Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

271–280 of 445 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla which is run by a delusional snake oil salesman who had a single hit with the Model S Being that dismissive and willfully ignorant discredits your entire argument. A snake oil salesman produces nothing and hoodwinks people. I drive my "snake oil" every day and not only is it the best car I've ever driven, it's the coolest thing I've ever owned. I routinely watch his "snake oil" launch huge payloads to orbit a…

if you dont think elon musk is a fraudster with this robotaxi bullshit sir you might have drank the kool aid repeatedly pretending that full self driving was anything more than a pipe dream is dangerous. everyone knows that except people that enable his scamming

I don't think he's a fraudster. I think he's a visionary who sometimes sees things more the way he imagines them than the way they really are.

Things aren't as black and white as a bunch of people on here make them out to be. It's possible to deliver great products while dreaming too big and failing on others. The quality of being able to take risks and fail repeatedly until finally succeeding is one that most entrepreneurs possess.

I don't know why everyone gives this guy such a hard time. And I don't know why he has to be either a genius or a crackpot but not both at the same time. He can be enormously successful - like getting a new car company off the ground, making electric cars mainstream, putting unprecedented driving aids in the hands of consumers, rocket launches at an incredibly affordable cost - and not hit a home run with other ambitious projects like hyperloop, underground tunnels, robotaxis, etc.

Personally, I think the robotaxi idea is stupid. I get that there's a market for autonomous fleet vehicles but which individual car buyers are asking for a taxi service? I didn't buy a 70k car so that it could drive a bunch of strangers around and make me a couple bucks on the side. And, assuming they pull it off (which I doubt), I'd be pretty pissed if the cost of new Teslas went up because of the availability of some service I had no interest in to begin with. It would alienate me as a customer.

That said, I love my Tesla. I use Autopilot every day and it has been life changing. It's not perfect, but it works well enough for 90% of my driving. I rode in one of those self driving Lyft cars recently. It required 2 operators, the driver had to repeatedly take over and it was very similar to my Tesla in terms of ability. The difference is the Tesla is in the hands of consumers. It would be very difficult for me to go back to a regular gas car and I don't think I could go back to daily driving without advanced driver aids like Autopilot.

I have my doubts about city self driving. When I'm coming up to a light and it's obstructed by a big truck that's in front of me I wonder how they will solve that problem. Or railroad tracks, pedestrians, animals running into the road, etc. Those seems like insurmountable problems to me. I'm willing to wait and see though. They've already achieved more than I thought I would see in my lifetime. I won't begrudge them the occasional failure.

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

#272
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…

[deleted]

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

#273
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's AlphaZero AI went from not knowing chess at all to beating the best current software (Stockfish) in mere hours. It's a whole new world out there.

For playing computer games maybe. Chess is such a simple proposition compared to real life and you are only comparing this AI against other AI...

Stockfish isn't an AI, just an expert system. It was designed from the ground up to play chess.

AlphaZero is generalized AI. It was designed to learn how to do things - like play chess. The fact that it easily beat a custom-designed expert system with only a few hours of learning time is incredible. It's a different order of complexity altogether. It may not be human intelligence, but it's a great deal closer to how humans function than how machines (like Stockfish) function.

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

#274
I believe that self driving cars are here whenever they can take a standard driving test in whatever conditions we feel are normal for the legislative area they are employed in.

Until then any kind of self driving should be given the same penalties that we would impose on a party operating a vehicle without the appropriate license. This is such an obvious thing to me I really wonder why it has not been implemented.

After all, if 'AI' is allowed to drive why aren't kids aged 12 allowed to drive, they are obviously more intelligent. It's because they have not passed a driving test and won't be eligible until they are of the right age.

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

#275
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I keep saying autonomous driving doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than humans. And that's a much lower bar, because we are lousy drivers.

I vote for neither. We don’t need to drive, and we certainly don’t need computers to do it for us. There are other—much more easily automated—systems that are several orders of magnitudes more efficient then driving and—if implemnted sufficiently—almost always faster. Autonomous driving doesn’t need to be perfect because we don’t need it. With sufficient alternative systems the only reason for driving will be for hob…

We need transportation. A world of sitting on our butts in front of a computer isn't a solution to much of anything. Maybe we don't need to actually operate the vehicle, but we need the vehicle.

I'm not walking halfway across the country just to visit my mother.

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

#276

I have been saying this for years. Even if self driving cars handle 99% of situations correctly, they don’t become feasible until they can do that last 1%, which is 100x more difficult then previous 99. The reality is, if the car drives itself, people will be doing other things in the car and will be unable to respond to emergencies.

If they get in a situation they cannot handle, the car can stop and pull over to the side of the road before asking the human to take over. And it can refuse to navigate to areas where it wouldn't be able to do that. (And if you're in an area where an emergency stop is unsafe, it's unsafe for human drivers too. Getting rear-ended for an emergency stop is that fault of the following car for that reason.)

So I’ll still need to have a drivers license to use an autonomous vehicle? That pretty much defeats the whole purpose, at least for me.

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an impressively difficult number, but I wonder where you got it from? What is a “time”? A second in dangerous conditions? A trip? How do you get a hundred million iterations of anything at human driving scale?

The rate of fatal car accidents in the US is about 1 per 1e8 miles traveled. Of course, that's a terrible measure of driver error rate: Less than 1% of all collisions are fatal and with maximally safe cars that could ensure all occupants will survive any possible collision at any possible operating speed, the worst possible driving system would receive perfect marks.

In safety-critical systems, failures are usually measured in (severity) x (probability) (and sometimes including a 'detectability' measure).

So a resulting 'acceptable' metric could factor in those less severe cases even if they occur at a higher probability. Scores outside this range would then trigger a redesign to bring it within acceptable boundaries.

I think the difficulty will be in 1) getting a consensus on what the resultant score should be and 2) getting enough information to estimate it in a statistically significant sense.

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

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they get in a situation they cannot handle, the car can stop and pull over to the side of the road before asking the human to take over. And it can refuse to navigate to areas where it wouldn't be able to do that. (And if you're in an area where an emergency stop is unsafe, it's unsafe for human drivers too. Getting rear-ended for an emergency stop is that fault of the following car for that reason.)

So I’ll still need to have a drivers license to use an autonomous vehicle? That pretty much defeats the whole purpose, at least for me.

Or you'll need to call a tow truck when it gets disabled, or you'll need a stage 5 vehicle rather than stage 4, or you'll have to subscribe to an emergency low-speed teleoperation service that has been hypothesized.

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

#279
I'm going to be the contrarian here and say that they quoted people and events from some of the laggards or less advanced companies (like Uber's crash, which was totally preventable). I see much more optimism from the leaders in the space, although it's not like they are planning 100% self-driving taxis next year.

Also, keep in mind that the fair comparison is whether the cars outperform the average rate of human drivers. It doesn't have to be perfect.

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

#280

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…

Nothing makes me cringe harder than absolute statements regarding technology from people in leadership roles in the technology sector.
Post reply on HN