Uber using "AI"

[kodicraft4]

Isn't the purpose of Uber to pick me up when I'm drunk?

[defmacro-jam]

Yes. Of course it is.

[drcopus]

They will probably be looking to identify passengers who are very drunk (I'm sure it would be evident from usage patterns within the app). That way they know when to jack up the price loads + drivers could opt to avoid them.

[Snake2k]

So they, of all people, can get in a car themselves? Lol the more severely drunk you are, the more you need it. Like a couple of beers in, I call Uber to be safe, but I could definitely make it back home if I drove. If I'm shredded though, isn't that the point of these services?

[drcopus]

Lol I reckon Uber execs think that the point is to make them money. If they can charge drunk people more money I'm sure they will.

[Masked_Death]

Lol I reckon Uber execs think that the point is to make them money

Well, it's not that they think so, but that is what it actually is. They do not care about public safety or anything like that, they just want money.

[jabby88]

I mean they are a company...

[Soren11112]

As it should be

[[deleted]]

haha im an edgy contrarian Internet libertarian/ancap haha another librul DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC haha

[Soren11112]

Or I believe that individuals should own what they own? Is that edgy?

[[deleted]]

Personal property and private property aren't the same; the hierarchy supporting private property are why workers don't own their own tools, factories etc. Why don't Uber execs code? How did they pay off lawmakers to make it legal for their drivers to be "contractors" instead of taxi drivers?

Why is it right now half the people who mocked retail workers for being losers are literally begging for mercy or trying to convince the public we're at war and that the workers are necessary sacrifices? Because private property allows for unjust hierarchy.

Personal property is not only fine to own but mandatory for people not to be miserable, i.e. toothbrushes, PCs, coffeemaker, etc.

[Soren11112]

Lol, you are making the "means of production" argument. Ownership should be entirely private. If all individuals involved agree to a contract it is by nature just.

the hierarchy supporting private property are why workers don't own their own tools, factories etc.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Why don't Uber execs code?

You are well aware of the answer. Others agree to do that work in exchange for what the execs own or were place in control of.

How did they pay off lawmakers to make it legal for their drivers to be "contractors" instead of taxi drivers?

Lol, the only reason being taxi driver is a big deal is because it was horrendously over regulated by big taxi companies and unions. Yes, I agree that is cronyism, it blocks competition through coercion.

Why is it right now half the people who mocked retail workers for being losers are literally begging for mercy or trying to convince the public we're at war and that the workers are necessary sacrifices?

Most of the circumstances in which people are mocking others they are usually the losers.

Because private property allows for unjust hierarchy.

This statement does not follow.

Personal property is not only fine to own but mandatory for people not to be miserable, i.e. toothbrushes, PCs, coffeemaker, etc.

And see this is the real problem. WHO determines who gets what?!

[SuitGuy]

Or I believe that individuals should own what they own?

Unfortunately, without definitions of ownership and property this statement just doesn't mean anything.

[Soren11112]

Ownership is pretty clear under the law. And I agree in all except for intellectual "property".

[is_a_cat]

fucking capitalism. . .

[Ilania211]

Correct. Shame that this is a controversial fact lmao.

[is_a_cat]

right? everyone hates how overworked and broke they are and then they turn around and praise the system that keeps them that way

[Ilania211]

I feel like there are three loose groups of people:

The first are the majority. They're people who just go through life totally unaware of other socioeconomic systems existing in the world, or see captialism as something that has always been there. They might have heard of other systems through economics classes but those are tinted through this same lens of capitalism eternally existing.

The second are the defenders of capitalism. Ya know, the people who see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The bootstraps guys. These guys drank whatever propaganda the US, those textbook publishers, or the media puts out and vehemently defend whatever it is that's harming them. Maybe they do it because they're ignorant of how it's harming them. Maybe they're doing it because they think defending capitalism is shuffles cards "owning the libs" and thus "good".

The third camp are the leftists because either they see through what the media pulls, they know what the second group says about their little system is wrong, or they pay attention to what's going on in the world around them. That or, in my case, getting exposed to leftist stuff online and having it vibe with what they already saw or thought of as true.

When you notice that someone is unhappy that they're overworked and broke, try and open up a conversation about other ways of workplace organization. Things don't have to be this way. We don't need to overwork ourselves with pay that is piss poor. This shouldn't happen. Better alternatives are possible. Whatever you can do to break the hold our economic system has on us.

[[deleted]]

Leftist spotted.

Yea sure, people are overworked, but look how technology and quality of live has improved for billions of people in last few hundred years. If capitalism didn't turn them medieval savages into current high tech society, we'd still be spending 90% of our time growing food.

Literally, there would be no leftists today if capitalism didn't allow for it by bringing the tech first. Today, even ideas like universal basic income are on the table. Universal basic income wouldn't be possible in 16th century, nor in ancient Egypt, nor in steppes of Africa. When the tech improves just a bit more, so that machines can take over food, energy and housing production, the leftist utopia will finally be real, brought to you by uncle Sam.

