Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#211

Post by AtlasBarfed » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #186

suprfnk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a human can do it, I see no reason why an autonomous system can't, eventually, do it. It might take a very long time, but "never" seems short-sighted.

Imagine you're driving down a street when a kid playing on the sidewalk runs behind a truck and disappears from your view. If the kid appears in the road from behind the truck, the computer can handle slamming on the brakes very easily - probably faster than a human can - without understanding the kid any better than a group of LIDAR points or a rectangle of pixels labelled 'obstacle' by a neural network. But if you…

I thought waymo already displayed this ability? That's object identification and prediction, it's not impossible to do.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#212

Post by gurkancaner » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

I think there is no reel need for driverless cars. Having technological difficulties aside we should question whether there is really a need for self-driving cars. Life is not that bad without autonomous cars. I don't hear anybody complain about in real life not having driverless cars. Basically a driverless car is same thing having a private chauffeur and I know quite a few people who don't want to use their private chauffeurs lots of time.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#213

Post by gfodor » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #93

kpU8efre7r wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just Waymo was driving over 1 million miles a month in 2018. How many people have they killed? The fact that an autonomous vehicle or Tesla "autopilot" fatality makes national news is telling. It's not commonplace.

It's not sufficient for these systems to just be "better" than humans in terms of accidents/mile/vehicle, they have to be FAR BETTER than humans. Today, when accidents occur, blame and liability goes to the responsible parties. We're talking about millions of accidents and millions of drivers. If you suddenly have a car that drives, the blame and liability for all accidents then gets focused like a giant magnifying g…

Not really. The cars only need to be safe enough to get over the potential fear of users to activate them. This may even be less safe than human drivers, we just don't know until they are deployed. For example, it could turn out that present day autopilot in Tesla cars is less safe than human drivers, but yet people still use it. Humans aren't strictly rational based upon risk when it comes to transportation. If autocars are convenient, and in every day experience work successfully, people will use them (especially those who are young, who have the marginal cost of having to instead learn how to drive, and may just opt-out of learning to drive altogether if they can get through their daily lives by using autonomous vehicles.)

The legal issue you mention seems secondary to the human factors one. If people get addicted to self-driving, and some are dependent upon it, the laws will bend to the culture not the other way around, as they always do. Look at the current regime for an example of this: we gloss over the 30k fatalities that happen regularly due to cars, and hand out licenses to drive these death machines to people who really should have no right to do so given their poor driving skills or physical impediments -- we do so because to deny someone the ability to drive is so averse to culture and freedom that we err on the side of enabling more people to drive despite the fact that it surely increases the risk for everyone on the road.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#214

Post by JorgeGT » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #94

mhermher wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will a computer ever write War and Peace or compose the 9th Symphony too? How about solve an unsolved math proof? No reason it can't be automated, right?

All these things are literally on the AI horizon.

Old Soviet joke:

Radio Yerevan was asked: We are told that communism is already seen at the horizon. Then, what is a horizon?

Answer: A horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#215

Post by empath75 » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

gurkancaner wrote: post #212

I think there is no reel need for driverless cars. Having technological difficulties aside we should question whether there is really a need for self-driving cars. Life is not that bad without autonomous cars. I don't hear anybody complain about in real life not having driverless cars. Basically a driverless car is same thing having a private chauffeur and I know quite a few people who don't want to use their private…

There's no real need for anything in life other than food and shelter. If driverless cars work and don't cost much, some people will use them and enjoy them and that's enough.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#216

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

Fins wrote: post #210

toomuchtodo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to hear that's your opinion! Besides waiting a bit longer to Supercharge vs getting a tank of gas (which is rare, only when traveling, I charge at home every night), my experience has been much better with a Tesla than any internal combustion vehicle I've owned.

That's not really the only compromise Tesla has. It got terrible ergonomics, lack of what is now isn't considered particularly luxury features, mediocre build quality, repairs that can take months etc. But it got fart jokes! So it all evens out. /s For my personal usage, when I am traveling (which usually is something like driving 2000 miles with a single long stop) filling/charging time makes all the difference betw…

You might have a point if there wasn't any demand, but Tesla is shipping almost 360k vehicles a year (and Gigafactory 3 in China is about to turn up). Someone likes the cars they build.

