Tesla Model 3 revealed

[DonkeyApple]

otolith said:

There's a whole complex question about automation in general, and whether having people doing drudge work in order to have the dignity of labour is a productive use of human life. But I would counter that most drivers aren't being paid to do it, much of the time would rather be doing something else, and actually aren't all that good at it. I think you have to set the safety, efficiency and productivity arguments against the unemployment of Uber drivers. I guess the decline of employment of domestic servants is in part an effect of the reduction of household drudge work by washing machines, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, etc.

Agree. Ultimately, the important question is where is the growth in unskilled employment in the West going to be coming from as we dispose of tasks such as putting money in a till or following satnav instructions. The other aspect is the removal of social interaction through the loss of these roles and what sort of negative impact that has.

[Tuna]

otolith said:

I hope they didn't say that too loudly, since what they have actually done is to spin the project off into a new venture (Waymo) and say that they will sell their tech to OEMs.

I can't find the relevant news item, but yes, I believe that's what has been said. The point being that Waymo can sell the tech - cameras, car smarts, voice enabled entertainment units and so on, but they don't expect to deliver a car (or even all the components that can make a car) that can drive itself autonomously. My understanding is that Waymo is a subtle back down from the promise of autonomy back towards driver assist and connected vehicles. Essentially exactly the same as Tesla, who started off saying you'd get 'Autopilot' and now (without actually admitting as much).. not.

[tankplanker]

DonkeyApple said:

Another issue is that it isn't really essential tech that we all need. While you can see some reasonable benefits to autonomous cars such as having a portaloo delivered with Uber on the side and then having to step over the ex Uber drivers begging in the gutter inbetween bouts of fighting over scraps with the ex shop checkout workers or helping Geoffrey Bernards get home fundamentally almost no one actually needs autonomous vehicles.

The loss in so many jobs with no real replacement on the horizon for that number of unskilled jobs is frighting and needs a big change in public perception around Government provided benefits and the long term unemployed to become palatable even before we get to funding it. However the reduction in road traffic accidents and the injuries/deaths caused by them world wide would be a massive net benefit. A self driving car doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the average driver to be of benefit, which when you factor in places like China or India isn't of a particularly high standard. Even a 20% improvement would be several hundred thousand lives saved a year world wide.

[Guvernator]

I'm a keen driving enthusiast but I for one can't wait for automated cars. The majority of my journeys aren't done for fun, they are done because I simply need to get from A to B with the minimum of fuss. If someone else or better yet a computer who was at least as safe if not safer than the average driver where to be able to drive those journeys for me, it would be brilliant.

I could chill out, read a book, watch TV, play games, work, sleep or chat with other friends in the vehicle without distraction leaving me to really enjoy those other times when I drive purely for fun. If it makes more journeys safer for more people as a result then that is even better.

The problem of putting paid drivers out of work is of course an issue but unfortunately it's not just drivers at risk, the rapid development of AI, smart systems etc will probably mean that in 20 years time, a hell of a lot more than driving jobs will be at risk. The question then becomes do we try to find other ways to make those people productive or do we just accept this as a casualty of human progress? The future of employment and what people will do to earn a living once computers get smart enough to do all our jobs really is a ticking timebomb that isn't given nearly enough consideration IMO.

[jamoor]

Guvernator said:

I'm a keen driving enthusiast but I for one can't wait for automated cars. The majority of my journeys aren't done for fun, they are done because I simply need to get from A to B with the minimum of fuss. If someone else or better yet a computer who was at least as safe if not safer than the average driver where to be able to drive those journeys for me, it would be brilliant.

I could chill out, read a book, watch TV, play games, work, sleep or chat with other friends in the vehicle without distraction leaving me to really enjoy those other times when I drive purely for fun. If it makes more journeys safer for more people as a result then that is even better.

The problem of putting paid drivers out of work is of course an issue but unfortunately it's not just drivers at risk, the rapid development of AI, smart systems etc will probably mean that in 20 years time, a hell of a lot more than driving jobs will be at risk. The question then becomes do we try to find other ways to make those people productive or do we just accept this as a casualty of human progress? The future of employment and what people will do to earn a living once computers get smart enough to do all our jobs really is a ticking timebomb that isn't given nearly enough consideration IMO.

