> “Sorry :( Did my best!” said a pithy message the group left on a whiteboard on his scuffed-up dining table.

Well, no wonder people don't have faith in the people selling AI.

The irony is the company is trying to make robots to help clean airbnbs for renter turnovers. Instead they are messing up airbnbs and making them harder to clean before turnovers.

It's exactly this ethos, the "move fast and break things", and oh, we don't give a fuck about who/what we damage in the process - careless people indeed.

I am someone who came of age during an incredibly hopeful time about how technology could be a force for good. The silicon valley ethos at present is totally morally bankrupt and rotten to the core.

Nobody in this startup landscape gives a shit about anybody or anything that isn’t, at that very moment, contributing to their product development, market share, or raising capital. Even then, they only give a shit if they can’t avoid it and still get what they want. The second they are no longer useful, they’re thrown out like a bag of moldy tangerines. Morally bankrupt “leaders” employing people too inexperienced to know better or too disempowered to change anything.

Well said. Unfortunate anyone would necessitate the Airbnbanhammer, and the lawsuits, but could be important tools here.

Scamming homeowners out of relative peanuts is super cringe. Everyone looks bad:

- Employees - Management - Investors - Previous companies listed

& “move fast & be antisocial” Bot Co. too. Photograph/video walkthrough the rental beforehand, safeguard antiques/uniques, professionally restore to 100%, nobody ever has to know. Or call host, drop cash.

Make people whole - this is so much easier than your robots, guys.

> Stop outsourcing the cost of your vision to the rest of society.

They won't because that's a fundamental principle of the model they believe in.

tbqh the airbnb owners are also outsourcing the externalities of short term rentals to make a quick buck. It's outsourcing all the way down

I mean, it's good that they're testing things in different places. Environments vary.

But hundreds of millions sounds like enough money to get some industrial or dead commercial space (even in/around SF) and outfit it to be like an apartment. Or six different ones, and six others two weeks from now, and two weeks after that. The cost of the space and the carpenters/painters/drywallers/handymen/managers/whatevers would seem to be something of such relative insignificance that it doesn't even show up on the budgetary radar.

There'd be loads of people with rough houses they're about to renovate who'd take payment to allow you to test a robot.

> Founded by alums of Tesla

That tracks.

> Founded by alums of Tesla

Learned from the best of them, I see.

Modern tech culture is a blight on society.

Why should this be criminal and not civil?

Why the employees? Do you think they were operating without direction from their managers?

If we want to put a stop to this sort of behavior from businesses we can't be punishing employees for this behavior, we have to run it up the chain.

Human only "safe spaces" will be a thing. Where they draw the line will be the question.

Eh? This sort of corporate misbehaviour would obviously make the news; it’s both scummy and just bizarre. That makes for good news.

This kind of simping is surely indicative of something.

Usually you just hear about people suing the company, they are easier to collect from. Often they have insurance that will pay out a claim that is faster to pursue than a lawsuit. And if the damages are really large a single employee could go bankrupt. Also because the company is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in the scope of their duties.

But anyone that personally causes damage through negligence or intentional acts can be sued personally as well. If the employer is bankrupt the employees involved would be the only ones pursued. And these damages are relatively small individually, bankruptcy is not an issue.

Also there are some exceptions to the limited liability for company owners or directors like for illegal activity and fraud.

In a case like this, it would be typical for all possible defendants to be named.

Since the Airbnb bookings were ostensibly made by individuals, most attorneys would also name those individuals (in addition to the company if the company was named).

Having your founders/management/employees rent houses via Airbnb is a really bad strategy for limiting your liability using a company.

Lawsuit results get priority in bankruptcy court and so are still likely to pay out. The exact order varies by country, type of bankruptcy, and I'm not a lawyer. in general when you are bankrupt there is money just not enough and the courts decide who gets it. That money often exists after selling everything (desks, computers, chairs...) even if there is none now. The courts then decide who gets it, court fees, bankruptcy lawyer fees (if reasonable), banks, then the owners. Often the banks will take the company as a whole and put in new management if the business is otherwise good (think plumbers where the business is likely good but they can fail for bad management, tech companies like this they may give up on)

As a slight hint, one of the more common types of corporation is an "LLC". LLC stands for Limited Liability Company.

If the company's owners had unlimited liability for problems the company caused, that wouldn't be much of an LLC, would it? The primary purpose of an LLC is to make it so that the owners (often the founders) cannot personally be held responsible for debts the company incurs, even debts incurred through their instructions.

This also includes debts caused by punishment for the company breaking civil contracts, but doesn't make individuals who use the company to break the law immune to criminal charges. But the standard of evidence for prosecuting that type of malfeasance is pretty high...

Did an individual or the company rent the Airbnb?

Officers of the company can be at risk under certain very poorly defined circumstances. Basically, you have to prove that they personally were at fault and were just using the company as a legal cover for their misdeeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

If this were happening in the real world, they would have to personally back some of the corporate debts before banks would lend them money. But this is Silicon Valley, where banks and VCs just give away money to their buddies.

Hmm? Airbnb isn't on the hook?

If it can clean a kitchen, it can cook meth. Probably.

> Hosts are allowed to have exterior security cameras and recording devices, and are required to make sure their location is disclosed in the listing’s description (ex: “I have a camera in my front yard,” “I have a camera over my patio,” “I have a camera over my pool” or “I have a doorbell camera monitoring my front door and the hallway of my apartment building.”)

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3061

They turned off his security cameras so he went to take a look. At least that's the impression I got.

I'm a little surprised he didn't knock and ask to go in.

How could seeing people in a house from a public area possibly be an explicit violation of policies?

> You can’t secretly watch Airbnb guests through a window

Systematically? No. Casually? Of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be allowed to?

These aren’t corporate landlords, after all.

Sounds like looking though a window.

$12,383.50

Which is below the CA 12,500$ limit for small claims court.

Haven't checked whether the case was brought to small claims, but that'd be my guess.