Slashdot Mirror


Dispatch From the Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google

First time accepted submitter Dave Jurgensen writes "Uber has said it will be purchasing 2,500 of Google's self driving GX3200 cars to be used around America. They are hoping to have their first set of driverless cars on the road by the end of the year. From the article: 'Uber has committed to invest up to $375 million for a fleet of Google’s GX3200 vehicles, which are the company’s third generation of autonomous driving cars, but the first to be approved for commercial use in the U.S. The deal marks the largest single capital investment that Uber has made to date, and is also the first enterprise deal that Google has struck for its new line of driverless vehicles.'" Update: Yes, this is a piece of speculative fiction.

39 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Don't wanna be first... by bosef1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't want to be the first one to post this, but "What could possiblie go wrong?".

    1. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What could possiblie go wrong?".

      My question is, how do we give a car analogy when the story is already about a car?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of things. And they will.

      But statistically, it'll probably be better than having humans behind the wheel. Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    3. Re:Don't wanna be first... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That they have a lower crash rate than humans and we are all forced to switch to them.

      Not sure that is going wrong though.

      If they can reduce the fatality rate, and the eventually will, it will not matter if different folks die only that less die. This is the same thing as vaccines. You trade X deaths for X/Y deaths, while those latter deaths are unlikely to be the same folks.

    4. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Skater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given my experience with the idiot drivers on the roads, I'm going to say, "Not much that hasn't already."

    5. Re:Don't wanna be first... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      They will be far less likely to back over a kid, or confuse pedals like oldsters around here love to do. This is because the outside of the car can be covered in sensors instead of being a hinderance to visibility to the driver.

    6. Re:Don't wanna be first... by notanalien_justgreen · · Score: 2

      The google car already has over 300k miles on it without a single at-fault incident. Although I thought the law required a person to be in the car ready to assume control at all times?

    7. Re:Don't wanna be first... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My guess, the list of people waiting on organ donors will get longer.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hello, I'm Johnny Cab, where can I take you tonight?

    9. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I'm arming my Jag with an RPG pod.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:Don't wanna be first... by loufoque · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not going to happen.
      Reducing the fatality rate is only a political argument to make people accept speed cameras, which in turn generate a lot of profit for the state.

      Driverless cars would render speed cameras useless, so they will never be mandated.

    11. Re:Don't wanna be first... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed, 300,000 miles without an accident isn't that awesome.

      I've probably come close to driving around 300k in about 16 years and I have yet to have an accident. I HAVE had a number of close calls, and I will admit every now and then one of those close calls would have been my fault had there been an accident (legally and realistically).

    12. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Yo dawg is already a car analogy as it originates from that "Pimp Yo Ride" show or whatever its called.

    13. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean one that automatically and effectively drives effectively and avoids obstacles? That doesn't seem very appropriate considering the number of random obstacles that the house has thrown up that Obama managed to crash into.

    14. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      I am pretty sure the average person has an at fault accident more often than 300k miles driven.

    15. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      The good news is that they are already loaded with camera's. As camera's are a component of their collision avoidance sensor suite.

    16. Re:Don't wanna be first... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technology Double Standard.
      If a person does it, they have a particular fault rate, if the rate is low enough they get credited as really good job.
      If a computer does it, and they have a fault rate that exceeds the human fault rate by good factors, and it still fails, the idea is a disaster.

      In general people don't like giving up control, and doesn't like doing the math to see if they are better off.

      The automated driver, has a key advantage, it doesn't get distracted from driving, its primary goal is to get you from point a to point b as safe as possible. It doesn't get distracted by those bad drivers it is just an obstacle to avoid, after it avoided it, it isn't getting all pissy from it. Or if it is stuck in traffic, it will just drive the same without getting stressed about getting late.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2

      I have see playback from these sensors (not from a google car though) it is better than most any camera. IE it is a 3D representation that shows exact speed and direction + distance of everything around, overlaid with the actions the vehicle is attempting. About the only "issue" I see, is that dense fog/snow/rain can affect most of these sensors just about as bad as a person. The problem arises, that these vehicles will likely be programmed to not overdrive their visibility to stopping distance. Many people who drive in these conditions are used to taking additional risk, to keep moving. I suspect these vehicles will not be "at fault" in the conventional sense for going to slow, but that doesn't mean they won't be sued as in the way.

    18. Re:Don't wanna be first... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      One should note that we're inching towards driverless cars faster than you can imagine.

      Things like cruise control were the first step. Now we have lane awareness (where it alerts you If you start to drift from your lane), forward accident detection and prevention (applies brakes if you start approaching an obstacle in front), auto-cruise control (keeps you paced with the car in front automatically), parallel parking assistance, radar, etc.

