Back when this originally came out, Uber claimed "this incident was due to human error" [1]. Well technically, if you really twist the meaning of words, Uber could interpret this as "human error", considering:
- It was "human error" that the programmers who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking.
- It was also "human error" that the human driver in the front seat failed to notice the red lights and stop the car.
Uber's statement is effectively true, if you hideously twist the meaning of words. I fully believe that's what they did in their statement. There's similar wordplay for the word "natural", i.e. claiming "All pollution is natural", because humans are part of nature and everything we do is natural, so all consequences of our actions are also "natural". Deceiving yet ultimately, effective.
The full article from the NYT[0] which is the source for the information presented in the Verge post includes a quote indicating that Uber blames the operator for not manually stopping the vehicle. Their story is essentially that the car isn't ready to handle this scenario on its own and the operator should have known to intervene.
> who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking.
From the article it sort-of seems like that error is actually in the mapping software that didn't mark that intersection as having traffic lights, so the car didn't look for them.
It's clear how Uber botched this. That traffic signal is not at an intersection. It's a heavily used mid-block crosswalk.[1] It's a very well marked crosswalk, with six redundant full size traffic signals all visible in the direction the Uber vehicle was traveling. This indicates Uber's system only looks for mapped traffic signals.
SF has a database of their traffic signals, and this signal is listed. It's object #902.[2] Apparently Uber gets their data from somewhere else.
I'm not defending Uber, but there seems to be a pattern of startups that at first everybody is in love with. The startup explodes and grows to become widely successful and morphs from startup to corporation. An incident happens, and then everybody jumps on the bandwagon and bashes them mercifully. Boycotts insue. Clone competitors pop up proclaiming to be "not-evil" and the cycle starts again.
Let me backup my claim with examples:
GitHub
AirBnB
Uber
CloudFlare
Who is the next unicorn to join the PR nightmare show?
It's only natural. When a company is small and just starting out we're forgiving of mistakes. Once you start getting more established you really should have better practices in place.
I've been predicting failure for Instacart for a while, mostly because of their business model. But when the funding dries up and the business is unsustainable, businesses start doing shadier things (like stealing tips), so maybe they'll go out on a PR comet.
I still remember when everyone liked Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg (yeah, I'm old!). Facebook was the clean MySpace without all the flash and spamminess. The launch of their API/app platform was almost seen as an act of altruism towards third party developers. Mark was a nobody who had "made it", thanks to Silicon Valley's meritocracy. Ah, the good old days :)
> startups that at first everybody is in love with. The startup explodes and grows to become widely successful and morphs from startup to corporation. An incident happens, and then everybody jumps on the bandwagon and bashes them mercifully. Boycotts insue. Clone competitors pop up proclaiming to be "not-evil" and the cycle starts again.
Apple may be the only company which seems to be perpetually stuck in that cycle and still going strong. Even Steve Jobs apparently said something along the lines of "we are the biggest startup on the planet."
The trick is that when a company turns out to have major issues, go looking for the people who predicted it. Go looking for the people who never gave them a pass. Go looking for those who have been critical of these companies from the start.
Then see what other companies they are critical of and try figure out why the industry fails to be critical of them early.
I never liked Uber. Buy a nice four door vechicle, pay for maintenance, wear and tear, and make us money. Excuse me, so many of us have a late model four door vechicle collecting dust---just waiting to "Get our side hussle on,". This company, from the earliest days, just reminded me of the terrible jobs that were created in the last eight years. (Yes--the tech jobs are great, but they will go away eventually.)
AirBnB was cute to begin with, until neighbors decided to open hotels.
I like new technology, and new companies, but treat All employees fairly? And just because you have the money for the best Lawyers/political muscle; try to follow laws that could put the average Joe in jail. I couldn't just decide to start a taxi service, or rent rooms out daily? Just crazy?
I'm all for change, but these companies are exploiting for essentially a small group of people. Wait until all the bugs are worked out if their systems--bye, bye Mr.Imbeingpaidwelltoprogram. "Oh--we will always have a spot for you, but at a minimum wage.
A little while ago I looked at micro services and the Uber story stuck in my mind (April 2016 numbers):
- 2000 engineers
- 1000 services
- 8000 git repositories
I can understand fast growth but on the services and git repository side considering that most of the engineers are new it struck me not as fast but more as out of control growth.
At the beginning you may not control so much but you hire people that are disciplined. Later one needs a certain amount of structure.
The stories from the legal front, financial front and handling of public relations are very consistent with what I observed on the technical side.
Since some are saying "this is just one incidence" recall that there was a second blown red light around the same time in SF, and all this just on the first day of the program. There are also potentially other incidents that did not, by chance, have a bystander recording. Their autonomous driving has many years left in the development. I just hope they aren't pushing it on us now because they are pacing 3 billion in losses/ year.
It's almost as if the software is buggy and they need to test it and fix the bugs. Which is why they have the human driver there to make sure things don't get drastically out of control.
I think I have personally ran three or four red lights or stop signs accidentally in my 18 years or so of driving. The fact that a self-driving car running a red light makes the news is exciting to me. We will be much safer with computers driving.
They've worked so hard to present themselves as a honest, law-abiding company. Where could all these negative stories be coming from? It is really surprising that this is happening!
But seriously, what surprises me is that they've basked in negative attention for so long, with so little effort to spin things their way and haven't been suffering any visible consequences in terms of hiring and funding. I'm not sure if that's just because everyone loves a winner, or if it's a measure of how annoyed everyone was at the pre-Uber state of taxis.