I think we should forget about the paid drivers and just focus on the public safety aspect of it.

Anything that improves public safety should be encouraged.

[98elise]

Tuna said:

The Vambo said:

Has he?

That phrase usually means to promise the unachievable. What promise hasn't he delivered on?

We could start with self driving cars. They're not. The company that was providing the cameras behind the technology has now distanced itself from Tesla, and after a number of interventions (and threatened legal cases), Tesla has dialled back on the 'Autopilot' claims, bringing them more in line with the 'Driver Assist' naming that every other company that uses the same tech calls it.

Google themselves have now said that self driving cars are not achievable with any current technology and have admitted that despite throwing their might behind it that autonomous driving is not a problem that is currently solvable.

I don't think they ever claimed autopilot was self driving. Before you can turn it on you have to acnowledge that.

Mobile Eye "distanced themselves" when Tesla launched their own in house autopilot 2 hardware, which is vastly better than the mobile eye version. Every Tesla built since has the new hardware. As I understand it the new software is ghost driving at the moment to collect data on any variances between human and autopilot driving.

Are you including Mercedes Benz in the list of companies that only call it Driver Assist? Their advertising specificaly said something like "Self Driving Car" before it was pulled as incorrect. I've not seen anything like that from Tesla.

Edited to add an article on the print ad (a US TV add was also pulled IIRC)

http://jalopnik.com/possible-mercedes-self-driven-...

Edited by 98elise on Monday 27th March 18:23

[shambolic]

It was causing a bit of a stir at Dubai Mall last week. I took a terrible photo in passing as I thought it looked like a lardy Aventime with rear gullwing doors

[Burwood]

Guvernator said:

I'm a keen driving enthusiast but I for one can't wait for automated cars. The majority of my journeys aren't done for fun, they are done because I simply need to get from A to B with the minimum of fuss. If someone else or better yet a computer who was at least as safe if not safer than the average driver where to be able to drive those journeys for me, it would be brilliant.

I could chill out, read a book, watch TV, play games, work, sleep or chat with other friends in the vehicle without distraction leaving me to really enjoy those other times when I drive purely for fun. If it makes more journeys safer for more people as a result then that is even better.

The problem of putting paid drivers out of work is of course an issue but unfortunately it's not just drivers at risk, the rapid development of AI, smart systems etc will probably mean that in 20 years time, a hell of a lot more than driving jobs will be at risk. The question then becomes do we try to find other ways to make those people productive or do we just accept this as a casualty of human progress? The future of employment and what people will do to earn a living once computers get smart enough to do all our jobs really is a ticking timebomb that isn't given nearly enough consideration IMO.

Your version is a utopia which you might see in 50 years. If big parts of Surrey have no cell coverage.....

[The Vambo]

DonkeyApple said:

Another issue is that it isn't really essential tech that we all need. While you can see some reasonable benefits to autonomous cars such as having a portaloo delivered with Uber on the side and then having to step over the ex Uber drivers begging in the gutter inbetween bouts of fighting over scraps with the ex shop checkout workers or helping Geoffrey Bernards get home fundamentally almost no one actually needs autonomous vehicles.

If Norbert can save 15% fuel per year using autonomous wagons, he needs it.

Need stops at Trabant, turnip and dial-up. Need is entirely irrelevant.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 22:50

[DonkeyApple]

The Vambo said:

DonkeyApple said:

Another issue is that it isn't really essential tech that we all need. While you can see some reasonable benefits to autonomous cars such as having a portaloo delivered with Uber on the side and then having to step over the ex Uber drivers begging in the gutter inbetween bouts of fighting over scraps with the ex shop checkout workers or helping Geoffrey Bernards get home fundamentally almost no one actually needs autonomous vehicles.

If Norbert can save 15% fuel per year using autonomous wagons, he needs it.

Need stops at Trabant, turnip and dial-up. Need is entirely irrelevant.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 22:50

Need is highly pertinent as it is the criteria which justifies/offsets the costs. As with all things it's about the trade-offs.

[Tuna]

The Vambo said:

If Norbert can save 15% fuel per year using autonomous wagons, he needs it.

