ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 4080 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#company#things#where#airbnb#robots#don#real#should#test#robot
Discussion (148 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
>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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM
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.
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".
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.
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.
I wonder why that was on the same level of complaints about broken things.
Stop outsourcing the cost of your vision to the rest of society. Especially when it’s peanuts to you and meaningful to, in this case, the host of what they call an apartment and you seem to think is a test course.
I've got mine, you can all go f*ck yourselves.
We need to get back to a place where other people matter, where the implicit social contract is honoured by everyone, and there are consequences for breaking it.
> people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing!
In subsequent years she often invoked society in phrases like "civil society", "free society", and "responsible society". The quote means that government won't help you very much, and indeed that you should be self-reliant. But it would be a distortion to extrapolate that into "be bad and inconsiderate and uncooperative". Individualism doesn't require the individuals to be unpleasant to one another. It just means they aren't an organized collective or hive.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM
They won't because that's a fundamental principle of the model they believe in.
Scamming homeowners out of relative peanuts is super cringe. Everyone looks bad:
- Employees - Management - Investors - Previous companies listed
& “move fast & be antisocial” Bot Co. too. Photograph/video walkthrough the rental beforehand, safeguard antiques/uniques, professionally restore to 100%, nobody ever has to know. Or call host, drop cash.
Make people whole - this is so much easier than your robots, guys.
But hundreds of millions sounds like enough money to get some industrial or dead commercial space (even in/around SF) and outfit it to be like an apartment. Or six different ones, and six others two weeks from now, and two weeks after that. The cost of the space and the carpenters/painters/drywallers/handymen/managers/whatevers would seem to be something of such relative insignificance that it doesn't even show up on the budgetary radar.
Then they should have a lab with real furniture and movable walls so they can do controlled real world tests. Once the above tests are done you add confidence with random real world tests.
The types of problems seen here are things that your lab tests should fail and keep you out of real world tests. Particularly when the test subjects don't have some sort of test agreement
The cheaper the handymen come, the better the randomness is.
One doesn't even have to tell them to be random; that part happens all on its own in the ways that real apartments ebb and flow.
And the handymen themselves can be rotated out every couple of weeks, as well. The cost of rotation is low. The handymen are plentiful, and they are happy to get hired for a day here or there for literal odd jobs.
(If anyone wants even more practical solutions for robot testing facilities that don't make headlines by pissing people off, please put your contact information in the space provided by pushing the "Reply" button. Thanks!)
And that is very much on brand for these groups.
That tracks.
Learned from the best of them, I see.
Modern tech culture is a blight on society.
It's also not a dichotomy. It can be both criminal and civil. Victims always have the right to seek compensation in parallel with criminal punishment.
Aside from the obvious joke, I feel like a lot of people miss that you can pursue BOTH civil and criminal cases for a given crime. If a billionaire murders your spouse you absolutely can sue them for wrongful death. That doesn't preclude them to also going to jail for 20+ years.
If we want to put a stop to this sort of behavior from businesses we can't be punishing employees for this behavior, we have to run it up the chain.
[1] https://aeronauticsmagazine.com/news/no-robots-allowed-south...
Of course, the're will be a few robot dogs patrolling the fences and hidden behind closets on the rare occasions the servants decide to rebel.
Nobody really cares. Robot vacuums are still a single digit % of the vacuum market.
It turns out that saving a few minutes on housework isn't something people are willing to spend thousands, or even hundreds, of dollars on when the cheaper options are more versatile and more robust.
If the company ends up having no commercial success and the lawsuits for damages rack up, can they just close the company file for bankruptcy and face no consequences? Or is there some civil or criminal risk to this behaviour?
But anyone that personally causes damage through negligence or intentional acts can be sued personally as well. If the employer is bankrupt the employees involved would be the only ones pursued. And these damages are relatively small individually, bankruptcy is not an issue.
Also there are some exceptions to the limited liability for company owners or directors like for illegal activity and fraud.
Since the Airbnb bookings were ostensibly made by individuals, most attorneys would also name those individuals (in addition to the company if the company was named).
Having your founders/management/employees rent houses via Airbnb is a really bad strategy for limiting your liability using a company.
If the company's owners had unlimited liability for problems the company caused, that wouldn't be much of an LLC, would it? The primary purpose of an LLC is to make it so that the owners (often the founders) cannot personally be held responsible for debts the company incurs, even debts incurred through their instructions.
This also includes debts caused by punishment for the company breaking civil contracts, but doesn't make individuals who use the company to break the law immune to criminal charges. But the standard of evidence for prosecuting that type of malfeasance is pretty high...
It’s more so investors who aren’t involved in day-to-day decision making can invest without worrying that the founders will create liability for them.
Insufficient capitalization is the #1 reason for piercing the veil (and also works well against corporations). This involves not putting enough investment into a company to pay the foreseeable debts it would incur from its activities. This means: if your LLC incurs debts knowing it lacks the ability to pay them off, the courts can pierce the LLC and go after you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
If this were happening in the real world, they would have to personally back some of the corporate debts before banks would lend them money. But this is Silicon Valley, where banks and VCs just give away money to their buddies.
How many startups work is they simply break the law. The gamble is that you can get big enough fast enough that you can then lobby for a change in the law before governments catch up. Uber and Airbnb are like the posterchildren for this. Taxi services are regulated. You can't run an illegal hotel in a residential area. Simple.
So what we have here is another company who doesn't want to make a test kitchen or house. No, that's too expensive. So they'll instead use another startup to effectively steal a lab. It's layers upon layers of illegality, basically.
So if this succeeds and this company creates waves of domestic robots, we can then start to imagine what the next layer is. Will somebody rent an Airbnb with domestic robots so it can then sublet those robots to somebody else or use them for tasks they weren't designed for?
At some point does morality ever enter the equation, or does YC deliberately go out of its way to select people with utter disregard for the laws or rights of other people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7sd_yhc8IY
Yeah.
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3061
I'm a little surprised he didn't knock and ask to go in.
This sounds a lot like criminal invasion of privacy.
Edit: What are you downvoting? You can’t secretly watch Airbnb guests through a window you rented to them for the same reason you can’t put spy cameras in their bathroom.
Systematically? No. Casually? Of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be allowed to?
These aren’t corporate landlords, after all.
https://kelmanskylaw.com/crimes/peeping-tom-law-pc-647j-ca/
Keep it real, Kyle. It doesn't seem like you learned anything from the failure of your last company.
[1] https://weartv.com/news/local/report-pensacola-woman-charged...
Which is below the CA 12,500$ limit for small claims court.
Haven't checked whether the case was brought to small claims, but that'd be my guess.