Uber CEO Says Robotaxis Could Displace Drivers in 10 To 15 Years and Create 'a Big, Big Societal Question' (businessinsider.com)
- Reference: 0179464984
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/09/22/185208/uber-ceo-says-robotaxis-could-displace-drivers-in-10-to-15-years-and-create-a-big-big-societal-question
- Source link: https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-khosrowshahi-self-driving-car-job-loss-real-issue-2025-9
> Khosrowshahi spoke about the issue onstage this month at a summit hosted by the "All-In" podcast, which posted a video of the conversation on Wednesday. At the summit, Khosrowshahi was asked about concerns that gig workers, who have played a key role in Uber's development, will eventually lose their jobs as self-driving cars become more prevalent.
>
> The Uber CEO said he expects human drivers to continue working alongside self-driving cars in Uber's network in the coming years. "For the next five to seven years, we're going to have more human drivers and delivery people, just because we're going so quickly," Khosrowshahi said. "But, I think, 10 to 15 years from now, this is going to be a real issue," he said about drivers losing their jobs.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-ceo-khosrowshahi-self-driving-car-job-loss-real-issue-2025-9
The aging population wave vs the automation wave (Score:2)
So how come these "threats" are just never spoken about at the same time?
Crisis 1:
Oh no, the population is aging! We will have so many retirees that can't work! There won't be enough working people to perform all the tasks needed!
Crisis 2:
Oh no, we are getting automation! We will have so many robots that can work! There won't be a need for so many working people with all these robots!
99/100 times when people speak about one of these issues, the opposite is nowhere to be seen.
Re:The aging population wave vs the automation wav (Score:4, Interesting)
The crisis is that workers pay taxes and automation does not. All our social systems are pyramid schemes that require an ever growing base of the pyramid. Due to changing social norms over the past 60 years, we're seeing birthrates crater the world round, but the effects are more noticable where women are attaining education.
Men are redundant at this point. Women can now have babies with zero male involvement and they are of course able to work, run businesses, own land, vote, anything that a man can do, a woman can do as well.
More women have realize what a raw deal marriage and childbirth are and have said, "nope". I guess they'd rather travel, see the world, not be burdened with all the housework, all the childcare duties and have to hold a job. So they've ditched the housework and children in exchange for freedom. Hard to argue they shouldn't.
Unfortunately for world governments and everyone's silly socialist ideas, that only works when the tax base continues to expand. With a shrinking population, you have a shrinking tax base and that will directly translate to fewer social services, from healthcare to retirement.
Without forcing women backwards, I don't really see how you turn this around. Maybe enough taxpayer money could influence women to want kids but it would have to be pretty darn generous, enough so that they wouldn't have to work. You won't see that happening.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is necessarily a gender thing. It's more that when childbearing is a choice, a large portion of society decides against it. Most people who do choose to have children still do so as a couple. As a parent myself, I can't imagine how difficult the early years would have been solo. It's also hard to imagine having more than the two kids that I have, and if everyone in the world were like me and had two, the population would continue to shrink.
To stop population decline, you'd need to get rid
Re:The aging population wave vs the automation wav (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one take on the situation - and granted I do agree that many people fall into that camp.
But as someone who actually enjoys having kids, and who has been a stay at home parent for the last few years (due to wife out earning me), there are other pressures involved. The biggest one is that, basically, by having kids we went from having ZERO money issues, to suddenly living on the edge. It's almost comically absurd how bad the situation has been.
We went from two very decent incomes and having the world as our oyster, to suddenly having all these insane costs forced upon us. We were quite happy before in a CBD studio flat to reduce our commute time, and because we wanted to save money. But you can't live in a studio flat with kids, so we had to get a bigger flat, which was fine, except that then those became insanely expensive post COVID while our incomes didn't grow. So we had to chase the 'commuting cost vs rent' equation along with the hordes of other workers (hint, you can't really win). Then suddenly you have to think about schools as well, so not only do you need to get another bedroom, you have to get one within the catchment of a decent school.
The whole process is insanity and extremely expensive. I have always thought people who just pissed away money on pointless things to be idiots, but now I'm the idiot who just hands over my credit card to anyone who wants to clip the ticket when Im trying to get my tired kid home to see their grandparents for Christmas, or trying to get a campsite to stay in during a school holiday.