      The driverless car probably won't come as one go, but all the technology spinoffs are coming fast and furious now.

      And it'll be popular when people realize they could text and do other things during the otherwise boring commute (boredom was one of the most cited reasons for distracted driving, or why people text and drive).

    19. Re:Don't wanna be first... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.

      The Google cars have backup cameras, radar, and bump sensors. They have been specifically designed and tested to not run over kids/pets while backing, under many different light and weather conditions. So your scenario is very unlikely to happen.

      A much more likely scenario: After self driving cars are common, some human driver backs over a kid, and people ask why we should continue to allow humans to drive.

    20. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A quick search reveals this:

      http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/

      And their math says 165,000 miles per accident for a person.

      This one below says 5.7 crashes per million miles driven for women and 5.1 crashes per million miles. That gives you 175K or women and 196,078 for men. A bit off from the first, but not too far off.

      http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml

      There are a few other links. So while you say 300,000 miles without a single at fault incident is not that good, it is almost twice what people do from the articles I can find.

      While having any accidents will trigger panic and people screaming how terrible this is and how it should be banned, if people examine the data it says that at the present 300K we would reduce accidents by nearly 30%-50%. If it goes to 600K without an incident, we just reduced accidents and deaths to 25-30%% of what they were.

    21. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google's definition of "accident":

      Noun
      1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
      2. A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.

      Accidents can also be caused by chance, but the word itself doesn't have to mean that. When someone says there was an accident somewhere, they aren't (necessarily) implying that nobody was to blame.

      I think replacing human driven cars with these things would save a lot of lives.

      In risk management there is a big difference between incident and accident. When two airplanes fly too close (what is call a near-miss), that is an incident. If they actually hit, that is an accident. All accidents are incidents, but not all incidents are accidents. What is needed to evaluate the google car is the incident rate, not the accident rate. Why? To minimize accidents, you need to minimize incidents. If google cars are involved in a high rate of incidents, even if they avoid accidents, then the risk of an accident is high.

      Think of it this way. Most teenagers do not have accidents, but they do have incidents. Accidents always occur from incidents, so insurance premiums are higher on teenage drivers. It is not the accident rate that is important in evaluating the self driving cars, it is the incident rate. Because even with low accidents, if there are high incidents eventually there will be high accidents.

    22. Re:Don't wanna be first... by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      He wasn't suggesting covering the windows, but most humans only have 2 eyes. Autonomous cars can be looking in every direction, all at the same time. They can be watching the side mirror to make sure they are backing up straight AND the rear view mirror to make sure your unattended child didn't run behind the car AT THE SAME TIME. Personally, I view this as both a win for saving lives, and a loss for circumventing natural selection.

  2. Jeez, did you even READ the article? by new+death+barbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's dateline is 2023. It's fiction. NOT news.

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:Jeez, did you even READ the article? by Thruen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm seeing a problem with internet news...
      http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
      http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html

      There's more, too. How scarey is it that this is being reported as news elsewhere based on an article from TechCrunch that opens with a date ten years in the future in bold letters? They didn't just not investigate, they didn't read the article they then based their own articles on. At this point, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on Fox tonight.

  3. Work of speculative fiction by simonbp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless TechCrunch has a time machine, this is a work of speculative fiction. The dateline of July 25, 2023 should be a dead giveaway, but since when did the Slashdot edittors ever RTFA?

  4. Early April Fools? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's bad enough to have April Fools come once a year and have to wade through the fake posts, but it's far from April 1st.

    From TFA: "Dispatch From The Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google July 25, 2023 "

     

  5. First we get browser shortcuts by Anubis350 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and now this fake piece of trash. What the hell's going on with the slashdot editors in the last couple days? I don't usually gripe about articles, but this is a little sad...

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:First we get browser shortcuts by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a few hours for the dupe.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  6. Elder drivers by wolfguru · · Score: 2

    I can forsee a state where older drivers who can no longer safely drive themselves can maintain a portion of their independence by using these to be able to get around without requiring someone else to taxi them from place to place. Simple destinations such as family member's homes, stores, doctor and medical offices, and other common destinations could be pre-programmed into the vehicle's memory, with a simple menu to select a destination. A "specify your destination" feature could be used for those who retain the ability to decide where they wish to go, and either locked out or require an authoritative OK when the elder gets beyond being certain of being able to specify new destinations safely. Combine this with a search feature that would allow stores, restaurants and other destinations to provide their coordinates to the driverless car network, and it would go a long way to making the elder but still active population safer while still more independent.

