Thread

1. calibas · 1790002537 · focus · HN ↗

   > Stone rejected Uber's argument that it is "merely a technology company" connecting riders with drivers, finding that Uber provides transportation services to the public through its app, sets prices and controls key aspects of the rider experience.

   > The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that Proposition 22 -- a California ballot measure approved by voters in 2020 that allows companies to classify app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees -- prevented the company from being held liable for Tran's conduct.

   The dream of every major tech company, making ridiculous profits while taking zero legal responsibility for what you create...

   1. xhkkffbf · 1790004516 · focus · HN ↗

      The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? That's what the arbitrators concluded.

      But the reality is that this is a victory for the driverless cars (Waymo, Tesla, etc.). If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.

      1. jlongr · 1790005000 · focus · HN ↗

         There's this prevailing narrative that someday self-driving cars will eliminate all human-controlled driving and that these types of stories are like milestones in the path to that future utopia.

         But I don't think that's the case anymore than the narrative that LLMs will eventually displace all software engineers.

         1. ggreer · 1790006145 · focus · HN ↗

            The invention of the automobile didn't eliminate all horses, but it certainly replaced the vast majority of horses.

            In 7 years we've gone from GPT-2 to Fable and Astra. There seems to be no sign of slowdown, except from the top AI labs who want to slow down out of caution. It would be incredibly surprising to me if in another 7 years, my software engineering skills were still useful. AI capabilities will get to the point where even the best human is adding noise to the system, similar to today's chess engines and calculators.

            Self-driving cars will take longer to roll out because they require new hardware and changes to laws, but I don't see how a career such as "truck driver" or "cab driver" exists in 20 years. At most it would be for a few niche uses and tourism novelty (similar to steam locomotives or horse-drawn buggies).

            1. htrp · 1790007054 · focus · HN ↗

               >It would be incredibly surprising to me if in another 7 years, my software engineering skills were still useful

               This profession has always required reskilling/ changing based on new technologies. How many people are still meaningfully employed as pascal programmers?

               1. ggreer · 1790009190 · focus · HN ↗

                  Almost every career requires staying on top of new developments to remain competitive. Even mechanics must learn about new systems in vehicles to be able to repair them. Not many people are still meaningfully employed as Model T mechanics.

                  The difference with LLMs is that they are a substitute for more general cognitive skills. Right now they are also a complement (using them increases the productivity of humans writing software), but it's only a matter of time before they improve to the point where they fully substitute. And it seems quite likely that the timeline for that is significantly shorter than my remaining career.

                  If you are confident that there will be specific tasks that LLMs can't accomplish in 2033, I'm happy to entertain such ideas. But considering the current rate of progress, I can't think of anything like that.

                  1. jlongr · 1790083477 · focus · HN ↗

                     > it's only a matter of time

                     Is it, though?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.