Driverless cars shouldn't be a race
Sometimes it's better to be careful than first.
CreditCredit...By Charles DesmaraisI cringe when metaphor of "one race" is used in discussions of autonomous vehicle technology.
Companies developing computer-driven car technology, including Tesla, Chinese company Baidu , and Waymo, a Google sister company, are regularly portrayed as participating in a horse race to make self-driving vehicles ready for mass use.Some political organizations e t American elected officials talk about the need for America to show "leadership" by beating China in the field of autonomous technology.
There are risks to move too slowly with technology that could improve people's lives, but we shouldn't wholeheartedly accept the narrative that a technology that will take many years to develop - and could have both profound benefits and pitfalls fatals - should be treated as a breed.
The danger is that an artificial sense of urgency or zeal to "win" could create unnecessary security risks, giving companies permission to monopolize more of our personal information and prioritizing companies' self-interest over the public good.
When you read that a company or a country accelerates, rushes, makes the uring or winning in an emerging field of technology, it helps to stop and ask: why is this really a race? What are the potential consequences of this sense of urgency? Who is this message for?
Most autonomous vehicle technologists now think it may be decades before computer-driven cars are currency current. A month, a year, or two more years might not make much difference, and it's not clear that every race is 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 best placed to create safe, useful, and profitable computer-driven transportation technology. Everyone wants to back a winner.
Pioneers have a chance to dictate the direction of new technology and build a network of business allies and users .
But winning a technology "race" doesn't always make sense. Apple wasn't the first company to make a smartphone. Google did not develop the first online search engine. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company did not produce the first advanced computer chip. They're tech superstars because they did it (arguably) the best, not the first.
Sometimes it's better to be careful than first.
CreditCredit...By Charles DesmaraisI cringe when metaphor of "one race" is used in discussions of autonomous vehicle technology.
Companies developing computer-driven car technology, including Tesla, Chinese company Baidu , and Waymo, a Google sister company, are regularly portrayed as participating in a horse race to make self-driving vehicles ready for mass use.Some political organizations e t American elected officials talk about the need for America to show "leadership" by beating China in the field of autonomous technology.
There are risks to move too slowly with technology that could improve people's lives, but we shouldn't wholeheartedly accept the narrative that a technology that will take many years to develop - and could have both profound benefits and pitfalls fatals - should be treated as a breed.
The danger is that an artificial sense of urgency or zeal to "win" could create unnecessary security risks, giving companies permission to monopolize more of our personal information and prioritizing companies' self-interest over the public good.
When you read that a company or a country accelerates, rushes, makes the uring or winning in an emerging field of technology, it helps to stop and ask: why is this really a race? What are the potential consequences of this sense of urgency? Who is this message for?
Most autonomous vehicle technologists now think it may be decades before computer-driven cars are currency current. A month, a year, or two more years might not make much difference, and it's not clear that every race is 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 best placed to create safe, useful, and profitable computer-driven transportation technology. Everyone wants to back a winner.
Pioneers have a chance to dictate the direction of new technology and build a network of business allies and users .
But winning a technology "race" doesn't always make sense. Apple wasn't the first company to make a smartphone. Google did not develop the first online search engine. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company did not produce the first advanced computer chip. They're tech superstars because they did it (arguably) the best, not the first.
What's Your Reaction?
