Skip to content

Self-driving cars shouldn’t be a race

    I grit my teeth when the metaphor of ‘a race’ is used in discussions of self-driving vehicle technology.

    Companies developing computer-controlled car technology, including Tesla, the Chinese company Baidu and Waymo, a sister company to Google, are regularly described as being in a horse race to get self-driving vehicles ready for widespread use. Some US policymakers and elected officials are talking about America’s need to demonstrate “leadership” by beating China with autonomous technology.

    There are risks involved in going too slowly with a technology that could improve people’s lives, but we should not uncritically believe the story that a technology that will take many years to develop – and which has both great benefits and fatal pitfalls. can have – should be treated as a breed.

    The danger is that an artificial sense of urgency or a zeal to ‘win’ can create unnecessary security risks, allow companies to collect more of our personal information and prioritize companies’ self-interest at the expense of the public interest.

    When you read about a company or country racing, rushing, racing or winning in an emerging technology area, it’s helpful to stop and ask: why is it a race anyway? What are the possible consequences of this sense of urgency? Who is this message for?

    Most self-driving vehicle technologists now think it could be decades before computerized cars are commonplace. Another month, a year or two years might not matter much, and it’s not clear if all races are worth winning.

    So why does this story about self-driving cars exist? First, companies find it helpful to be seen by their employees, investors, business partners, regulators and the public as having the best chance of making safe, useful and lucrative computerized transportation technology. Everyone wants to support a winner.

    Pioneers have a chance to dictate the direction of a new technology and build a network of business allies and users.

    But winning a ‘race’ in technology doesn’t always make sense. Apple was not the first company to make a smartphone. Google did not develop the first online search engine. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company has not produced the first advanced computer chip. They’re tech superstars because they (arguably) did it best, not first.

    Second, the “race” story feels like a bludgeon to convince the public or elected officials to act faster with rules and regulations, justify loose rules, or expose people to undue risk in order to “win.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported last week about concerns that autonomous truck company TuSimple was taking safety risks with people’s lives “in a rush to bring self-driving trucks to market.” The Journal reported that a truck equipped with TuSimple technology suddenly swerved on an Arizona highway last spring and ran into a concrete barricade. TuSimple told The Journal that no one was injured and that safety was the top priority.

    Apple’s autonomous test cars collided with curbs near the company’s Bay Area headquarters, and earlier this year nearly collided with a jogger who had right of way on the street, The Information reported last month.

    Driverless cars could eventually make our roads safer, but each of those incidents was a reminder of the threats these companies pose in solving problems in self-driving vehicles. Developing a streaming video app doesn’t kill people.

    “We let these companies set the rules,” Cade Metz, a New York Times reporter who writes about autonomous vehicle technology, told me.

    Cade suggested a redefinition of the racing story. Rather than trying to win by making driverless cars ubiquitous, there could be a race to steer this technology into the public interest, he said.

    Characterizing emerging technology as a “race” with China isn’t great either. There are benefits for an American company to be the first to bring a new technology to market, but it is also dangerous to view everything as a superpower competition.

    In an interview last year with Kara Swisher, who hosted a Times Opinion podcast at the time, 23andMe chief executive Anne Wojcicki lamented that the US was “behind” China in an “information war underway regarding understanding the human genome. Then Swisher asked, “Is this a war we want to win?”

    Good question. If China collects massive amounts of DNA from humans, does that mean the US should too?

    Moreover, putting so much emphasis on driverless cars may also crowd out alternative ideas for improving transportation.

    Perhaps the race metaphor we need is from Aesop’s fable about the hare and the tortoise. Slow, steady, sensible, with a keen sense of the pros and cons – that’s the way to win the self-driving car race. (But it’s not a race.)

    Tip of the week

    Samsung has unveiled a new set of foldable phones this week that combines elements of smartphones and tablets. Brian X. Chenothe consumer tech columnist for The Times tells us what he likes and dislikes about foldable phones:

    Foldable cell phones are basically smartphones that have a hinge to open and close like a book to increase the screen size. Samsung has been refining this technology for years, but I generally remain skeptical about it.

    These were my impressions of the pros and cons of previous models after testing them years ago (starting with the cons):

    cons

    • When folded, foldable phones are thicker than a typical smartphone, adding more space in your pocket or hand.

    Pros

    For a similar shot: David Pierce, a writer for The Verge, wrote that foldable phones seem like a great idea, but are annoyingly compromised.

    • It’s the twilight of the Silicon Valley boy bosses: My colleague Erin Griffith talked about why some founders of young technology companies are quitting. Surprise: It’s not much fun to run a business when it’s harder to get money from investors, the economy is rocky, and cost-cutting is cooler than “vision.” (Bonus points for the sparkling unicorn illustration.)

    • Bad government technology is a symptom, not a cause, of dysfunction: The Washington Post has a delightful and irritating photo essay showing the IRS’s outdated technology and clunky bureaucracy for processing tax returns. The cafeteria is just a sea of ​​paper. (A subscription may be required.)

    • Hobby drones go to war: Drones used in combat zones are no longer just big, expensive weapons. The Ukrainian military also uses hobby drones modified in makeshift workshops to drop bombs and spot artillery targets, my colleague Andrew E. Kramer reported.

    NO ONE can resist dog Martha with the pleading eyes.

    We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you want us to discover. You can reach us at ontech@CBNewz.

    If you have not yet received this newsletter in your inbox, then sign up here. You can also read previous On Tech columns.