Human factors concern on autonomous vehicles’ safety, ethics and cost saving for the ridesharing industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a motivation for full usage of autonomous driving. Many have predicted that autonomous technology would significantly disrupt the transportation industry. This research examines how autonomous driving might impact and disrupt the ridesharing industry and their drivers. The hypothesis is that autonomous vehicles (AV) will negatively impact the ridesharing industry. To examine the full effects of this disruption, we researched current literature on driverless technology cars and the ridesharing industry. Factors examined include: current economics of drivers and vehicles, public perception and acceptance, technological readiness, collaborations, regulations, and liability. Key findings from a host of resources were tabulated to build a case for the proposed hypothesis. The results provide a more comprehensive timeline estimate, predicted $0.75 cost estimate per mile by 2040, and documented the collaboration figure among the players that shows the significant investments across different industries. This research shows that the ridesharing industry’s current business model is due for a significant disruption by autonomous driving capabilities. Drivers in the ridesharing industry might likely suffer the most, however not for at least another decade or so. There are many independent factors, which must be further scrutinized to develop a more comprehensive understanding as to the velocity of this disruption. Findings from this study would be applicable while evaluating the future of autonomous vehicles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".