Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators)
I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can actually get killed.
Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far.
Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human.
> "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate."
If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop driving? Or did Tesla also require a permit?
From the DMV legislation:
> (a) “Autonomous mode” means an autonomous vehicle, as defined by this article, that is
operated or driven without active physical control by a natural person sitting in the vehicle’s
driver’s seat. An autonomous vehicle is operating or driving in autonomous mode when it is
operated or driven with the autonomous technology engaged.
To me that sounds like it would cover what Tesla and Uber is doing if the driver is entirely hands-off. But this part is less clear:
> (b)(d) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the
capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of
a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged, excluding vehicles equipped with one
or more systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance but are not capable of driving or
operating the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person
Uh, pedestrians in crosswalks, apparently. I'd also add:
1) drivers who were lied to about their potential take home pay
2) customers who will have to eat 50% fare hikes once Uber gains monopoly power in order for them to ever become profitable.
3) employees who work under a CEO who lauds the company as "Boober" in honor of all the fringe benefits he gets for running it.
4) investors who will lose value once the company finally implodes.
Isn't it a fun fact that throughout history, (barring the morally exceptional[0]) each human only ever chose to do things that were in their best interest. However, since humans existed, we have continually seen a consistent improvement[1] in the average human's life.
[0] Funny thing about the morally exceptional: I can't think of any which continue to improve our current day-to-day lives.
[1] Improvement is subjective. But objectively (compared to centuries past), our housing situation has gotten better (more roofs, less exposure to the cold/heat), the average human doesn't worry about getting sick from bad water or getting bitten by a snake while in their bed, the average human dies less to disease and overall dies at a later age, and the average human is able to spend more time on hobbies rather than necessities.
My bad on the miscommunication, I was talking about "throughout history": As a result what I meant was: I can't think of any [morally exceptional people] which [past their own lifetimes] continue to improve our current day-to-day lives.
You are correct though that morally exceptional people do have a (slight) positive impact to my day-to-day. I just haven't seen a case where their contributions transcended time. Similar to the contributions of say: Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Bell, person who first repeatedly sparked fire, etc.
The contributions of religious figures transcend time. But you could argue either way about their contributions being beneficial to our day-to-day. Again it would be debatable if it was in the best interest of these religious figures to spread their personal ideology. Either of these debates would be inherently biased towards your take on religion.
And yet what you do in VFD is very often against your own self interest - you sacrifice a lot of time, and sometimes risk your health and life, and all you get for yourself is bragging rights.
Not at all! You get the knowledge that the men and women standing beside you at an emergency will be there when it's your house/barn/grain silo that goes up.
I was talking about the autonomous vehicle permit in this particular case. I removed that part of my comment because people are mistaking what I said apparently.
It's a valid political position to believe that people don't need government regulation (laws) to behave themselves, not make mistakes, and not take risks that might lead to mistakes. It's the libertarian/anarchist viewpoint, as mentioned. But that's not how the government in San Francisco, California, or the US works.
Those of us who don't hold to the libertarian or anarchist positions believe that it's a good thing for laws to prohibit risky decisions that are probably going to be totally fine, if the not-fine case is particularly bad. For instance, that's why there are food inspection departments; even if you don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to poison people, there are a set of risky behaviors (not refrigerating things promptly, not washing things, etc.) that stand a small chance of getting people sick, and we believe it's worth stopping those, even if it slows down production, and even if we can't completely eliminate people getting sick.
Sorry, that phrasing was unclear; my intention was that this one viewpoint is shared by libertarianism and anarchism, which, yes, are two quite different philosophies as a whole. (Although you may well disagree with that rephrasing.) I was referencing the post above that said "libertarian / anarchist subculture", which I'm guessing was meant similarly.
Just to play devils advocate here. Assuming Uber gets a permit to test autonomous vehicles in public, how much risk has been mitigated as a result vs not having a permit and allowing them to continue testing?
Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are:
- have insurance with up to $5 million
- the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as well as defensive driving training
Those both sound like reasonable, common-sense things to have. I'd also want a company testing their vehicle to have insurance and know how to drive their car. But at the same time if this permit didn't exist, how much less safe would the world be? Really?
