It’s ironic that, despite being a satirical article, it will likely influence at least one company’s strategy. The resulting corporate vision could lead to a fleet of robotaxis equipped with little more than cheap e-ink screens, relying entirely on customers’ phones for connectivity. But this raises a critical question: who bears responsibility for such an outcome?
Is it the author of the satire, whose idea—however absurd—sparked real-world implementation? The company, for taking the concept seriously and prioritizing cost-cutting over functionality? The buyer, for investing in a flawed system? Or the remote driver, who is so disengaged that they might as well be watching movies or playing video games?
This scenario underscores a larger issue: the way corporations adopt ideas without fully considering their implications, especially in automation and AI-driven industries. As technology continues to shift responsibility away from humans, the question of accountability becomes increasingly murky.
It’s even funnier that you have added that it’s satirical after so much reading that most readers won’t get that far, and up to how far they read is in fact a business plan.
I considered the possibility that someone would use this idea to implement a business plan at some length. Ultimately I decided that anyone with enough savvy to build something at that scale would have thought of this idea (or something better) on their own. At least this way such ways to bend the rules should not come as a surprise to regulators and other stakeholders and they can be better prepared for it.
It’s ironic that, despite being a satirical article, it will likely influence at least one company’s strategy. The resulting corporate vision could lead to a fleet of robotaxis equipped with little more than cheap e-ink screens, relying entirely on customers’ phones for connectivity. But this raises a critical question: who bears responsibility for such an outcome?
Is it the author of the satire, whose idea—however absurd—sparked real-world implementation? The company, for taking the concept seriously and prioritizing cost-cutting over functionality? The buyer, for investing in a flawed system? Or the remote driver, who is so disengaged that they might as well be watching movies or playing video games?
This scenario underscores a larger issue: the way corporations adopt ideas without fully considering their implications, especially in automation and AI-driven industries. As technology continues to shift responsibility away from humans, the question of accountability becomes increasingly murky.
It’s even funnier that you have added that it’s satirical after so much reading that most readers won’t get that far, and up to how far they read is in fact a business plan.
I considered the possibility that someone would use this idea to implement a business plan at some length. Ultimately I decided that anyone with enough savvy to build something at that scale would have thought of this idea (or something better) on their own. At least this way such ways to bend the rules should not come as a surprise to regulators and other stakeholders and they can be better prepared for it.