I am someone who came of age during an incredibly hopeful time about how technology could be a force for good. The silicon valley ethos at present is totally morally bankrupt and rotten to the core.
Now I’m getting even angrier imagining the email that went around internally on how to spin this and why it was a short term loss but will be for the long term good. Of trying to kill off the idea of cleaning people and then jacking up rates.
It's... both.
So far we were implementing only the first two ones, with AI, it looks like we decided to accelerate Idiocracy implementation too.
I'd planned on feeding the spam to the trolls but it seemed a like unethical and prone to obesity. Plus cross breeding could be a problem.
Can I install it in an AirBnB or do they come pre-fitted?
I wonder why that was on the same level of complaints about broken things.
If you break a production server you don't just leave it broken...
I'm assuming these companies have VC cash, so not just paying for repairs and risking negative publicity seems extremely foolish.
Do things right is where we should be heading.
And the more "software eats the world", the less this paradigm is gonna be a feasible market strategy. I've harbored these thoughts from way back and hence I was (and continue to be) skeptical of unregulated start-ups/new tech ideas who interface with the real world: Hyperloop, Tesla self-driving, and Theranos come to mind. An interesting case study in my view is _Github_ who in theory, having software engineers for customers, should be pretty well-insulated from the expensive repair costs of the real world. And yet we'd all agree they need a GINORMOUS dose of that sweet sweet "stable infra".
Well, no wonder people don't have faith in the people selling AI.
Also, if this is the best they can do and left such a mess, don’t let them operate robots or any machines! Teach them to use a mop and then maybe upgrade them to a vacuum, and if they pass, let them use a sink garbage disposal under adult supervision.
And yet they weren't able to build a model house or even just some model rooms for a controlled environment and practice there full time first. They could have done round the clock testing, with full flexibility of the arrangement, no need to waste time moving hardware around and risk damage, no liability, and more. A fake house costs next to nothing. A (fake) model kitchen is cheaper than an Airbnb stay.
Have you seen how many public demos from manufacturers of advanced robots like Boston Dynamics are using "artificial" obstacles and layouts? It's obvious they did a lot of development in those conditions. You don't need someone's home to find out if your robot can grab a plate without destroying it, or climb a flight of stairs.
I don't want any of my personal life observed by my professional life and vice versa. It is bad enough that /I/ have to observe both and try not to pass judgement on myself.
It reaches for people without morals, and instructs them to pursue profit without regard for morality.
I'm very, very, very glad to hear that these people are getting sued.
They should expect to feel a hostile world if they put their every effort into creating a hostile world
So the host wasn't able to add the additional risk and hassle to the price, which in this instance would have been a quite legitimate ask as the robot damaged their revenue generating property.
It's very ironic that Airbnb itself has done similar practices in the past where it ignored hospitality regulations to establish their business model, i.e. not asking for permission but for forgiveness.
The Airbnb style response would be to gig-ify this model where you ask an independent contractor to buy the test robot, rent the Airbnb, and test it out instead of you doing it yourself. Then the contractor bears the risk of damages to the property.
I might be okay forgiving skirting the disclosure rules BUT only if they tried to be model tenants and, if there was any damage, took steps to proactively make things right. If you're breaking the rules, even if there was no damage, you should definitely be cleaning up and putting things back in place.
What I find inexcusable is not owning up to the damage and paying to fix it when your prototype goes on a rampage of destruction.
Moving fast and breaking things is fine, as long as you fix the stuff you break...
What? No its not. Breaking things can cause harm that is not always "fixable", particularly if its not your thing to break.
And what is going to be impossible to fix or replace in a budget !hotel room?
"Moving fast and breaking things" could be acceptable in cases where there is an ulterior objective whose potential value could be >> these costs, but in general it should be evaluated more carefully.
are too broke to pay for scratched furniture?
I personally think the problem here is that they were delusional enough to think this was the way to 'test' their prototype clean-o-bots. But as you point out (and...sigh...you're spot on on all points), we live in a world where doing things like beta-testing robo-cars in real live traffic is perfectly cromulent as long as you capture market share and outlast the lawsuits and 'disrupt' something.
>A refrigerator shelf was cracked, and a broken glass or dish had been left in the garbage disposal. A wooden nightstand drawer was chipped. Cups and plates were in the wrong places. It looked like the furniture had been moved around.
Not sure which one is worse, the fact that the bot can't actually do household chore or the fact that the humans can't clean it up.