Taking the first self-driving shuttles in New York

Way­mo mo better

Jeff Spec­taku­lar

two tech­ni­cians at all times…what’s the point? one old fash­ioned dri­ver seems more efficient

Jeff.….…😏

Jeff Bakalar is still with cnet?

Vote Yang 2020

Cool but kin­da scary in new York 🙂

Now space force

I would rather pay a human than pay a robot oper­a­tor for doing nothing.

There’s bet­ter videos on self dri­ving cars and bus­es that dont even have tech­ni­cians on board. The stuff in this video is dat­ed when com­pared to what’s already on some roads.

Oh this dude has nev­er dri­ven a Tesla.

Peo­ple invoke the Indus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion and say that we have heard these fears before, all the way back to the Lud­dites, that new jobs always appear. It is unknow­able what the new jobs will be, as it is beyond human wis­dom. Often­times the per­son who thinks that all will be okay is guilty of what I call con­struc­tive-insti­tu­tion­al­ism: Oper­at­ing from a default stance that things will work-them­selves-out. This is, to my mind, a dis­avow­al of judg­ment and real­i­ty. His­to­ry repeats itself until it doesn’t.

Every inno­va­tion will bring with the new oppor­tu­ni­ties and some will be dif­fi­cult to pre­dict, as self-dri­ving cars and trucks will bring with them a need for improved infra­struc­ture, and per­haps some con­struc­tion jobs, at the demise of truck dri­vers, which could make drone pilots more of a need. Over time, the pro­lif­er­a­tion of data is already mak­ing data sci­en­tists a hot new job cat­e­go­ry. The prob­lem is that the new jobs are almost cer­tain to be in dif­fer­ent places than exist­ing ones and will be less numer­ous than the ones that disappear.

The new jobs will gen­er­al­ly require high­er lev­els of edu­ca­tion than the dis­placed work­ers have, and it will be very unlike­ly for a dis­placed work­er to move, iden­ti­fy the need, gain skills, and fill the new role. We can cel­e­brate the 200 new robot super­vi­sors in sub­ur­ban Cal­i­for­nia, and the 100 new logis­tics spe­cial­ists in Mem­phis, and the 50 new web design­ers in Seat­tle and say “Hey, we did­n’t know we’d need these 350 col­lege-edu­cat­ed peo­ple to man­age our robots that elim­i­nat­ed thou­sands of posi­tions. Hooray!” Mean­while there will be 50,000 unem­ployed retail employ­ees who will be look­ing fruit­less­ly for oppor­tu­ni­ties in their shrink­ing communities.
When news­pa­pers began shift­ing from paper-based to online pub­lish­ing, peo­ple com­plained that ‘we’re trad­ing ana­logue dol­lars for dig­i­tal nick­els and dimes.’ That’s what’s going to hap­pen with work­ers. We’re going to trade 100 high school grad­u­ates for 5 or 10 col­lege grad­u­ates some­place else.

It’s hard to under­stand what expo­nen­tial growth means over time. Take the exam­ple of a 1971 Volk­swa­gen Beetle’s effi­cien­cy. If it had advanced accord­ing to Moore’s Law, the vehi­cle, in 2015, would be able to go 300,000 miles per hour and get two mil­lion miles per gal­lon of gas. That’s what’s hap­pen­ing with computers.

-Andrew Yang, “The War on Nor­mal Peo­ple” Chap­ter 8

this tech­nol­o­gy will nev­er work. Should be spend­ing mon­ey on cold fusion

Just let any dri­ver­less vehi­cle legal­ly dri­ve in Man­hat­tan and the mar­ket will quick­ly sort out win­ners and losers.