car ownership and will play a big role in improving transportation.

I get throwing conjecture out there makes it seem like you found a real problem, but you have no solution. Even if you increased public transit with more rail lines and busses, you can't solve the privacy, convenience and safety factor with something that is public. There a reason we have locks on our doors and don't share our homes, even though most of our home is empty and we can only occupy one room at a time.

We need real solutions (which AVs are a part of) and not people swooning over idealisms.

Such a fake comment. You were never excited for AVs.

-As AVs scale, there cost will go below that of personal car ownership -AVs maintain the same flexibility as personal cars, something public transit cannot resolve. -As Personal cars ownership declines, real progress in emissions, land and safety will be made.

Your suggestions just add more regulation and fees that always end up impacting low income people more.

There is a strong monetary incentive to make sure every car has a high utilization time. The cars driving around empty are there so they can collect data to prove the safety. No one is targeting transit. Autonomous cars will also have a place in transit. Its highly likely one day you will be relying on an autonomous car to get you somewhere for cheaper than transit does today. AVs have real potential to get people to forgo personal car ownership which actually will reduce traffic, emissions and restore millions of sqft in parking spaces to be reclaimed for parks and housing.

Death on the streets via drugs, assaults and homelessness but because locals want more "empathetic leaders", that are hard on big business, so the leaders focus on that. Recent SF politicians are not proactive. They are reactive and in the worst way. They use bureaucracy to clog the system and strongly believe the status quo is good enough. Mean while, the urban area continues to decay, albeit slowly thanks to the regions weather and views being sought after. Very similar to national level politics where filibusters and repeals are trying to maintain the status quo or go backwards for the sake of the "better times". All these people are not leaders. They are just people who know how to get theres while they make you think you are getting yours. They don't care for the future at all.

Why would they risk saying its religious motivated at this point. Make the changes small, let the effects trickle in over a decade.

Even though there has been a body positivity movement and large brands (Target, Victoria's Secret) have changed marketing material to present there designs with people of all body types, the fact remains that humans are a visual species that are driven by aesthetic attributes of what is considered "beautiful" and "popular". Today that happens to be fit and athletic (or whatever the Kardashians are doing these days) and social media clearly presents these folks to the youth while simultaneously pushing the idea of medical procedures to attain these looks.

Thanks for letting us all know.

I get bullied about having a Pixel as a 30 year old by all my close friends. No one wants the green bubble. At 12, fitting in is a big thing. Sometimes some things are worth adjusting for.

Some additional info.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Lazy

Definitely an interesting way to look at the world.

The headline makes it sound like the robot can make this decision but in reality this is just a RC car with a weapon attached to it that is still controlled by a human

Honestly I'm waiting for most of these SPACs to face the implications of fraud. Even when this one launched it was clearly obvious what they were presenting is not fully representative of the reality. Having 15-20 trucks that basically operate similar to hands free cruise control with lane changing is not the set-up for a billion dollar company. It may be the foundation but that doesn't remove the fact that there is a high possibility that the founders were able to cash out millions on the backs of naive investors and most likely will never deliver the final product.