* trying to dredge up dirt on journalist for being negative towards your company
* having the ceo say an incident involving a uber driver choking a passenger "never happened"
* offering customers rides with "hot chicks" in france
* kalanik boasting that he should have called the company "boober" from all the women he gets
* having a "god view" that employees used to spy on exes, politicians and celebrities. they paid a measly $20k fine and supposedly continue to still allow employees to use god view.
keep in mind the executive who tried to find dirt on journalists to blackmail them wasn't even fired by kalanik.
BUT YES. YES. the press! the media! they're all out to get Uber.
[+] [-] tristanj|9 years ago|reply
- It was "human error" that the programmers who designed the self-driving AI failed to properly implement red-light detection and braking.
- It was also "human error" that the human driver in the front seat failed to notice the red lights and stop the car.
Uber's statement is effectively true, if you hideously twist the meaning of words. I fully believe that's what they did in their statement. There's similar wordplay for the word "natural", i.e. claiming "All pollution is natural", because humans are part of nature and everything we do is natural, so all consequences of our actions are also "natural". Deceiving yet ultimately, effective.
[1] Uber says self-driving car ran red light due to “human error” https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
[+] [-] JeremyNT|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/technology/anthony-lev...
[+] [-] ars|9 years ago|reply
From the article it sort-of seems like that error is actually in the mapping software that didn't mark that intersection as having traffic lights, so the car didn't look for them.
[+] [-] rhizome|9 years ago|reply
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
[+] [-] Fricken|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
SF has a database of their traffic signals, and this signal is listed. It's object #902.[2] Apparently Uber gets their data from somewhere else.
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/dzxEaaqWaAC2 [2] https://data.sfgov.org/Transportation/Map-of-Traffic-Signals...
[+] [-] nodesocket|9 years ago|reply
Let me backup my claim with examples:
Who is the next unicorn to join the PR nightmare show?[+] [-] untog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|9 years ago|reply
I've been predicting failure for Instacart for a while, mostly because of their business model. But when the funding dries up and the business is unsustainable, businesses start doing shadier things (like stealing tips), so maybe they'll go out on a PR comet.
[+] [-] olalonde|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Justin_K|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edblarney|9 years ago|reply
http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hyp...
Whether or not something has a real utilitarian value determines if it will rise from the 'trough of disillusionment'.
Movements that are entirely emotional or euphoric (think music bands) - won't.
Products that are fun/fickle or mostly trendy (think some apps) won't either.
Products that have material value outside the hype hang on.
So the 'real long term value' of something is usually best measured by how well they do after the 'uncool' phase.
Facebook has done well after they became 'uncool'.
Twitter - not as well, but nevertheless they will stick around.
Snapchat? I think there is a lot more risk.
[+] [-] a_t48|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Razengan|9 years ago|reply
Apple may be the only company which seems to be perpetually stuck in that cycle and still going strong. Even Steve Jobs apparently said something along the lines of "we are the biggest startup on the planet."
[+] [-] concinds|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thelsdj|9 years ago|reply
Then see what other companies they are critical of and try figure out why the industry fails to be critical of them early.
[+] [-] icantdrive55|9 years ago|reply
I never liked Uber. Buy a nice four door vechicle, pay for maintenance, wear and tear, and make us money. Excuse me, so many of us have a late model four door vechicle collecting dust---just waiting to "Get our side hussle on,". This company, from the earliest days, just reminded me of the terrible jobs that were created in the last eight years. (Yes--the tech jobs are great, but they will go away eventually.)
AirBnB was cute to begin with, until neighbors decided to open hotels.
I like new technology, and new companies, but treat All employees fairly? And just because you have the money for the best Lawyers/political muscle; try to follow laws that could put the average Joe in jail. I couldn't just decide to start a taxi service, or rent rooms out daily? Just crazy?
I'm all for change, but these companies are exploiting for essentially a small group of people. Wait until all the bugs are worked out if their systems--bye, bye Mr.Imbeingpaidwelltoprogram. "Oh--we will always have a spot for you, but at a minimum wage.
[+] [-] waqf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heisenbit|9 years ago|reply
- 2000 engineers
- 1000 services
- 8000 git repositories
I can understand fast growth but on the services and git repository side considering that most of the engineers are new it struck me not as fast but more as out of control growth.
At the beginning you may not control so much but you hire people that are disciplined. Later one needs a certain amount of structure.
The stories from the legal front, financial front and handling of public relations are very consistent with what I observed on the technical side.
[+] [-] orthoganol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwmj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattcantstop|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantiberian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lindner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beefield|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobeportable|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] true_tuna|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flexie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maplechori|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] searealist|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waisbrot|9 years ago|reply
But seriously, what surprises me is that they've basked in negative attention for so long, with so little effort to spin things their way and haven't been suffering any visible consequences in terms of hiring and funding. I'm not sure if that's just because everyone loves a winner, or if it's a measure of how annoyed everyone was at the pre-Uber state of taxis.
[+] [-] swang|9 years ago|reply
* trying to dredge up dirt on journalist for being negative towards your company * having the ceo say an incident involving a uber driver choking a passenger "never happened" * offering customers rides with "hot chicks" in france * kalanik boasting that he should have called the company "boober" from all the women he gets * having a "god view" that employees used to spy on exes, politicians and celebrities. they paid a measly $20k fine and supposedly continue to still allow employees to use god view.
keep in mind the executive who tried to find dirt on journalists to blackmail them wasn't even fired by kalanik.
BUT YES. YES. the press! the media! they're all out to get Uber.
[+] [-] umurkontaci|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caub|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]