Slashdot Mirror
Singapore Launches World's First 'Self-driving' Taxi Service (theguardian.com)
Days before ride-hailing service Uber debuts its self-driving car in Pittsburgh, a company in Singapore has beaten Uber to the race. The Guardian reports: The world's first "self-driving" taxi service has been launched in Singapore -- albeit with a human backup driver and co-pilot on board for the time being. Members of the public selected to take part in the trial would be able to hail a free ride through their smartphones, said nuTonomy, an autonomous vehicle software startup. The cars -- modified Renault Zoe and Mitsubishi i-MiEV electrics -- had a driver in the front prepared to take back the wheel and a researcher in the back watching the car's computers, the company said. Each was fitted with Lidar, a laser-based detection system like radar. An Associated Press reporter taking a ride on Wednesday observed that the safety driver had to step on the brakes once, when a car was obstructing the test car's lane and another vehicle, which appeared to be parked, suddenly began moving in the oncoming lane. The service would start with six cars, growing to a dozen by the end of the year, said nuTonomy, adding that it aimed to have a fully self-driving taxi fleet in Singapore by 2018.
The next self-driving car where they replace 1 driver with 2 drivers.
I believe the self-driving cars follows Moore's law. Double the number of drivers every 18 months!
I like how everyday we have some more clues that self driving cars are a real thing and that the next generation will find driving as awkward as the millennials find corded phone awkward.
I like it because it reminds me that technical and scientific progress cannot be stopped by morons just saying "it'll never happen". That a positive thing. We will still continue to have technical advancement despite the nonconstructive skeptics (kudos to constructive skeptics though, who make things progress by spotting what needs to be improved).
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Sheesh. And here I thought it would take 5 years for self-driving vehicles to become common.
By my previous estimate, around 5 million jobs in the US alone could be replaced or severely curtailed by self-driving vehicles (about 3.5 million jobs are driving tractor-trailers). I now think that's a low estimate, considering delivery vehicles, taxis, US mail, school busses, and so on.
The first self-driving tractor trailer hit the road about 18 months ago. Yes, they probably won't work in snow. Yes, they probably won't work in some situations, such as finding and backing into the loading dock. You'll still need humans for those situations.
But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.
This is demonstrably better from a safety and cost point of view, and it takes away a lot of tedious work from humans--giving them more free time--but it'll wreck our current economic system.
We currently have about 170 million workers, and sitting at about 10% unemployment. This one technological advance could push that up to 15%. Economically speaking, 10% unemployment is the beginning of the "this is bad, we should do something" level. We only recently dropped below that number from the great(-est) depression.
(How we deal with illegal immigrants is another big chunk of potential workers that could affect unemployment. Not to make this a partisan argument, but if we *do* have amnesty, it should be done in a layered, progressive fashion with an eye on unemployment so as not to tank the economy. Refugees are too few in number to affect unemployment.)
Don't get your hopes up: bots can be programmed to stiff ya and be annoying also. Instead of chit-chat, you'll get pop-up ads. Right now there's too much press and scrutiny, but in the future when it becomes routine, tricks and slack will slide in.
On a different note, Singapore has an advantage over the USA for roll-out in that they are not a democracy* and have fewer checks and balances: if something goes wrong, the gov't can tell the victims and lawyers to STFU and everyone is used to that.
* The USA arguably isn't either, but not to Singapore's level.
Table-ized A.I.
I like it because it reminds me that technical and scientific progress cannot be stopped by morons just saying "it'll never happen".
That's quite a different breed of moron from the ones who say "it should not happen". Think stuff like stem cell research, teaching evolution, etc.
There also is a difference between saying something wont happen soon or won't happen in a particular way versus saying it won't happen at all. For example renewable energy very clearly won't replace most fossil fuels for the next several decades at least. That's a very different statement from saying it "cannot" replace fossil fuels and different still from saying it "shouldn't" replace fossil fuels for many applications. I think that renewables will replace much of our fossil fuel use eventually. I just don't think it will happen as fast as we might hope it would. I'm skeptical about the rate of adoption, not whether it will or won't happen.
I am routinely skeptical about overly optimistic predictions, unrealistic economic expectations, incomplete analysis, etc. That doesn't mean I'm skeptical scientific and engineering progress in general. It just means that I think the person has some of the specifics wrong on a particular topic.
Yeah! If they don't go from standard taxis immediately to un-manned cars and firing their drivers in a weekend, then how can we possibly take them seriously?