
We read with sadness about the tragedy of a pedestrian being killed in a collision with a driverless car being tested by Uber. The reaction was instantaneous – with Uber immediately announcing that the driverless car tests will stop. In our view, that was not a data-driven decision, rather, it was a public perception and PR decision.
Will Uber halt driverless car testing forever? I will make the bold prediction that it will not. After some root cause analysis and after enough time that public reaction dies down, they will continue testing. Of that I am sure.
They have no choice. Their future and only sustainable business model is predicated on operating fleets of driverless cars powered by data and AI as much as they run by solar or petrol.
Statistics suggest that 94% of all crashes are as a result of a driver error, as AI replaces the driver it is reasonable to assume that driver error crashes will reduce. AI is not affected by mood or distracted by phone calls and an analysis of Google’s driverless cars shows a remarkably low accident rate. They obey speed limits at all times, drive at speeds that are far more fuel efficient than humans. They never need a break and remain alert without ever getting tired. Lastly, they reduce costs because they do not need to be paid a wage.
So where is the problem here? It is perception and the fact that even if these vehicles are proven to be safer, the public mistrusts the technology. One fatal crash caused by AI confirms this mistrust and is infinitely more unacceptable to public opinion than the thousands of fatal collisions that are caused by human drivers every day.
Notwithstanding, for companies that see the compelling economic and business drivers for AI applications, there are a number of moral and perception issues that need to be taken into account.
People do not like AI because they fear it will take their jobs or do not like the fact it is already replacing people’s jobs.
People do not like AI because they fear the technology and don’t truly understand it.
People are confused about where liability lies. When something goes wrong, who is legally liable, the AI itself or the company that has implemented the AI?
Uber is at the forefront, dealing with these issues head on right now in a very public forum. The people at Uber understand that they must employ AI technology to re-invent their business to survive – it is deemed to be their only path to profitability. But it’s not a straightforward journey. Setbacks like the terrible tragedy that befell their first collision victim have a significant public sentiment impact. They also need to think about the massive public support they had at liberating many people to find a second income or make a living “working for themselves”. What will happen when they move to an AI/driverless model that has the complete reverse effect of putting all those drivers out of work? Will they be so loved at that time? Will the impact be to push people back to “supporting” taxi drivers?
We don’t have the answers for Uber, but we do feel the context here is important. Many businesses will become uncompetitive if they do not adopt AI and data-driven technology. However, the tech needs to be tempered against public opinion and what consumers want and feel comfortable with. We know that ultimately, there is no stopping progress. But as we implement progress, we can also use data to assess sentiment and readiness amongst customers, consumers and the public at large. The two must go together.


Archive
- October 2024(44)
- September 2024(94)
- August 2024(100)
- July 2024(99)
- June 2024(126)
- May 2024(155)
- April 2024(123)
- March 2024(112)
- February 2024(109)
- January 2024(95)
- December 2023(56)
- November 2023(86)
- October 2023(97)
- September 2023(89)
- August 2023(101)
- July 2023(104)
- June 2023(113)
- May 2023(103)
- April 2023(93)
- March 2023(129)
- February 2023(77)
- January 2023(91)
- December 2022(90)
- November 2022(125)
- October 2022(117)
- September 2022(137)
- August 2022(119)
- July 2022(99)
- June 2022(128)
- May 2022(112)
- April 2022(108)
- March 2022(121)
- February 2022(93)
- January 2022(110)
- December 2021(92)
- November 2021(107)
- October 2021(101)
- September 2021(81)
- August 2021(74)
- July 2021(78)
- June 2021(92)
- May 2021(67)
- April 2021(79)
- March 2021(79)
- February 2021(58)
- January 2021(55)
- December 2020(56)
- November 2020(59)
- October 2020(78)
- September 2020(72)
- August 2020(64)
- July 2020(71)
- June 2020(74)
- May 2020(50)
- April 2020(71)
- March 2020(71)
- February 2020(58)
- January 2020(62)
- December 2019(57)
- November 2019(64)
- October 2019(25)
- September 2019(24)
- August 2019(14)
- July 2019(23)
- June 2019(54)
- May 2019(82)
- April 2019(76)
- March 2019(71)
- February 2019(67)
- January 2019(75)
- December 2018(44)
- November 2018(47)
- October 2018(74)
- September 2018(54)
- August 2018(61)
- July 2018(72)
- June 2018(62)
- May 2018(62)
- April 2018(73)
- March 2018(76)
- February 2018(8)
- January 2018(7)
- December 2017(6)
- November 2017(8)
- October 2017(3)
- September 2017(4)
- August 2017(4)
- July 2017(2)
- June 2017(5)
- May 2017(6)
- April 2017(11)
- March 2017(8)
- February 2017(16)
- January 2017(10)
- December 2016(12)
- November 2016(20)
- October 2016(7)
- September 2016(102)
- August 2016(168)
- July 2016(141)
- June 2016(149)
- May 2016(117)
- April 2016(59)
- March 2016(85)
- February 2016(153)
- December 2015(150)