Need stops at Trabant, turnip and dial-up. Need is entirely irrelevant.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 22:50

Buying a brand new car that depreciates like a stone in the first few years to save fuel is a very strange need. If car owners really wanted to save money they'd keep a reliable 'snotter' on the road at the expense of a bit lower fuel economy. So yes, need as a justification is an odd thing - especially when Tesla have been selling very expensive cars to get where they are today. There's very little justification (ecological or otherwise) for spending 70K on a car - except that it's the car you want to own.

[The Vambo]

Tuna said:

Buying a brand new car that depreciates like a stone in the first few years to save fuel is a very strange need.

If you think cars are going to be the vanguard of autonomous vehicles then you are very wrong.

Wagons, trucks, HGVs that burn £50k pa in fuel will be the beginning. In an industry where the margins are so slim £5K-£10K per unit per year efficiency saving is the difference between flourishing and bankruptcy.

Cars will be the second wave and Tesla are on pole to capitalise.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 23:24

[The Vambo]

DonkeyApple said:

Need is highly pertinent as it is the criteria which justifies/offsets the costs. As with all things it's about the trade-offs.

No.
Need is logical, want is emotional and emotional wins every single time. Its why Alfa are still in business and why surprise and delight is more important than body control for the success of new cars.

Many PH people often don't seem to see the emotional side of choosing a car, that is why they don't understand diesel sportscars and SUVs.

[DonkeyApple]

That's the most important area. But then you'll be releasing an army of coach, bus and truck drivers out into the community instead of keeping them segregated for at least half the day.

But the true issue with technology that removes jobs is that what it really achieves is the shift of the cost of labour from the private companies and into the shoulders of the taxpayer/State. In basic terms the corporate gets to stop paying a salary (and the associated taxes) but the State and the taxpayer pick up a benefit cost.

When you realise that for the majority of multinationals the only local taxes they pay are employment taxes then you can see that they have a tremendous incentive to stop having to pay those taxes but conversely the local employment area cannot afford to lose those jobs and the tax they represent.

In reality, from a social perspective, corporate inefficiency is good, efficiency is very bad. At a basic level it's clear to see that a megastore that employs 100 people is worse than 20 smaller stores that are far less efficient and employ far more people as a result. Sure, as the consumer you pay higher purchase costs but you pay far lower taxes as there is a lower benefit requirement. If autonomous tech allows firms to reduce employment along with local taxes even further then the cost to us will climb far higher than the consumer savings passed on.

I love the idea of an autonomous car for non leisure journeys but I'm not convinced that they won't be very bad for countries as a whole.

[The Vambo]

DonkeyApple said:

Sensible reasoning and stuff.

I love the idea of an autonomous car for non leisure journeys but I'm not convinced that they won't be very bad for countries as a whole.

Autonomous cars lead to jobs, who foresaw airbnb, Uber and a million opportunities when the Iphone was launched?

Think bigger, its the same argument since the loom with likely the same outcome.

[DonkeyApple]

The Vambo said:

Autonomous cars lead to jobs, who foresaw airbnb, Uber and a million opportunities when the Iphone was launched?

Think bigger, its the same argument since the loom with likely the same outcome.

You can hope that a significant change leads to jobs but you can't state that, which is why it is correct to question such steps and be hesitant.

As for thinking bigger, I don't think you are thinking big enough as the loom is a very good example of one of the fundamental risks in that it was one of the first inventions that led to the outsourcing of labour costs to geographically cheaper zones. Something which the modern tech has accelerated hugely in the last 30 years hence why all looms today are located outside of all high labour cost zones such as the UK and why so many UK consumers must borrow wealth to buy the goods.

We will make the technically local leap within our lifetimes that does away with enormous amounts of labour, that's a near certainty. The big unknown is whether other jobs will materialise out of the blue to replace those lost. Hence all the discussions about living wages being paid by the State while corporates reap the direct rewards. If the best potential solution at the moment is to just pay people not to have to work then it's pretty clear there is a significant risk ahead.

[saaby93]

shambolic said:

It was causing a bit of a stir at Dubai Mall last week. I took a terrible photo in passing as I thought it looked like a lardy Aventime with rear gullwing doors

Desperately needs the bumper screwing back on

[babatunde]

DonkeyApple said:

The Vambo said:

DonkeyApple said:

Another issue is that it isn't really essential tech that we all need. While you can see some reasonable benefits to autonomous cars such as having a portaloo delivered with Uber on the side and then having to step over the ex Uber drivers begging in the gutter inbetween bouts of fighting over scraps with the ex shop checkout workers or helping Geoffrey Bernards get home fundamentally almost no one actually needs autonomous vehicles.

