XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net
In article ,
droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article ,
> "Leszek Karlik" wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> > > cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> > No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> > human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> > to afford them.
>
> Afford them? Why would we even buy them?
Because they keep out butts off the ground, the rain off our heads, and
get us back and forth to work, play, and shopping?
> My whole point is that I'm
> abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.
People don't ride in abstractions, they ride in vehicles.
> Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to
> reliably have it at your disposal. Adding a human driver to that is
> rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root
> problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive
> vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.
So can you guarantee that your robotaxi will be in my driveway ready to
go when my wife's water breaks?
> To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
> lowering the cost.
How would it "lower the cost"? You're adding new sensors and a more
powerful processor plus amortizing development cost. The incremental
cost might be small but it is unlikely to be negative unless you
completely remove the manual controls.
> Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
> shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
> chauffeured vehicle.
How? If I need to be at my job and my wife needs to be at her job, in
opposite directions, how does a chauffeured vehicle address that other
than by having one of us arrive at the office very early?
> It makes you pause to think about what is going to
> be in it for the car makers.
The same thing that's always in it, the profit on a new car.
> And, like I said, even then it might make more sense to further expand
> the sharing of a vehicle beyond a family.
Yes, you have said this but you have not provided any usage models that
demonstrate that your supposed benefits will actually occur.
> As I have written about
> previously (maybe not here), it might make sense to have a neighborhood
> shuttle that does nothing but take people from their houses to the
> closest mass transit station.
They call that a "bus". You need a certain population density for it to
be economically viable.
> That's becomes even easier to provide
> when you introduce a self-driving vehicle.
How?
> The simply fact is that *so*
> much can and will change with such a technology that it is just silly to
> project current social norms out into the future.
So show us how things will be different. Use things called "numbers".
>
> > A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> > of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>
> Only because said CEO is a rich 1%-er. A self-driving car to many other
> people can be seen as a dedicated taxi asset/employee. Not service,
> because you *own* it, and it can go out and make you money while you're
> either doing your regular job, or just relaxing.
'Fraid not. Ever try to get a taxi medallion? If not, try it. Trying
to put your self-driving car to work as a taxi withou a medallion is
just going to get it impounded if it doesn't get stolen first.
> Even that aspect has a
> social equilibrium, as noted above. Think things through beyond just
> the knee-jerk attack on one minor feature (virtual trains) that
> self-driving vehicles can provide. That's what world building is all
> about.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