They're not stress testing the software, they're not analyzing the code, they aren't testing the competency of the people who built the software, etc, etc. They aren't doing any of that for a good reason. So ultimately this is mostly just theatre or an exercise in letting Uber know who the boss is.
Because I highly doubt Uber doesn't have the insurance or experienced drivers. Nor do I think there will be any significant amount of tech companies wrecking havoc on California because they didn't think to buy auto insurance before starting an automobile software company, save a permit.
CA DMV also requires companies testing autonomous vehicles to report all their crashes and disconnects. Here are all those reports.[1][2] 20 companies have signed up. This is basic data collection to help decide when a system is safe for deployment.
Uber apparently tried to evade this minimal level of scrutiny. Looks like it didn't work.
I can think of a number of ways to collect this data without requiring a special permit. The police are in coordination with California, so incidences involving semi autonomous vehicles can be collected using existing systems. I'm also sure there are means to shutdown Uber's autonomous testing via court order.
Additionally insurance and drivers licenses are already regulated.
I'm still not convinced of the necessity. The hammer is always looking for a new nail.
The bar for expanding bureaucracy and adding highly specific oversight is so low and so commonplace that you're labeled a techno-libertarian for questioning the basic economic cost (realistic benefits vs tradeoffs) of doing so.
You may feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching over these specific companies testing process. That doesn't automatically mean the world has been made safer as a result of their time spent writing complex legislation, building regulatory systems, enforcing it, slowing down development of technology, battling cases in court, pushing companies to other states/countries, etc.
Unfortunately questioning the realistic utility of such regulation is no longer the default and is dismissed as the foolishness of some silicon valley tech people disconnected from real life...
The data collection required for autonomous vehicles includes even very minor accidents. The idea is to collect data on what failed and why before somebody gets killed. Unlike regular accident data, all reports are public. This lets us see that Google's repeat problem is being rear-ended when their cars stop while entering an intersection because they detected cross-traffic. It also tells us that Cruise Automation hit a parked car on 4th St in SF for no good reason.
Anybody testing autonomous vehicles has this data. They just have to send it in.
So do you think the public wouldn't be able to inform themselves on which service or vehicle is safer before purchasing these cars without this data? Or that Google, Uber, Tesla, etc wouldn't already be taking these numbers very seriously and doing everything to minimize them? Or that the public wouldn't truly know the real safety of these vehicle as a whole vs human drivers.... without this mandatory test vehicle permit?
> Or that Google, Uber, Tesla, etc wouldn't already be taking these numbers very seriously and doing everything to minimize them?
Given that we know existing car manufacturers have faked or covered up safety data in the past, you're putting a lot of faith in the goodness of tech companies.
The organization who detected that VW was faking the data wasn't actually the government (California Air Resources Board in this case). It was detected by a privately funded organization... funded in part by technology billionaires:
...I'm the one questioning the utility in of California's system of control. My faith in either actor's earnest participation is therefore not of much use.
I do know customers value safety and honesty of companies they buy/use cars from, and so do the investors who back these companies. Which are the people who keep these companies in business. That pressure exists independently of these permits. Which is why one must realistically question the utility of special government oversight.
I'm definitely a fan of the thesis that government should be more competent, although I don't think that's where you were going with that. :) I'd love to see government regulations that demand that you should stress-test the software, hire someone competent to analyze the code, get licensed engineers to be involved in design and development-process review, etc.
The difference between your devil's-advocate worldview and my worldview is I think not in our perception of facts - we both agree that the government isn't super competent right now - but in our optimism. You (or your viewpoint) isn't optimistic that government regulation will ever get good, and would rather just stop trying, but is pretty confident that individual humans and companies are unlikely to be abusive, or to cause much damage if they are. I'm resigned to expecting that someone, somewhere, will try to get away with the bare minimum required, and in the absence of regulation will just be too stupid to realize they're risking people's lives until people die. But I do have higher expectations of government regulation, and believe that it can be good or at least we can work towards it being good.