  7. Re:worst idea since flying cars by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the GP is right. Reasoning is that if there's one accident where a human is killed the media will exploded with stories of how cars are coming to life and killing everyone that gets near them.

    I can also imagine people who oppose driverless cars will be going to great expense to try and trip them up, causing accidents. There are some people, that no matter how extensive the evidence is that driverless cars kill fewer people by huge margins, are going to try and stop their adoption. So many people are killed by human error while driving it doesn't even make the news anymore, but I guarantee one driverless car accident will be international headlines. Like 3D printers being used to print guns. Forget the fact they can do anything else like printing organs, food or prototyping innovative ideas. OMG they print guns quick start the presses the masses must know of this injustice.

  8. Re:Good old capitalism by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We don't need jobs. We need food. We need shelter. Jobs are a means for which we obtain the resources to obtain those things. If robots can do everything, we can live in a very different kind of economy, basically proto-Star Trek. Don't ruin that with the notion that we need jobs.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. Re:Good old capitalism by mark-t · · Score: 2

    When robots can do a task faster, cheaper, and more reliably than humans, it's inevitable that they will be replaced.

    People have been fearing machines causing long-term and large scale unemployment since the cotton gin... history shows that actual unemployment increases caused by replacing workers with automation are not anywhere nearly as massive as was feared by some beforehand, but also extremely temporary.

  10. Re:Good old capitalism by losfromla · · Score: 2

    I think that for every displaced worker, some kind of habitation and space should be set aside for these newly unemployable. If they are essentially being made redundant to the continuation of the human species maybe a reserve is where they belong. I'm thinking along the lines of intentional communities, not ghettos. Very open, no support provided but also no economic output expected. Just put them out on nice fertile land where they can thrive outside of the hustle and bustle. No they won't be sterilized, their (our?) numbers will be naturally controlled by resource scarcity.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  11. Re:worst idea since flying cars by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Public transit is a very sub-par replacement for owning your own vehicle to go where you want when you want. The's a bus stop right across from my house, but it takes two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening commuting to work everyday by bus. It's fifteen minutes in the morning, fifteen minutes in the evening by car and there are a number of other inconveniences I don't have to deal with. Like not being allowed to take my coffee on the bus, spending an hour waiting for a bus that's suppose to come every fifteen minutes, not having dirty sick scummy rude people coughing and sneezing allover me everyday and whenever I decide to go for a longer trip to Ontario, North Carolina or the hour and a half drive to my in-laws I can come and go as I please.

    Cabs are acceptable for a once in awhile thing, but are too expensive to use on a regular basis.

  12. I wouldn't assume the editors noticed it's a joke by rebrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The editors of the Daily Mail didn't.

  13. Re:Good old capitalism by internerdj · · Score: 2

    Actually, psychologically, we do need jobs or at least meaningful tasks. However, we do need to rethink how we allocate the fundamental necessities given greater and greater productivity from less and less labor. We also need to think about what we do with human potential if we reach a place where labor isn't necessarily tied to survival.

  14. Think About It! by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although this article is a spoof it should point to another issue. We are well aware that robotic transport is close at hand on a large scale. And this is a perfect example of an issue that no one is confronting. As it has occurred in other trades we will see misery applied to a very large number of professional drivers. They will simply be out of work, permanently. And then there is a ripple effect. The diners that serve truckers, cab drivers and others will close or lay off workers. Motels will do the same. Even sales of items such as CB radios could take a hit.
                    I would not be overly shocked to learn that robotic vehicles displaced five million workers in the US. Although nobody is entitled to earn a living we will have to create an economic system that makes certain that all people are well paid without regard for whether they work or not. People without good pay checks can not purchase nor can they pay taxes. Unemployment and under employment will shift the tax burdens to those who work and it will also collapse or limit the income of businesses leading to an ever deepening, chronic poverty.
                    We are now confronted with a social reality that forces a sea change in our economic and political beliefs. We have no options at all other than to create a very socialistic society. Human labor, whether physical or mental, is in decline as far as value is concerned. I strongly suspect that our youth have glimpsed that which explains their lack of concern with education and their willingness to participate in activities likely to destroy them whether that be surfing a thirty foot wave, racing a motorcycle or shooting heroin.

  15. I can't wait... by FunPika · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...for these to become common in states like Massachusetts. The amount of anger from the average driver in that state would be incredible to see (having to sit behind a car that is programmed to strictly adhere to the posted speed limit, not try to beat red lights, and will not respond to any form of road rage directed towards it).

    --
    After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta