The Million-Year Mistake and the Wright Stuff
On October 9, 1903, the New York Times published an editorial that would go down in history as one of the most spectacularly incorrect predictions ever printed. In a piece titled "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", the author looked at the repeated failures of early aviators and concluded that the problem was simply too immense for human engineering. The editorial posited that it might take mathematicians and mechanicians anywhere from one million to ten million years to finally evolve a machine that could fly. It was a confident, cynical, and seemingly rational assessment of the state of technology.
Sixty-nine days later, Orville and Wilbur Wright took to the skies above Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. They did not need a million years. They did not even need the rest of the year. They just needed a bicycle shop, some canvas, and a stubborn refusal to listen to the postgraduate pundits of the New York press.
This anecdote is a favorite among tech enthusiasts for a reason. It perfectly encapsulates the "skepticism trap" where intelligent people mistake current limitations for permanent barriers. Today, we see a strikingly similar script playing out with autonomous driving. As self-driving cars teeter on the verge of massive deployment, a vocal chorus of critics insists that the technology is dangerous, doomed, or perpetually five years away. But if history is any guide, betting against the curve of technological progress is a great way to end up looking foolish in retrospect.
The Physics Police and the Vacuum of Imagination
The New York Times was not finished with its bad takes after the Wright Brothers embarrassed them. In 1920, the paper turned its critical gaze toward rocketry. When Robert Goddard proposed that a rocket could function in the vacuum of space, the Times mocked him mercilessly. They claimed Goddard lacked the "knowledge ladled out daily in high schools" because he supposedly did not understand that a rocket needs air to push against. They accused him of ignoring Newton’s laws, when in reality, he understood them better than the writer or editor at the Times.
It took the paper forty-nine years to issue a retraction. On July 17, 1969, as Apollo 11 hurtled toward Luna for the historic moon landing, the Times published a dry correction noting that rockets do, in fact, work in a vacuum. "The Times regrets the error," they wrote.
This type of skepticism is rooted in the "physically impossible" fallacy. Critics look at a new technology and decide it violates the fundamental rules of reality. With autonomous vehicles, we see this in the argument that AI can never truly "drive" because it lacks human intuition or consciousness. Skeptics argue that a computer cannot replicate the subtle social contract of a four-way stop or the gut feeling that a pedestrian is about to step off a curb. They treat the human brain as a magical black box that silicon can never emulate. Yet, neural networks are already parsing these complex visual environments with superhuman consistency. The AI does not need to have a soul to identify a stop sign or calculate the trajectory of a cyclist; it just needs data, and it is consuming petabytes of it every single day.
Horses, Faxes, and the Fear of Change
Another flavor of skepticism comes from those who believe the current solution is already perfect. In 1903, the president of the Michigan Savings Bank famously advised Horace Rackham, Henry Ford’s lawyer, not to invest in the Ford Motor Company. His reasoning was sound to the conservative mind. He said, "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad."
This is the "market need" fallacy. It assumes that because society functions well enough with the status quo, no one will want the new thing. We saw this again in 1946 when Darryl Zanuck of 20th Century Fox predicted that television would fail because people would get tired of staring at a plywood box every night. We saw it in 1998 when economist Paul Krugman predicted that the internet’s impact on the economy would be no greater than that of the fax machine.
The table below highlights just how often the experts have completely missed the mark.
Table 1: The Hall of Shameful Predictions
| Year | The Skeptic | The Technology | The Prediction | The Reality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1876 | Western Union | Telephone | "Inherently of no value to us." | Became the backbone of global communication. |
| 1903 | Michigan Savings Bank | Automobile | "The horse is here to stay." | The US auto industry is now worth billions. |
| 1920 | New York Times | Rocketry | Rockets cannot fly in a vacuum. | We landed on the moon 49 years later. |
| 1946 | Darryl Zanuck | Television | "People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box." | TV dominated culture for 75 years. |
| 1977 | Ken Olsen (DEC) | PC | "No reason anyone would want a computer in their home." | You are reading this on one right now. |
| 1998 | Paul Krugman | Internet | Impact no greater than the fax machine. | It rewired the entire human experience. |
| 2015 | Various Critics | Autonomous Cars | "Will never work in chaotic urban environments." | Robotaxis are actively logging millions of miles. |
The Autonomous Arrival - Betting Against Innovation Always Fails
Despite the historical graveyard of bad predictions, skepticism toward autonomous driving remains high. Critics point to high-profile stall-outs or accidents, ignoring the fact that human drivers cause over 40,000 deaths annually in the US alone. The skepticism often misses the exponential nature of AI learning. Every time a Tesla or a Waymo encounters a weird edge case, that data is captured, uploaded, analyzed, and the learnings are pushed back to the entire fleet. The fleet learns as a collective. Human drivers do not. When a teenager in Ohio learns how to handle a skid on black ice, that knowledge stays in their head. When an autonomous vehicle learns it, every car in the network learns it.
We are already seeing the shift. In cities like San Francisco and Austin, fully driverless cars are picking up passengers and navigating complex traffic without a human behind the wheel. The technology is not theoretical; it is operational. The transition from "research project" to "widely deployed utility" is happening right now, masked only by the gradual nature of the rollout. The future is already here; it just has limited deployment.
Sustainability and the Smarter Road
Beyond the just the tech factor, there is a compelling environmental argument for embracing the robot driver. Humans are terrible at driving efficiently. We accelerate too hard, brake too late, and idle unnecessarily. We circle blocks looking for parking, wasting fuel, and clogging city streets.
Autonomous vehicles promise a level of hyper-efficiency that biological drivers cannot match. Imagine a highway where cars platoon inches apart to reduce wind resistance and fuel consumption. This is not just sci-fi dreaming; it is basic physics. By smoothing out the "phantom traffic jams" caused by human over-reaction, AVs can reduce congestion without us needing to pour millions of tons of concrete to widen roads.
Furthermore, the convergence of autonomy and electrification is a happy accident of history. Most autonomous platforms are built on electric architectures, meaning the shift to self-driving is also a shift away from the combustion engine. This transition supports a cleaner future where our cities are quieter and the air is breathable. It is a pro-environmental shift that does not require everyone to become a minimalist; it just requires them to let go of the steering wheel.
Wrighting the Wrongs
It is easy to be a skeptic. It feels safe. It feels intellectual to sit back and list the reasons why something will not work. It costs nothing to say "that is impossible" and then carry on with your day. But the history of innovation is written by the people who ignored the "million-year" warnings.
The New York Times was wrong about the airplane. They were wrong about the rocket. And the modern skeptics are wrong about the autonomous car. The technology is not just coming; it is already here, parking itself and reshaping our cities.
So the next time someone tells you that self-driving cars are a fantasy or a dangerous gamble, just remember the Wright Brothers. Remember that while the experts were writing op-eds about how flight was a million years away, Wilbur and Orville were busy tightening the bolts on a machine that would change the world forever. The view is always better from the air, and soon enough, you won't have to go 8,000 feet up to get fresh air.







.jpg)