(Also, government regulation doesn't have to involve the government doing things. Several industries have so-called "self-regulatory organizations", which mostly exist because of the implicit threat that the government could start regulating more heavily. That is, the SROs only exist because of government letting industry know who the boss is, so there's a distinct positive effect of that posture! The SROs aren't perfect, but to first order everyone is better off: the government isn't interfering with things they don't understand, yet actual, competent oversight with meaningful enforcement powers exists. Self-driving cars are too small an industry at present to meaningfully self-regulate, but it certainly sounds like they won't be very shortly.)
It's a gross misrepresentation to claim that ignoring (i.e., breaking) laws is considered acceptable by [generally recognized] libertarian philosophies. Even many anarchist philosophies would reject that, although not all.
Perhaps the concept you're looking for is "anti-authoritarian", although it's entirely possible to be anti-authoritarian without being willing to break laws as one sees fit.
I originally got into tech because I hate my life and thought that tech was this outlet that could actually make some change. I come from a world of violence and abuse and never really cared for the powers that be. Tech seemed like the answer.
So my question to the people who don't feel this way: why are you in tech? Serious question. Tech only seems interesting because you can move fast. What value do you find from working in this field if you don't feel this way? If you have to work inside some system?
This comes from a person who lived in an abusive household most of my life and still struggling to find something outside of QA while I work on my own projects, but I don't really get the appeal of this field if all you want is a house with kids and work within the system. It comes off as mediocre to me. So as a person reaching almost 30 who hates life the way it is and wants to see a change, please explain to me what you get out of this.
I switched from Marketing to Computer Science because I got tired of writing multiple page essays based on a few sentences out of a textbook and I wanted to be in a field of study where I was judged by what I could or couldn't do rather than by how many buzzwords I could fit in an essay.
But there's plenty of other reasons to be in tech: The promise of money is almost as good as the finance industry; The ability to touch a lot of lives and improve people's quality of life is another possibility; The desire to understand technology as it exponentially permeates our lives was another aspect of my decision.
I enjoy working as a software engineer because I have fun building new things, because I find the science behind it intellectually stimulating, and because I feel the work our industry is doing is building the foundations for the future.
Speed is important, but isn't the biggest priority to me. It's best when things move quickly, of course... but my first priority as a professional engineer is to do things correctly, ethically, and safely. It's a point of personal pride.
I don't think there's any part of that that's in conflict with changing the world for the better. Move fast and break things; just don't break other people in the process.
Of course, there's a big difference in what's at stake when building a website, versus someone building a rocket / self-driving car / nuclear reactor / life-critical system. The engineering practices need to be adjusted accordingly in each case.
I'm in tech because I'm an idealist and believe very seriously that, done right, technology can change people's lives for the better. For the record, I don't think I could be convinced work at Uber.
I'm not a fan of the "system". But I also quite firmly don't believe that change in any direction, just for the sake of change, is good. There are a ton of things the system does wrong. There are also many things the system does right.
There's a lot of interesting tech where you don't run afoul of regulation but you still massively change lives for the better. Take cell phones - that's been a huge change in the world, and at no point did anyone need to break laws or skirt regulations to make it happen. (I'm not even sure how they could; the only thing that comes to mind is using disallowed frequencies, and even that would have been so much more harmless than anything involving cars.) But they've made an immeasurably huge change in the world, for the better.
Or take the Internet. Or take Wikipedia. Or Twitter. Or mobile camera technology. Or e-commerce. Or the technologies required to run large research clusters to develop new medications. None of these things are things where the system is fundamentally opposed to what you're doing. There may be regulatory fights, sure; someone will be worried about e-commerce and taxes, or encryption and law enforcement, or whatever. You're moving fast, and the system is confused; yes, fight the system.
But you're not calling the very concept of the rule of law into question. That's where I disagree with the libertarian/anarchist technocratic movement: the fact that someones you disagree with the law doesn't mean you have to consider it illegitimate.
Terry Pratchett wrote in the forward to his books that he became an author because it was indoor work with no heavy lifting.
Similarly, I got into tech because I was a smart kid who was good with computers and so it's a well paying field that I find easy and enjoyable. I'm also someone who's always been very much "within the system" and therefore try to be aware of my privileges. Don't underestimate the value of "house with kids and work within the system". Plenty of refugees dying on beaches for the possibility of a chance of maybe having that. Even within the comfortable West, it looks a lot more attractive when you're closer to 40 than 30.
