Tag: adoption curve

• Autonomy, sometimes

  Benedict Evans raises a number of good points and asks a bunch of good questions about the “steps to autonomy” in his recent blog post.

  Right now we’re all talking about autonomous vehicles in terms of their level of autonomy – namely 1 through 5. L1 is some degree of autonomy, but in almost all situations, you still need a human driver. L5 is no human driver needed, ever.

  But as Evans points out, the level of autonomy depends on the place, and it is unlikely – at least initially – that L4 or L5 will mean L4 or L5 in all environments. Here is an excerpt from his post:

  It naturally follows that we will have vehicles that will reliably reach a given level of autonomous capability in some (‘easy’) places before they can do it everywhere. These will have huge safety and economic benefits, so we’ll deploy them – we won’t wait and do nothing at all until we have a perfect L5 car that can drive itself around anywhere from Kathmandu to South Boston. And so, if we call a car even L4, we have to say, well, where are we talking about? We might mean ‘most of this country’. But more probably, it will be L4 in one neighborhood, L3 in another and only L2 in a third – and a car might encounter all three of those on one journey. Put your route into the map and it will tell you if today is an L5 day or not.

  Thinking about the Gartner Hype Cycle, there’s often (always?) a “peak of inflated expectations”, as well as a chasm that new technologies need to cross as they are being adopted.

  Benedict’s article reminded me that we’re probably coming off that peak with autonomous vehicles and about to enter the so-called “trough of disillusionment.” 

  Autonomous vehicles represent a monumental shift in mobility, which will in turn impact our cities. That’s going to seem like an insurmountable challenge – until it doesn’t.

  2018.04.02

• Yes In My Back Yard

  Last week I called somebody a NIMBY. And though I probably shouldn’t have, it stems from the fact that I make a concerted effort to be the exact opposite: a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not In My Back Yard).

  I appreciate that change can be difficult for a lot of people. In fact, behavioral economic theory (specifically Prospect Theory) suggests that when people are faced with probabilistic alternatives involving risk, they tend to put more weight on the potential losses. This means that the potential benefits have to be, not just marginally better, but hugely more beneficial before people will make the change.

  Because I know I’m equipped with this bias, I try and constantly remind myself that change and motion are good and that oftentimes the potential losses or negatives aren’t going to be as bad as I might initially think.

  However, I also have a counter acting bias. I recently did a personality assessment (called the DiSC assessment) and I was found to be a creator. I would agree with this. What it means is that I prefer “to live in a world of possibilities.” I’m interested not in the way things are done today, but how they could be done in the future.

  And when I think about all the things I’m passionate about—architecture, design, real estate development, cities and tech—there’s a common thread: each one is about imagining something new. Whether you’re designing a building or building a new internet platform, it’s all about possibilities. I believe that the future will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

  But I recognize that this is a distinct personality type. I’m an early adopter. And not all people are like this. That’s why the adoption curve looks the way it does. 

  What would you say is your personality type?

  2014.02.11