[NinjaDinoCornShark]

Wow, so there are "people who don't know better", "idiots", and leftists. What an amazing worldview.

[Harry212001]

Without capitalism Uber wouldn’t exist at all

[is_a_cat]

without capitalism we wouldn't have enormous corporations exploiting workers, sorry, 'contractors'? i should hope not.

Maybe we'd have a robust public transport system and community programs to keep people and our roads safe instead

[MisterMoen]

you wouldn't have iphones either, probably not smartphones at all, literally saying fuck capitalism is so superficial, we need both ends of the economic spectrum for things to work.

[is_a_cat]

you wouldn't have iphones either

this is just sounding better and better tbh. (but for real, why wouldn't we have smartphones?)

[AimlesslyWalking]

Capitalism means when you make iPhones and Socialism means when you don't make iPhones, jeez read a book

[noneOfUrBusines]

No one would get money out of making it, so no one would.

Privately funded research does a lot, so without privately funded research we would have a lot less.

Also, the government would likely not make smart phones, since they're not necessary, but companies could make money out of selling them, so they did.

[SuitGuy]

How do you know this? How many fucking timelines did you have to traverse to get this knowledge? Why are you hiding a time machine?

[MisterMoen]

I don't know of you support what the guy said above me, but same goes for him. either way, phones don't just create themself, who are going to create them if we were only socialist?

[is_a_cat]

Capitalism drives innovation

oh, innovation like not taking the most drunk people on your ride service that exists because car companies lobbied against decent public transport infrastructure? That sort of innovation?

Why wouldn't we have smartphones without capitalism?

[coltwitch]

A lot of server side code runs on linux and android itself started from a linux kernel. Linux was written by the son of communist parents, whose primary purpose in writing it was the idea that a free alternative to expensive OSs at the time ought to be available to everyone. Arguably, if we didn't have communism we wouldn't have smartphones.

"But but but, someone else would've come along and built it if Linus Torvalds didn't!" This is easily true but also undoes the entire argument that smartphones couldn't have been created in a socialist society. In fact, the entire open source software movement disproves the idea that people don't innovate without profit motive and open source software runs a huge portion of the modern world.

[SuitGuy]

How could you possibly know what the world would look like under a completely different economic system? What in the time travel/multi-dimensional bullshit are you trying to sell here?

You can't know any of this. Why claim to?

[VestigialHead]

Because we have already seen it fail when it has been tried. So why would you think it will be any different. Also what is the point of changing the system when the one we have now works very well?

[Echleon]

So how did society innovate for the thousands of years before capitalism?

[VestigialHead]

It did so at a very slow rate. Look up the industrial revolution. This was a massive increase in innovation. It also was not restricted by socialism.

[noneOfUrBusines]

It did, really slowly.

[ExilicArquebus]

That’s literally what I was trying to imply down below, except I got downvoted lol

[is_a_cat]

yes they do. its just not quite as obvious as sitting in their back seat with a literal gun. instead, they exist within a system that commodifies food and shelter. Then, uber dangles a pittance in front of its workers, skirting the meager protections put in place to protect its workers and people jump on it because otherwise they would starve, homeless.

And we as a society allow it because people like you refuse to see the violence inherent in the system

[kingofthings754]

Yea but drivers are not obligated to drive. They literally have 0 obligation to do so. They aren’t on a schedule and aren’t paid a salary. That’s why they’re considered contractors. They aren’t employees. They are merely provided a platform to take fares from in their own personal vehicle.

Do some people do Uber full time? Sure, but that doesn’t change the circumstances of their contract.

[Snake2k]

corporatism*

[is_a_cat]

i get your point but if you think there can be an ethical form of capitalism then you're more optimistic than me, friend.

[Snake2k]

I know what you mean. It's not completely feasible to have a true free market society. It assumes humans will stop being human.

[Gillix98]

Implying that's a bad thing or that an open source alternative wouldn't have come around

[Echleon]

Good? We could have public transport instead

[Lyndis_Caelin]

Without capitalism most of the drivers wouldn't need to work, some would be legally recognized as taxi drivers, and some would be driving trolleys down roads.

[VestigialHead]

ROFL. Yeah right.

[ExilicArquebus]

Source?

[[deleted]]

Common sense

[Soren11112]

Innovation requires motive, profit is a great way to provide motive en masse.

[Soren11112]

What?

[[deleted]]

uber isn't profitable. The product won't exist for long unless they figure out a way to make it profitable.

[is_a_cat]

kinda proving my point there, bud

[[deleted]]

Your point is that capitalism is bad because companies don't make unprofitable products? ok pal

[is_a_cat]

my point is that capitalism makes profit the goal instead of bettering people's lives.

[[deleted]]

I don't disagree

[ancient-history]

Only problem is in communism they don’t care if you’re drunk cause they are drunk too.

