The claim that “more than 33,000 lives would be saved annually in an entirely Waymo’d world” appears stronger than the evidence presented. The cited statistics concern injury-causing crashes, not fatalities, so it’s unclear how they support an estimate of lives saved. In addition, Waymo operates in a limited range of locations and driving conditions compared with the full spectrum human drivers face. Extrapolating its current performance to a nationwide estimate therefore depends on assumptions that are not explained here.
Mamdani is an idiot ideologue that panders to a certain demographic but forgets the reason why cities like London or New York became the success they are. And it's got nothing to do with worker protections.
A problem is that we never should have needed the gig economy in the first place. (I worked multiple of these jobs including rideshare driving for Uber & Lyft. It's hard work that doesn't pay well.)
Now, we have to face the reality that these are people whose livelihood depends on "bullshit jobs" (Graeber) to not-quite-get-by. As many have pointed out, we have a massive shortage in good jobs. Jobs that make people feel a sense of purpose. This is unacceptable.
Just about every day now, I hear references to "financial nihilism" and fears of a "permanent underclass". This is the world we live in. This is the state of the economy for real Americans.
Reiterating what I said about jobs with a sense of purpose... we will lose an unknown number of jobs through AI automation in the near-term but the hope is that, as with most new boogey man technologies, that the long-tail will create more jobs. Doesn't seem entirely realistic to prophesize the reality. Some will say, "It's different this time." (and we know how that goes, historically, with regards to the market... just sayin)
Reid Hoffman (in his book 'Superagency') noted we could do Americans a big favor by making this newer iteration of the Industrial Revolution (the AI Revolution) easier on everyday people. Many have said that the only way to do this is a form of Basic Income. (Separately, Scott has suggested we give individuals a living wage (at least $25/hour)) With regards to Basic Income, Scott has suggested a lower amount than some and then adding services (such as childcare) that brings individuals up to ~$80,000/yr.
Much more to this conversation but I'm glad Scott and the Prof G team take deep dives and force us to look at hard realities.
Technology did not win as far as nuclear power plants. If you look at the risk factor, nuclear power is incredibly safe, but people do not want it.
Isn't it to be expected that technology brings cheaper services for us individual consumers? Does Waymo cost less?
I'm all for the safety argument, but let's apply that evenly and favor funding mass transit. Isn't the lobbying of the auto industry monumental and against mass transit funding? Show me the numbers on that one. The public funding of roads is at the top of budget items for ever unit of local government and states. We never talk about how much safer mass transit is and question why we continue to fund the more deadly mode.
"The pattern is undefeated: Technology always wins..."
Is this not a rather deeply nihilistic stance--not to mention glib, and conveniently resigned?
Technology always "wins" WHAT, exactly? "Wins" for whom?
Looking at the current state of our small world and humanity's future in it (i.e., living on borrowed time and resources, while nevertheless incessantly accelerating and declaring "technology will (somehow!) save us!" despite technology being the proximate cause of the planet's degradation)...seems to me that this POV is precisely the kind of existential shrug that accounts for our very worst qualities as a species.
Consider at least the *possibility* that we actually have choices. Even we're too numbed--or voluntarily distracted--to see them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Driving safety is wrong way to look at the problem but jobs. We should look at what other gig jobs can be created if Waymo is offering rides. I am sure there are other jobs available if they are not all driving. Perhaps doing delivery on autonomous vehicles or other blue collar jobs. We would help the situation by providing employment ideas, or bring in the businesses that may need such work force.
AV Safety stats are incomplete. The bad pattern that should be recognized here is launching technology without sufficient planning for the people it affects.
Another safety factor would be the premise that as the number of Waymos and Self Driving vehicles increase, their overall safety factor would increase. It would be interesting to see the number of Waymo accidents attributed to human drivers.
The claim that “more than 33,000 lives would be saved annually in an entirely Waymo’d world” appears stronger than the evidence presented. The cited statistics concern injury-causing crashes, not fatalities, so it’s unclear how they support an estimate of lives saved. In addition, Waymo operates in a limited range of locations and driving conditions compared with the full spectrum human drivers face. Extrapolating its current performance to a nationwide estimate therefore depends on assumptions that are not explained here.
