this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
205 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

87417 readers
3660 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Take a look at this. A Tesla Robotaxi in Austin pauses, seems to reconsider a right-hand turn through some bollards, and then decides: "I’m just gonna send it."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Decreased costs and increased safety.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The claim "increased safety" is rather ironic in light of the post you're commenting on.

"Decreased cost" will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers. Once they manage to drive (hah) those out of the market, they'll start enshittifying and surcharging wherever they can.

"You're absolutely right to be upset. I should have notified you ahead of time that this section of the highway is closed and I cannot complete the trip you paid for." "Then exit the highway, dammit!" "Very well. The upgrade has been charged to your card." "The fuck you mean, upgrade?" "I'm sorry, I should have been clearer on this. You just purchased the Road Map modules for municipalities within 30 miles of our current location in order for me to consider alternate routes not involving the highway. Now please enjoy this entertainment while I select the optimal route." 90 seconds of ads pass "New route selected. Estimated arrival: three hours and fifty-three minutes. Overtime extensions have been charged preemptively."

[–] huey_m@piefed.social 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.

Not really?

Are we really so blinded by (understandable) Tesla hate that we're reducing ourselves to anecdotes to counter data and studies, the thing we've been complaining about from conservatives for decades now?

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago

That wasn't a serious comment on that general topic. I had a paragraph typed up on that, then realised I'm not versed enough in the state of that field to speak on it. It's to be understood as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the fact that "they're safer" is a funny juxtaposition against a post about a safety failure.

If you do want me to contribute my poorly qualified opinion, I do believe that a thoroughly interconnected network of automated mobility can be safer than human control. I suspect that the technical bar for that would be fairly high, but humans are notoriously prone to error, road rage, distraction etc.

The question I'm more concerned about isn't whether we could, but whether we should. Individual transport being so thoroughly surveilled is even worse than the surveillance of public transport, and in our current world, I don't think I can safely condone that trend.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The claim "increased safety" is rather ironic in light of the post you're commenting on.

The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt. These things collectively have millions of miles on them. If you want counter evidence I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.

"Decreased cost" will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers.

I meant to the provider, not the end user.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt.

And that line was just a comment on a juxtaposition I found funny. Don't take it too seriously.

I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.

I just replied to another comment to the same effect; I'm aware of terrible drivers being an issue. My concern is less whether it increases the road safety and more whether it helps societal safety.

I meant to the provider, not the end user.

Yeah, I don't think that should ever be an endorsement criterion for anything at all. Any savings that don't also save money for the user are just straight up greed, funelling money into the providers' pockets (and if we're honest, mostly their executives and shareholders, not their workers).

[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think that should ever be an endorsement

It wasn't. It was an answer to the question that was asked.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 0 points 4 days ago

I interpreted the original question "what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?" as referring to the value for society at large. I concede the potential safety improvement as a counterpoint to "solves no problem at all", I just don't really believe that the money savings will manifest for society at large (unless, of course, we manage to get rid of the whole "disrupt, monopolise, exploit, enshittify" mechanism).