Question: what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis? I can't think of any. All that money poured into something that solves no problem at all and just creates more, killing human jobs in the process. It's so stupid.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
205 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
87413 readers
3573 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The claim that they can undercut human driven taxis I guess, but then as all enshittified services it won't stay true. They would only do that until people have become used to them then jack up the rates far beyond what cabbies ever were
You only say that because that is what they have done for every other sector they weaseled their way into!
You don't have a creepy driver transport you/know your address.
Computers don't get drunk, high, distracted, or sleepy.
Humans are absolutely awful at safely operating 2000lb+ death machines.
The theory is that you can own a fleet of robotaxis while you have a job without the hassle of maintaining vehicles or employing drivers.
The fact that all self drive taxis are company owned and no plate owners will touch them tells the real story.
I can see the value of data networks. If every car on the road is self driving and interconnected, they know where every other car is and can cooperatively adjust their speed and routes to basically eliminate traffic. Even if it's just every car in a taxi fleet, they can still share their sensor data to build a better operating map from multiple angles. The privacy side of that is rough, but it could drastically reduce accidents compared to individual human drivers.
Question: what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?
Additional profit for the owners.
Paying drivers cuts into the profits.
Decreased costs and increased safety.
The claim "increased safety" is rather ironic in light of the post you're commenting on.
"Decreased cost" will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers. Once they manage to drive (hah) those out of the market, they'll start enshittifying and surcharging wherever they can.
"You're absolutely right to be upset. I should have notified you ahead of time that this section of the highway is closed and I cannot complete the trip you paid for." "Then exit the highway, dammit!" "Very well. The upgrade has been charged to your card." "The fuck you mean, upgrade?" "I'm sorry, I should have been clearer on this. You just purchased the Road Map modules for municipalities within 30 miles of our current location in order for me to consider alternate routes not involving the highway. Now please enjoy this entertainment while I select the optimal route." 90 seconds of ads pass "New route selected. Estimated arrival: three hours and fifty-three minutes. Overtime extensions have been charged preemptively."
The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.
Not really?
Are we really so blinded by (understandable) Tesla hate that we're reducing ourselves to anecdotes to counter data and studies, the thing we've been complaining about from conservatives for decades now?
That wasn't a serious comment on that general topic. I had a paragraph typed up on that, then realised I'm not versed enough in the state of that field to speak on it. It's to be understood as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the fact that "they're safer" is a funny juxtaposition against a post about a safety failure.
If you do want me to contribute my poorly qualified opinion, I do believe that a thoroughly interconnected network of automated mobility can be safer than human control. I suspect that the technical bar for that would be fairly high, but humans are notoriously prone to error, road rage, distraction etc.
The question I'm more concerned about isn't whether we could, but whether we should. Individual transport being so thoroughly surveilled is even worse than the surveillance of public transport, and in our current world, I don't think I can safely condone that trend.
The claim "increased safety" is rather ironic in light of the post you're commenting on.
The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt. These things collectively have millions of miles on them. If you want counter evidence I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.
"Decreased cost" will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers.
I meant to the provider, not the end user.
The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt.
And that line was just a comment on a juxtaposition I found funny. Don't take it too seriously.
I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.
I just replied to another comment to the same effect; I'm aware of terrible drivers being an issue. My concern is less whether it increases the road safety and more whether it helps societal safety.
I meant to the provider, not the end user.
Yeah, I don't think that should ever be an endorsement criterion for anything at all. Any savings that don't also save money for the user are just straight up greed, funelling money into the providers' pockets (and if we're honest, mostly their executives and shareholders, not their workers).
I don’t think that should ever be an endorsement
It wasn't. It was an answer to the question that was asked.
I interpreted the original question "what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?" as referring to the value for society at large. I concede the potential safety improvement as a counterpoint to "solves no problem at all", I just don't really believe that the money savings will manifest for society at large (unless, of course, we manage to get rid of the whole "disrupt, monopolise, exploit, enshittify" mechanism).
load more comments
(15 replies)
If it'll mow down bollards, it'll mow down toddlers. It can't distinguish between the two.
Tesla is giving robo-taxis a bad rep. Why is Musk so insistent on optical-only? Sunk cost fallacy? Even the increased processing power required alone could probably already offset the more expensive LIDAR, not to mention the research and loss in revenue.
because it's cheaper, and the ONLY thing important is making more money. People be damned, as long as he makes another billion.
I watched a clip recently of someone pointing out how many deaths by vehicles we normalized, we accept.
This reminds me of that. If this is the standard, seems like only a matter of time until people get hurt (ignoring past safety record of Tesla locking people in burning cars and auf anyway).
I used to be real hyped about self-driving cars. I thought it would be just the answer we needed to our profound lack of public transportation. But after they took off the LIDAR system, it just became a money grab. And what was I thinking anyway? Self-driving cars? the answer to no public transportation? As if you'd want one of these cheap systems in charge full of a BUS of people?
My ex-wife was right. Shoulda just went with fucking trains. But we can't, because an ego-maniacal billionaire wants to be a trillionaire. Reason #4,506 of why I hate living in the United States
Can we train it to do this with ALPR cameras?
Lol.YOLO! - this tesla
A full minute of processing power and the best it could come up with was crashing through a divider and ending up in the far lane
In fairness, I feel that sometimes.
Would be the ultimate irony if a robotaxi mows down Elon Muskuito.
view more: next ›