Great piece! Have to think about where I stand but appreciate the perspective
The problem is that it’s the wrong technology.
The other problem is the cheering section I’m seeing here for capital, capital, capital over everything.
Mamdani is an idiot ideologue that panders to a certain demographic but forgets the reason why cities like London or New York became the success they are. And it's got nothing to do with worker protections.
A problem is that we never should have needed the gig economy in the first place. (I worked multiple of these jobs including rideshare driving for Uber & Lyft. It's hard work that doesn't pay well.)
Now, we have to face the reality that these are people whose livelihood depends on "bullshit jobs" (Graeber) to not-quite-get-by. As many have pointed out, we have a massive shortage in good jobs. Jobs that make people feel a sense of purpose. This is unacceptable.
Just about every day now, I hear references to "financial nihilism" and fears of a "permanent underclass". This is the world we live in. This is the state of the economy for real Americans.
Reiterating what I said about jobs with a sense of purpose... we will lose an unknown number of jobs through AI automation in the near-term but the hope is that, as with most new boogey man technologies, that the long-tail will create more jobs. Doesn't seem entirely realistic to prophesize the reality. Some will say, "It's different this time." (and we know how that goes, historically, with regards to the market... just sayin)
Reid Hoffman (in his book 'Superagency') noted we could do Americans a big favor by making this newer iteration of the Industrial Revolution (the AI Revolution) easier on everyday people. Many have said that the only way to do this is a form of Basic Income. (Separately, Scott has suggested we give individuals a living wage (at least $25/hour)) With regards to Basic Income, Scott has suggested a lower amount than some and then adding services (such as childcare) that brings individuals up to ~$80,000/yr.
Much more to this conversation but I'm glad Scott and the Prof G team take deep dives and force us to look at hard realities.
This post raises a lot of questions. From a consumer perspective I don’t see the value proposition. Is it safety? I support the Mayor’s decision.
Technology did not win as far as nuclear power plants. If you look at the risk factor, nuclear power is incredibly safe, but people do not want it.
Isn't it to be expected that technology brings cheaper services for us individual consumers? Does Waymo cost less?
I'm all for the safety argument, but let's apply that evenly and favor funding mass transit. Isn't the lobbying of the auto industry monumental and against mass transit funding? Show me the numbers on that one. The public funding of roads is at the top of budget items for ever unit of local government and states. We never talk about how much safer mass transit is and question why we continue to fund the more deadly mode.
Self driving vehicles deliver 10 times more candy canes and unicorns. Source Waymo.
"The pattern is undefeated: Technology always wins..."
Is this not a rather deeply nihilistic stance--not to mention glib, and conveniently resigned?
Technology always "wins" WHAT, exactly? "Wins" for whom?
Looking at the current state of our small world and humanity's future in it (i.e., living on borrowed time and resources, while nevertheless incessantly accelerating and declaring "technology will (somehow!) save us!" despite technology being the proximate cause of the planet's degradation)...seems to me that this POV is precisely the kind of existential shrug that accounts for our very worst qualities as a species.
Consider at least the *possibility* that we actually have choices. Even we're too numbed--or voluntarily distracted--to see them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Driving safety is wrong way to look at the problem but jobs. We should look at what other gig jobs can be created if Waymo is offering rides. I am sure there are other jobs available if they are not all driving. Perhaps doing delivery on autonomous vehicles or other blue collar jobs. We would help the situation by providing employment ideas, or bring in the businesses that may need such work force.
Dan, I LOVE this article and your research! Keep it up!
AV Safety stats are incomplete. The bad pattern that should be recognized here is launching technology without sufficient planning for the people it affects.
Great article. The safety improvements just have to win the day, but it’s going to take a long time.
Another safety factor would be the premise that as the number of Waymos and Self Driving vehicles increase, their overall safety factor would increase. It would be interesting to see the number of Waymo accidents attributed to human drivers.