If Norbert can save 15% fuel per year using autonomous wagons, he needs it.

Need stops at Trabant, turnip and dial-up. Need is entirely irrelevant.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 22:50

Need is highly pertinent as it is the criteria which justifies/offsets the costs. As with all things it's about the trade-offs.

If the trucking companies can save even 5% (and it will be a lot more than that) as a business it's a no brainer, companies have no moral compass, if the law allows it they will do it.

[kambites]

saaby93 said:

Desperately needs the bumper screwing back on

As with the model-3, stick a front number plate on it and I think it'd look fine (at least that bit of it would, the rest of the model-X is pretty vile).

[DonkeyApple]

babatunde said:

DonkeyApple said:

The Vambo said:

DonkeyApple said:

Another issue is that it isn't really essential tech that we all need. While you can see some reasonable benefits to autonomous cars such as having a portaloo delivered with Uber on the side and then having to step over the ex Uber drivers begging in the gutter inbetween bouts of fighting over scraps with the ex shop checkout workers or helping Geoffrey Bernards get home fundamentally almost no one actually needs autonomous vehicles.

If Norbert can save 15% fuel per year using autonomous wagons, he needs it.

Need stops at Trabant, turnip and dial-up. Need is entirely irrelevant.

Edited by The Vambo on Monday 27th March 22:50

Need is highly pertinent as it is the criteria which justifies/offsets the costs. As with all things it's about the trade-offs.

If the trucking companies can save even 5% (and it will be a lot more than that) as a business it's a no brainer, companies have no moral compass, if the law allows it they will do it.

I would never say that companies have no moral compass. That is not their job, despite what social pressures may say. The job of the company is to maximise profits. It is the job of the State to decide if corporate activities need tempering, regulating or halting on moral grounds or for the benefit of their population. A company in fact has a duty to adopt advances that keep it competitive. Don't forget that failure of a company to do so will result in a massive loss of employment.

The loom has been mentioned and it is very important to understand the actual history of the Agrarian Revolution and what many historians will today actually argue was the start of the Industrial Revolution as opposed to our school books telling us this was defined by steam. Companies rightly leaped at the profit opportunity of swapping unreliable, expensive human labour for machines. In fact they had absolutely no choice to do so as they would have been out competed and gone bust if they did not (many did). This period of mechanisation was fisasterous for the people of Briton. It is commonly mooted that all worked out fine and will do so again but that wholly negates the horrific period of job loss, home loss, family destruction, community destruction and starvation, death and crime. It was a horrific time of accelerated corporate profits at the expense of the population. The people didn't suddenly find new roles on their doorsteps.

Most importantly there was no State support. In fact the opposite. The State backed the corporations as it needed the taxation to try and balance its over spending. Fast forward to today and would the State let the people starve this time around? No, of course not. They will be paid to stay lost in regional hell holes as the unwanted labour is today. Will replacement jobs, new roles be waiting? No. That takes time. You'd expect it to be a lot quicker than back in the 16/17th centuries but it still takes time.

So, who will have to pick up the costs of companies rapidly reducing their labour requirements? It's us obviously. And look at how much the great outsourcing of low skilled industrial labour to the cheaper global labour markets of the last 30 years has cost society. Millions of units of unwanted human labour stored at huge expense to us in regional st tips.

It is a very important question to be asking where are we going to store all the redundant and unwanted clerical workers, retail workers, maintenance workers and transport workers as this new age of automation rapidly descends and how much are these unwanted units of labour going to cost us to store?

Or do we for the first time in our history actually look at units of labour as being fellow human beings and openly accept that giving them a subsistence payment to be kept away from society is utterly unacceptable and that the post war policies of scrap heaping surplus labour has been a horrific social failure and recognise that an inefficient labour market is essential for a healthy society. It is better for a local society to have inefficient businesses over employing than it is for it to have highly efficient businesses under employing and stripping wealth from the region like a giant vacuum.