Autonomy For Who? — Why Self Driving Vehicles Encapsulate The Human/Tech Debate

Welcome to our first Ideas update of 2026 as the moon wanes and the year has accelerated into drama. The first Idea highlights what authentic might mean in an age of AI, the second looks at self driving vehicles and what they might mean, for humans.

Authenticity

If you have not seen it check out the essay Who Designs the Future When Everyone Can, our first major piece this year. We've had a lot of good feedback already, and thoughts about how to develop the ideas in it. I am really interested in the idea of authenticity and AI. From the essay:

Now, authentic is a troublesome word to define. What counts as authentic is very context dependent. You might claim your holiday was authentic because you did a home stay in a rural village, but the fact remains you were still a tourist and eventually left to go back to somewhere more comfortable. So was that an authentic experience?

We also tend to assume authentic means “good”, but it’s easy to think of global politicians right now (Quiet piggy!) who are deeply true to their personalities (and maybe their beliefs), however noxious those are to their opponents.

So I want to propose a specific meaning for authentic here. Let's use it to mean: an experience we trust has been created by and for human beings.

That’s a big ask. If I have used AI to create all of this essay AND I claim it to be my intellectual output, it is clearly not authentic. What if large parts of this essay are AI generated (they are not): is it still authentic? What if I asked AI to help me at a couple of moments, and to sense check my writing (I did): is it then authentic? Obviously it is very hard to know the exact percentage of the input when a piece of content switches from authentic to not. Actually it’s not even worth trying to formulate. The future is going to be a mix whether we like it or not. But that does not invalidate the proposition here that we will, by and large, prefer authentic human products, and that will drive differentiation, a sense of value and therefore price.

So then how do we know a product in the age of AI is authentically human? With difficulty, and the better AI gets, even more so. But I suggest these three methods are a good place to start, and possibly they are instinctual to humans. 

Full subscribers can see where this goes....

Autonomy for Who?

Announcements from Nvidia at CES, and a provocative piece in the FT this week - "Europe Doesn't Need Driverless Cars" (paywall) got me thinking. David Zipper argues that the US, with considerably poorer road safety stats needs these vehicles more, to reduce deaths and injury (European roads are more than twice as safe). And...

"This means the upside of robotaxis in Europe is lower. And there are considerable downsides to introducing autonomous cars into transportation networks that do not revolve around motor vehicles. Robotaxis have caused relatively few problems in car-centric American cities like Phoenix. But in San Francisco they have blocked bike lanes and obstructed transit vehicles. Such mishaps should be a warning for European leaders not to let their cities become beholden to the automobile. Technological marvels they may be, but robotaxis are still cars and cars are a uniquely inefficient means of moving large numbers of people when space is at a premium. By inviting robotaxis into their narrow, busy streets, European cities risk worsening congestion."

I like this - but on reflection don't think it is that simple. I realised that the whole issue encompasses the never-ending debate around technological progress, its plusses and minuses, which is core subject matter for Full Moon.

Security

I've heard people say that they like the idea as they don't want to talk to drivers. Seriously what kind of signal is that? I've often found drivers in strange cities to be wonderful sources of information. Yes, and occasionally annoying. Should we not chat with strangers to get out of our bubble? Isn't that exposure one that makes us socially richer? But then I mentioned this to women friends and relatives and many pointed out that they see a safety aspect to not getting in cars with strangers. I had to re-evaluate.

Cost

What about price? Naively, I had assumed that a core benefit of robotaxis is that they would be cheaper, as there was no driver to keep in food, coffee and other needs. But it turns out that in the US Waymo (the robotaxi market leader) is typically one third pricier than an Uber with a human driver. This however does not take into account what you choose to tip the latter, which reduces the difference quite a bit. Robots don't expect tips, for now anyway. Interestingly in China the reverse is true and robotaxis can be more than 50% cheaper. This has led to driver protests. See "Society" below.

Safety

Zipper's argument is undercut by considering the value we put on human lives. Yes, Europe is much safer on the road, but is it safe enough? The UK is in the top tier of safe countries to drive, yet this week in the UK the government announced new drink driving rules which will bring down the level of blood alcohol permitted to drivers. This has caused concerns in the hospitality industry, especially in rural areas, that it will deter trade even more, if just a single pint or glass of wine takes you over the new limit. However robotaxis - if they work in rural areas - could be a wonderful answer to this and encourage more not less social activity and conviviality, out of home. With a rapidly ageing population almost everywhere, who may struggle to drive regardless of alcohol, this could be a meaningful benefit.

Society

The UK has about 430,000 licensed taxi drivers. What if they all lose their currently useful jobs over time? That's a big dent, and mainly in a male, older and increasingly minority ethnic demographic, with societal and political consequences.

Is this technology solving a problem that did not exist, at a higher price per mile and a higher social cost? Or are the security benefits for those who feel at risk, a lower price (if the China model wins) and fewer road deaths, combined with safer fun, worth it?

Most of all, who gets to decide?