Mind you, the reason I didn't go into CS research when I might have had the opportunity was because it was very obviously so much of a dead end; at least with startups there's a chance of people using your product.
I've thought a lot about this and can only conclude that the only reason that drives me (when I could be in other socially and financially better jobs) is the promise of striking gold with some successful B2C or B2B product, be it VR or CRUD apps. Actual CS engineering is interesting but not worth making as many sacrifices for.
> Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech.
You are misusing those terms, as belovedeagle pointed out.
> ... will never be regarded as an engineering profession
> It's like we rebelled against adulthood
Who is "us"? Many, if not most, software engineers would welcome being able to refuse doing anything morally questionable. Many are unhappy about companies disregard for safety, security, privacy, respect for users.
Yet, most are powerless in a world of at-will employment, H1B shackles, NDAs, and lack of professional organizations to protect those who disagree with their employer on ethical grounds.
And for us! Uber pool lowers prices, surge pricing increases availability. Uber would not let passengers ride in an autonomous deathtrap -- the negative publicity would be disastrous to their goals. If this is our libertarian dystopia, I welcome it with open arms.
> in light of projects where people can actually get killed.
Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds.
Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have progress and a thriving society.
I'm going to talk about my state's perspective because what you're saying sounds like madness.
> 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school
The standard curriculum for 16 year old drivers is 12-16 hours of in class lecturing, 5 hours of in-car instruction with a licensed professional, a minimum of 50 hours of in-car instruction from a guardian or family member, a nuanced written test, and an hour in-car examination.
That's just to get a restricted license. Until you get your real license 6 months later you have to additionally obey the following:
* No passengers except for your guardian, parent, or instructor.
* No driving after 11 PM.
* Absolutely no cell-phone use (even hands free).
* Any ticketable violation has a mandatory court appearance and will trigger a second round of more difficult driving instruction.
> Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability.
I have terrible vision and I have had to go through the test three times; after the third time I now have to my to wear my glasses to drive. It happens every time you have to renew your license.
> car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds
That's a bit misleading, there isn't much else that kills young people.
My point is that in situations where there is that kind of risk involved we actually to go through a lot of effort to mitigate it.
That's a lot of regulations. I would think that teenage drivers are very safe.
> In 2014, 2,270 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 221,313 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. In 2013, young people ages 15-19 represented only 7% of the U.S. population. However, they accounted for 11% ($10 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries. The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.
> Of the teens (aged 16-19) who died in passenger vehicle crashes in 2014 approximately 53% were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.2 Research shows that seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half
Perhaps someone can pass a law mandating seatbelt use!
Edit: it's also misleading that you suggest that the driver must have a minimum of 50 hours of driving experience. While technically true in NY State, all the applicant has to do is provide a completed Certification of Supervised Driving (MV-262) signed by your parent or guardian and that's only for teens under 18 year olds.
> Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability
If you are in California, you will occasionally be required to go to an office in-person for DL renewals where your vision will be tested as part of the process. Many insurance companies also incentivize older drivers taking "mature driver improvement" courses every few years as a refresher. Then of course there's things like traffic school if you are driving and receive a moving traffic violation. This seems straightforward...
Also, I might note this because I went through this process with my father... when your vision is bad enough to fail the DMV's criteria of 20/40 corrected vision with either or both eyes, they have a whole load of things they make you do. With my father he could theoretically hit the 20/40 vision requirement but made mistakes due to scarring from surgeries that blurred vision in only certain areas. He had to get documentation from his doctor as to what kind of driving he could potentially do (e.g. no night driving), got additional mirrors installed in the car, went through a special drive test (after he did his own refresher driving class voluntarily), and had a whole load of restrictions added to his already limited term license (e.g. he had to get a new license after only a couple of years, and every renewal would require a drive test). In the end, it was such a hassle despite zero functional issues driving that he ended up giving up his DL at the last renewal. If his vision had declined significantly from there, DMV would have immediately revoked the license and suspended his ability to receive a new one.
So, sure, seniors and teens alike cause a lot of accidents, but we're not exactly lacking on trying to reduce problems.
I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can actually get killed.