Technology

Driverless Cars Shouldn’t Be a Race

I grind my teeth when the metaphor of “racing” is used in discussions of autonomous driving technology.

Companies developing computer-controlled automotive technology, including Tesla, China’s Baidu, and Google’s sister company Waymo, Regularly Description to be and horse racing to build self-driving cars Preparation for widespread use.some usa policy group When elected official He talks about the need for American “leadership” to beat China in self-driving technology.

There is a risk in introducing technology too late that could make people’s lives better. as a race.

What’s dangerous is that an artificial sense of urgency and eagerness to “win” creates unnecessary safety risks, allowing companies to further monopolize personal information and harming corporate self-confidence at the expense of the public good. It is possible to prioritize profits.

When you read about companies and countries speeding up, rushing, competing, and winning in emerging areas of technology, it’s helpful to stop and ask questions. What are the potential consequences of this sense of urgency? Who is this message aimed at?

Most self-driving car engineers now believe it will be decades before computer-controlled cars become commonplace. A month, a year, or two may not make much of a difference, and it’s not clear if every race is worth winning.

So why does all this talk about self-driving cars exist? We believe it is beneficial to be recognized as doing the best to achieve high computer-controlled transport technology. Everyone wants to support a winner.

Pioneers help set new technology directions and build networks of business allies and users.

But winning the technology “race” doesn’t always make sense. Apple isn’t the first to make a smartphone. Google did not develop the first online search engine. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company did not manufacture the first advanced computer chips. The reason they are tech superstars is because they (arguably) did their best, not the first.

Second, the “race” narrative persuades the public and elected officials to move rules and regulations more quickly, justify the lax, and expose people to unnecessary risks in order to “win.” Feels like a cudgel for

wall street journal report Last week, TuSimple, a self-driving truck company, voiced concerns it was putting people’s lives at risk by “hurrying driverless trucks to market.” The WSJ reported that a truck equipped with TuSimple technology made a sudden turn on an interstate highway in Arizona last spring and slammed into a concrete barricade. TuSimple told his WSJ that no one was injured and safety was the top priority.

Apple’s self-driving test vehicle smashed into a curb near the company’s Bay Area headquarters and nearly hit a jogger who had right-of-way across the road earlier this year, according to The Information. report last month.

Driverless cars may eventually make our roads safer, but each of these incidents is a reminder of the threat these companies pose in solving the self-driving kinks. Developing a streaming video app doesn’t kill people.

“We let these companies set the rules,” Cade Metz, a New York Times reporter and author of autonomous vehicle technology, told me.

Cade proposed a redefinition of the racial narrative. He said there could be a race to pilot the technology for the public good, rather than trying to win over self-driving car adoption.

Emerging technologycompetition with China is not great either. While there are advantages for American companies to be the first to commercialize new technologies, there are also dangers in treating everything as a superpower competition.

In an interview last year with Kara Swisher, who was hosting the Times Opinion podcast at the time, 23andMe CEO Ann Wojcicki said that in the ongoing “information warfare” over understanding the human genome, the United States is facing China. Swisher then asked, “Is this the war we want to win?”

good question. If China is massively collecting people’s DNA, does that mean America should too?

Plus, this much attention to self-driving cars could crowd out Alternatives to improve transport.

Perhaps the racial metaphor we need is from Aesop’s fables. rabbit and turtleSlowly, steadily, sensibly, and keenly aware of the pros and cons, that’s how you win the self-driving car race. (However, it is not a race.)

Tip of the week

Samsung this week unveiled a new foldable phone that combines elements of smartphones and tablets. Brian X. ChenConsumer technology columnist for The Times shares what he likes and (mostly) dislikes about flip phones.

A foldable phone is basically a smartphone that opens and closes like a book on a hinge to increase the screen size. Samsung has improved this technology over the years, but I’m generally skeptical about it.

These are my impressions of the pros and cons of the previous model after testing it many years ago (starting with the cons):

Cons

  • Foldable smartphones are thicker than regular smartphones when folded, making them bulky in your pocket or hand.

Strong Points

For similar takes: David Pierce, writer for The Verge, I have written A foldable phone sounds like a great idea, but it’s an embarrassing compromise.

  • It’s the twilight of the boy bosses of Silicon Valley. My colleague Erin Griffith reported on why some young tech founders are leaving. Surprise: Running a company isn’t all that fun when it’s hard to raise investor money, the economy is volatile, and cost cutting is cooler than your “vision.” (Bonus points for the shimmering unicorn illustration.)

  • Government rogue technology is a symptom, not a cause, of its malfunction. The Washington Post has a funny and infuriating article photo essay It shows the IRS’ outdated technology and clumsy bureaucracy for processing tax returns. The cafeteria is just a sea of ​​paper. (Application may be required.)

  • Hobby Drones Go to War: Drones used in war zones are no longer just large, expensive weapons. The Ukrainian military is also using hobbyist drones modified in makeshift workshops to drop bombs and identify targets for artillery, says my colleague Andrew E. Kramer. is reporting.

no one can resist Martha the Dog with Begging Eyes.


we want to hear from you Let us know what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to investigate.you can contact us ontech@nytimes.com.

If you haven’t received this newsletter in your inbox yet, sign up here. You can also read Past On Tech Columns.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button