We can barely afford to do anything fun now, we are shoved back into a precipitous housing situation, and the cost of living crisis is squeezing us like never before. I then look at our friends who didn't have kids and for whom the 'cost of living crisis' is having to cut back on premium economy flights so they can continue to eat out four times a week and I feel a bit dumb.
Ultimately we really do enjoy having kids, but it is not compatible with our short term precariate economy where you are expected to bounce around and continually reinvent yourself in pursuit of 'market forces'. What hacks me off with all this as well, is the whole 'shouldn't have had kids if you can't afford them' - well, yeah, we could afford them when we had them, but the COVID stupidity now means we barely can. How am I supposed to know that my situation will be stable for the next 20 years at the point I have kids. It's just idiot ivory tower thinking from the people who, sadly, are in charge of our economic system.
You must've skipped biology class (Score:1)
Zero male involvement? Unless some amazing advance in genetics has occurred today I'm pretty sure sperm is still required for a woman to get pregnant whether it's on the spot or donated.
As for doing everything men can do , guess you've drunk the kool aid. Mentally sure, physically - nope. Not only are they considerably physically weaker in raw strength but their monthly cycles screw with what strength and endurance they do have.
abolish retirement (Score:2)
An aging population isn't a problem. It's the entitled attitude that most people can start a career in earnest at 28, retire at 55 and then live the same lifestyle till they are 85. It's not about wealth or income it's about how much there is to consume. In Canada we created a huge amount of housing inflation. People expect a combination of government indexed pensions and the equity in their house to pay for 30 years of retirement. The economy doesn't produce enough goods and services to allow that. S
Wait. I'm confused... (Score:2)
Wasn't this the goal the entire time? To get your name out there, flout taxi laws and eventually push out autonomous taxis with zero workers?
CEO estimates are always WAY low (Score:3)
Waymo has been a thing since 2009. It took them 15 years to reach 1/1000 of the market share of Uber. [1]https://www.thedriverlessdiges... [thedriverlessdigest.com] Maybe Uber can grow its self-driving fleet faster than that, but it will still be a long, hard slog. Automation is extremely difficult and expensive.
[1] https://www.thedriverlessdigest.com/p/waymo-stats-2025-funding-growth-coverage
Re: (Score:2)
Also, someone flinging guesstimated 10-15 year estimates is the same as no idea at all. There is as implied assumption of some sort of eventuality, but without reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. A good estimate is always built up from individual tasks, off-the-cuff estimates from the top down, are always just SWAGs.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber isn't developing the tech, they're licensing it.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, the manner in which Uber is obtaining the technology, doesn't help speed up the timeline in the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Waymo is still very much in testing/pilot stages with service only in limited geofenced areas. When it has the technical capability to be general-purpose, it's likely to grow quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about very large projects, such as deploying self-driving cars, is that there is NEVER a point at which they will be able to say "OK, it's good now, we can move out of beta and call it generally available." That process will indefinitely be a process of testing and development, as the cars encounter more, different conditions, traffic patterns, road structures, and so on. The possibilities for issues are endless.
Uber is way behind Waymo in terms of their progress through their "beta" phase. It wil
Re: (Score:2)
How are they even dealing with construction zones now? Waymo cars need a scan of the whole environment
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The cars can already accommodate many special cases. But construction zones in San Francisco look different than construction zones in other states. And neither San Francisco nor phoenix deal with heavy snowfall and ice. And in both cities, Waymo doesn't support rides out into rural areas, places with things like dirt roads and low water bridges, where there is always (or usually) water flowing over the roadway. There are many, many edge cases that haven't been handled yet.
Say what? (Score:2)
"I don't know the answer to this problem, but we're working hard on making it worse."
Mass Unemployment / Economic Death Spiral (Score:1)
When you tally Uber / Lyft drivers plus OTR Over The Road and Local Route truck drivers you end up with a number that is by far the largest source of employment in the United States, dwarfing the second largest category, K-12 public school teachers by a few million more jobs. .. Throwing that many people - many of whom are middle aged and unable to quickly retrain to other industries - will be economically and socially catastrophic. This raises further questions, including: "When AI throws tens of millio
Re: (Score:2)
> When AI throws tens of millions of people out of work...
You mean 6.1 million, right?
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+truck+drivers+in+us [google.com]
[2]https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+uber+and+lyft+drivers+in+us [google.com]
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+truck+drivers+in+us
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+uber+and+lyft+drivers+in+us
Re: (Score:3)
Baloney. There will be always be things for them to do. At least until AGI robots, that are probably about 100 years away.