Very, very few people use their car as you describe (2000 miles in a single sprint). If you must perform such a trip, most will fly or rent a car just for that trip.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#217

Post by jcfrei » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

gradys wrote: post #187

casefields wrote: post #2

Nothing makes a huge group of us cringe more, than people saying it's just around the corner. The worst part is it also comes from people who should know better. >Waymo’s CEO, John Krafcik, has admitted that a self-driving car that can drive in any condition, on any road, without ever needing a human to take control—usually called a “level five” autonomous vehicle—will basically never exist. At the Wall Street Journa…

Here's Krafcik reacting to how what he said there was quoted and interpreted: "Yeah some context missing here, but it did make for a fun headline.( said the same thing about my own driving.) The point is that autonomous driving, like human driving, will always have constraints." https://twitter.com/johnkrafcik/status/1063281250088042496

In other words, most people are not aware how dangerous certain conditions are under which they are occasionally driving (snow, fog, etc.). And that most of the time the only reason they didn't have a crash is luck. It might even be socially unacceptable to refuse driving to work because of fog.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#218

Post by sodafountan » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #31

No one will ever need more than 64kb ram - Bill Gates

I think that's a misinterpretation of the quote, Gates didn't say "More than 64kb of Ram may never be possible" he simply argued against its practicality at the time.

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#219

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #107

gamblor956 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, because it's not like the Prius demonstrated that there was a market for green car, or the CA or federal green car credits and HOV access provided incentives to people to buy said green cars, or federal regulations regarding fleet emissions standards created the market for trading emissions credits that has singlehandedly kept Tesla afloat everytime it's come closer to running out of money. No, apparently Tes…

It's silly to shun emissions credits that are desperately needed to electrify transportation considering the trillions of dollars of subsides petroleum has received and the severity of climate change. The market for an underpowered hybrid like the Prius is not the same as a market for an EV with no compromises (how does one compare a Model 3 to a Prius?). Any automaker gets ZEV credits and federal tax credits for the…

It's silly to shun emissions credits that are desperately needed to electrify transportation considering the trillions of dollars of subsides petroleum has received and the severity of climate change.

It's disingenuous to claim that subsidies for petroleum are remotely the same thing as subsidies for EVs. You're comparing corn to apples here. The proper comparison would be subsidies for renewable energy like solar and wind to subsidies for petroleum, since in both cases the subsidies are indirect to the market that's were talking about: automobiles.

It's also disingenuous to claim that subsidies stretching out over a century, and partially rooted in global geopolitical politics, are the same thing as subsidies that have been around for about a decade.

Finally, it's disingenuous to cite the "trillions" of subsidies worldwide for petroleum while leaving out the hundreds of billions of subdisidies that green power like solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear have received worldwide.

Tesla has already sold more Model 3s in a quarter than Chevy has sold Bolts ever....So why is Tesla the one selling hundreds of thousands of EVs per year and no one else is?

The Chevy Bolt is supply-constrained; total global production is 30,000 vehicles a year. There are currently waitlists at every dealership selling a Bolt. Competing EVs like the iPace are similarly supply-constrained and also have months-long waiting lists. Unlike Tesla, other automakers launch models slowly and scale up production as demand proves itself and production hiccups reveal themselves and are addressed. Last I checked, there's no months-long waiting period to get a Chevy Bolt fixed because (a) they don't need fixing straight out of the factory like so many Teslas do and (b) the supply of repair parts is readily accessible due to Chevy's mastery of basic automobile logistics...

Re: Despite High Hopes, Self-Driving Cars Are ‘Way in the Future’

#220

Post by AtlasBarfed » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

hateful wrote: post #25

I think it would happen this way: firstly you would automate things that go on a track - like trains - which I think we already have. Then secondly you could have certain lanes or roads that are designed for specific self-driving vehicles. This could help buses and trucks (in certain areas) get around. Then you would keep adding more of those, until many roads have those and very few manual lanes. It wouldn't immedia…

Seriously, please automate highway driving first. You get all the benefits for shipping and efficiency and logistics, so the money is there. The problem is so much more simple, and there can be convergent infrastructure (embedded sensors, mesh network updates, higher standards of road quality).

On long trips on highways it just kills me that I have to stare at the same image for hours basically, and that a program couldn't do that more safely than me.

And if this happens, the airlines and all their fees and cramping and security and bad customer service can be brutally competed against for any trip under 800 miles, and probably longer.

Even a one hour 500 mile trip in a plane is really 3-4 hours, and you don't get a car at your destination, while driving there is about 5-6 hours. If I could surf that whole time or nap, then I'll drive.

If I can sleep overnight, then 8-10 hour drives become far preferable to flying.

If I have friends along the way to visit, or interesting places to vacation in, two or three day trips are more preferable than 1500-2000 mile flights, especially if you have a family and it is way way way cheaper.

Airlines have been reorienting themselves to shorter hops over the last couple decades. Self driving on highways will decimate that business, and only long haul/overseas will remain.