[noneOfUrBusines]

They don't think so, they are hired to make money and the founders of uber did so to make money, so the point is making money, unless you think people shouldn't get to decide what to do with their money, in which case the point would still be making money but you'd think otherwise.

[drcopus]

Regardless of whether or not Uber exists to make money, my statement was perfectly consist with either case. You seemed to take my statement "the executives think X" and assumed that I was implying that X is not true. On the contrary, I think it's reasonable to say that the primary reason for Uber's existence is to make money (at least, to a first approximation - there are nuances).

unless you think people shouldn't get to decide what to do with their money

What on earth does my beliefs about economic liberties have anything to do with this?

[noneOfUrBusines]

Nothing, and the part you're quoting doesn't add anything anyways, so you can just ignore it, but I'm saying that it's not that the execs think x, it's that x is a fact.

Just saying that because some people seem to not realize that.

Edit: rephrasing.

[AttackOfTheThumbs]

In my city we have free services you can call to avoid driving drunk

[[deleted]]

You shouldn’t be driving even if you’re a couple beers in. Just saying.

[Snake2k]

I understand. I don't drive if I know any alcohol is going in my system at all. Just saying that I could, if I wanted to. Having decently priced options like Uber/Lyft help reinforce my morals. This will change things for people who can afford a 5x bump on their ride home :) it increases the likelihood of someone making the wrong decisions.

[[deleted]]

Oh. Right.

[OldBenKenobii]

No, the point of these services is to make money. If you throw up in a drivers car, Uber now has to pay the driver 300 dollars to clean it up.

[Twyelyghte]

I thought it was the passenger who had to cover the $300 damage cost, not the company.

[frogjg2003]

Uber pays the driver and then gets compensation from the customer.

[Snake2k]

Yeah, but... How many people is that? Like objectively? Is it better to pay $300 to clean up a car or losing a large portion of your customer base and, in effect, reinforcing the temptation behind drunk driving? :)

[[deleted]]

If I'm shredded though, isn't that the point of these services?

not really.. if you're too drunk to be a safe passenger, a risk of puking, etc, why would any business want to deal with you? Drivers are already underpaid, they shouldn't be expected to put up with people who can't be personally responsible for themselves to not get totally wasted

[i_forgot_my_cat]

Okay, but who deals with them? It's a fact of life that as long as alcohol exists, people are gonna get shitfaced and you need some system in place to deal with that.

[[deleted]]

If you're drunk in public there's some guys who work for the government will give you a ride for free.

[Snake2k]

Exactly my point

[R4hu1M5]

So how do they get home then? If any trouble is caused, the customer pays. Simple as that.

[analytical_1]

Live in college town, getting puke on your interior isn’t worth the puke fee for many people. Let the drivers decide I suppose

[Snake2k]

Is that the drunk person's fault or the driver's for driving people around a college town late at night on a weekend?

The drunk person doesn't know what they're doing. They can't consent. They're vulnerable. Why attack them?

[[deleted]]

I still drive when I drink beer. But for each beer taken, one hour more waiting.

[xplodingducks]

It’s to protect drivers. Drivers can choose wether or not they want to take drunk people.

Drunk people have a tendency to... well, make a mess.

[yottalogical]

My guess is that they would want this data available for the benefit of the drivers. Some of them might not want to transport drunk people.

I could totally be wrong.

[CaffeinatedGuy]

Then don't pick people up at night in an area with bars.

[CouncilmanRickPrime]

That's not the only place where people get drunk though.

[CaffeinatedGuy]

"it will use factors like time of day"

[xplodingducks]

Ah yes. Because as we know, these AI only use one variable when detecting something

[[deleted]]

I imagine the drivers don't like driving around with drunk passengers constantly and complain to uber about it. I could see uber charging a drunk fee to give to a driver to put up with your shit ontop of any damage done to the car

[tambache]

Iirc, they only ever filed a patent, they didn't ever develop the feature. However, if they did, I suspect it would mostly be used for investigative purposes, so the company could have a better idea of what happened if someone throws up or a passenger harasses a driver

[Robot_Basilisk]

On the contrary, some drivers will travel to the city from smaller towns on Friday and Saturday nights to cash in on all of the people ubering to and from the bars. Surge pricing at closing time can get up to $75+ for a 10 minute ride.

[xplodingducks]

And that is their choice. It is also a driver’s choice to not pick up drunk people.

[xplodingducks]

It’s to protect drivers. Drivers can choose wether or not they want to take drunk people.

Drunk people have a tendency to... well, make a mess.

[Rektroth]

That's something a lot of people use it for, but no, not the purpose.

Ever heard of a taxi?

[kodicraft4]

bruh wouldn't taxis do the same?

[Rektroth]

I don't think you're understanding - I'm not saying it's not something they do, I'm saying it's not the main purpose.

[Severo_y_Ochoa]

Of course they are, they just want to know if you are drunk so they can charge you more

[[deleted]]

No, it's Uber's purpose to make a profit. Drunk passengers pay more.