Re: (Score:2)
> When you tally Uber / Lyft drivers plus OTR Over The Road and Local Route truck drivers you end up with a number that is by far the largest source of employment in the United States, dwarfing the second largest category, K-12 public school teachers by a few million more jobs.
That second largest category could also be automated. I wonder when that will begin?
Re: (Score:2)
> Local Route truck drivers
Who is going to unload the trucks?
Re: (Score:2)
Robots.
Luddites would want to half advances (Score:2, Flamebait)
To all the luddites saying we shouldn't use AI or Robotaxi's because it costs jobs, please remember that the next time you build anything stop using any tools, shovels or excavators and only use your hands so that it takes more people to complete and so that more jobs exist. I'm sure everyone will be on board to dig with their hands with you.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, you make a decent point. But, using the [I admit, arguably appropriate] term "luddites" just makes you sound like a pretentious, wine sniffing prick.
Humanity will find a way (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the ability of humans to sabotage the autonomous vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Way mo fire than you bargained for [reuters.com]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/san-francisco-waymo-arson-sparks-fresh-debate-self-driving-cars-2024-02-13/
Yet we still need truck drivers (Score:1)
Semis aren't going to be automated anytime soon, it's time that cab drivers go back to school and get a CDL.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can automate cars, trucks are even easier as they mostly navigate highways.
Re: (Score:1)
These will be the last to be fully automated due to safety and maneuverability. Even if you automate the highway portion, the last mile delivery and docking still needs human assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
> Semis aren't going to be automated anytime soon, it's time that cab drivers go back to school and get a CDL.
Not true. [1] Self-driving semis are on the way [archive.is]
[1] https://archive.is/cfa04
Re: (Score:1)
Self-driving semi + low-trust society == semi sitting at the side of the road with someone standing in front of it while their friends loot the cargo.
Crooks know the truck will stop rather than hit them and the cops won't arrive for a while after it sends an alarm to warn that it's being robbed. Unless you're going to fit it with automated machineguns to shoot thieves it's going to be an easy target for them.
None of these tech-utopia ideas work in a low-trust society. They only work in Star Trek.
is your robot insurance paid up? (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure Morgan & Morgan are just salivating at the thought of companies sending 8 ton death machines out on the highways unsupervised. They are probably training the lawyers right now that will manage whole AI lawyer divisions.
Delivery drivers? (Score:2)
Does he mean fast food? Good luck getting people to come outside the house to get fast food, let alone a package from amazon.
The businesses I deliver to (office supplies) will NEVER has someone who's job it is to collect deliveries, they don't even have a receptionist half the time.
Some "instant gratification" type deliveries, sure, but deliveries in general are unlikely to be affected for a long time, too many variables (and laziness)
Johnny Cab? (Score:2)
loved that performance in Total Recall.
So this is where we're headed? Fail to pay them and they explode?
the biggest societal question is.. (Score:2)
Where are robotaxis going to loiter when they don't have a passenger? Are they going to just chill out in public spaces or what?
Capability, Liability, Trust, and Cost (Score:3)
I pretty much ignore all statements about the impending revolution of autonomous vehicles because we're honestly still not that close to them "rolling out" to all areas. For that, they need:
Capability
The vehicles need to operate independent of human interaction *beyond* just driving a route safely. They need to be able to respond to commands from law enforcement and first responders. They need to act to protect their passengers when someone outside the vehicle attempts to harm a passenger. They need to break the law only when absolutely necessary (ex. accelerate beyond the speed limit to legally pass a slow vehicle). They need to be able to travel on ALL legal roads, driveways, parking lots, and parking structures. It needs to be "Level 5".
Imagine what you would expect from the "perfect" driver... that's what they need because...
Liability
The liability puzzle is yet to be solved. Massively centralized liability will obliterate a dominant manufacturer of autonomous vehicles if the vehicles aren't operating close to perfectly. Let's consider actual numbers:
1. In the US, there are approx. 42,000 road deaths per year.
2. Imagine that 100% AVs reduce road deaths by 95% resulting in only 2,100 deaths per year.
3. Remember: You don't get any credit for NOT killing anyone. You WILL get punished for everyone you DO kill.
4. Which company can survive the litigation of regularly and directly killing so many people?
Trust
People still don't trust autonomous vehicles because the general population has only seen little bits of it. Lane assist, pedestrian warnings, Tesla's Level 2 autopilot, etc. Given that most American vehicle shave a 12-year life, most people have vehicles without any AV-style features outside of cruise control which almost no one uses. As mainstream vehicles continue to integrate more AV features, though, the general public will soften up to the idea.
Cost
A genuine level 4 AV (Waymo) is incredibly expensive (around the price of a Mercedes Maybach) and requires remote employees (more cost) to take control as necessary. No one (company, person, or government) has the funds to deck out their local roads with level 4 AVs to meet the vehicle demand of their cities.
The real news in AVs is when there's progress in these areas. If it doesn't fit into one of these buckets, then it's not getting us closer to general AV readiness.
Not to mention (Score:2)
..that if they are not needed, why study arts first' :-)
Cry me a river. (Score:2)
Cry me a river.
Lemme translate: "We're concerned self-driving cars are going to do to us what we did to the taxicab industry."
He's not worried about "his" drivers, he's worried about his money .
Re: (Score:3)
Who said anything about this transition being a problem for Uber?
Uber is neck-deep in self-driving cars. [1]https://www.uber.com/us/en/aut... [uber.com] The only people who will be hurt by this, are the current drivers.
[1] https://www.uber.com/us/en/autonomous/
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving cars are a lot more capital intensive, because Über would have to buy them, whereas they don't have to buy the human-driven cars they use at the moment.
also a voyeristic third for sex (Score:2)
Some people will always want to lord it over a chauffeur, even a time-share one. A self-driving car does not provide that subservient human touch.
Re: (Score:2)
Very insightful. Uber is currently getting a lot of access to "free" equipment (cars) because the cars are purchased and owned by the drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
> Self-driving cars are a lot more capital intensive, because Über would have to buy them, whereas they don't have to buy the human-driven cars they use at the moment.
Would they?
As you mentioned, right now, they don't have to pay for the cars. But if self-driving cars become popular, they could use the same business model.
Imagine I have a self-driving car. I have it drive me to work. I walk into the office, pull out my phone, log into Uber and say I'm available. Uber then sends me a notification that someone wants to go from A to B. I say, "OK," and send the car off to A. The person climbs in and I tell the car to go to B. They get out and I tell the car to come b
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there are cameras in the vehicle, someone is eventually going to vandalize it somehow. Good luck paying for the lawyers required to get anything out of them and the months that it will take. You can't possibly make enough money that way to make it worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
> He's not worried about "his" drivers, he's worried about his money.
You are 100% wrong. The Uber business plan has always been to shift to self-driving vehicles ASAP, and to use humans only until that is feasible. He is planning to cause a problem, not to have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
> You are 100% wrong. The Uber business plan has always been to shift to self-driving vehicles ASAP, and to use humans only until that is feasible. He is planning to cause a problem, not to have a problem.
I'm not sure why he thinks it will be a problem for drivers. A study a few years ago showed that something like 96% of all Uber drivers quit within the first year. So worldwide, we're talking about only O(350,000) people who will have to find something else to do. The world economy can easily absorb such a tiny number.
Re: Cry me a river. (Score:2)
Long haul, local delivery, taxi, bus, you name a driving job and the ruling class will want to automate it.
Re: Cry me a river. (Score:1)
Seriously dude⦠âoeruling classâ. Thatâ(TM)s a bit much. Innovation is innovation, spreadsheets didnâ(TM)t mark the end of the road for accountants, CAD did didnâ(TM)t eliminate architects and engineers. Tho it did save a lot of lower back pain those drafting tables created.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you expect autonomous vehicle to have robot drivers that can deliver your pizza to your door? If fat-asses need to walk down to the street and get their pizza out of a car, they are going to start wondering why they don't just go out a get their own pizza for a fraction of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
> Long haul, local delivery, taxi, bus, you name a driving job and the ruling class will want to automate it.
Oh, absolutely. Most local delivery uses people who already work at the business, and delivery is just a small part of that person's job. So that impact is likely to be close to zero. But that still leaves probably probably around 5 to 10 million taxi drivers and probably three or four million truck drivers.
But taxi and truck drivers won't be replaced overnight. Most taxi drivers and many truck drivers own their own rigs, and although they may eventually replace themselves with robot rigs, they would co
Re: (Score:2)
I do hope you know that O(350,000) is the same as O(1). :)
Re: (Score:2)
> I do hope you know that O(350,000) is the same as O(1). :)
Sorry, was thinking orders of magnitude, not orders of complexity. :-)