Live data from Hacker News

Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

blog.waymo.com

441–450 of 691 posts

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#441
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

I agree that these incidents are concerning, but you mention Tesla's crashes, yet people are still buying it? I think you are underestimating people's laziness.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#442
post #19

It's fantastic to see Waymo's progress. SF is a real nightmare to drive. If they can nail it there, that's 2/2 for busy, urban street driving (SF) and "boring" suburban driving (Chandler, AZ). They've been quietly very confident of their tech, but this is a real test. Tangentially, I've also noticed that Waymo has picked up pace ever since the recent leadership changes. They are publishing more blog posts, offering m…

SF is a real nightmare to drive. If they can nail it there, that's 2/2 for busy, urban street driving (SF) and "boring" suburban driving (Chandler, AZ) Both are low-hanging fruit. When it can navigate a snow-covered road at night while it's still snowing, get back to me.

But the bar to be better than a human in this case is also wickedly low.

I basically can't do this. If it was absolutely necessary I would go out there and drive like 5 mph and be terrified the whole time, but otherwise I would just treat whatever I needed to drive to in a snowstorm at night as temporarily inaccessible. I have lived in places where it snowed in winter before.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#443
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

Here's a particularly spicy viewpoint: It doesn't matter if you obliterate public confidence in self-driving cars, or if there are lethal accidents that would've been avoided. As t approaches infinity, what are the chances that self-driving cars won't take over the world?

I imagine Waymo's investors want a return before t reaches infinity...

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#444
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with Coimbra, Portugal. Would love to see a Waymo car trying to navigate those old intricate roads.

I wonder if Waymo can use street mirrors.

I hadn't even considered those. It would be interesting to see how confused Telsa FSD got when confronted by something like that.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#445
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

The world doesn't work in idealized ways. Yes, perhaps ideally self-driving cars would need to be nearly perfect in order to win wide public acceptance. At the same time there was an article on the front page today investigating literal gulag labor camps in the USA, and I doubt those are popular or going away any time soon. Once this is working technology that can turn a profit, it will depend on who stands to gain, how deep their pockets are, who gets bribed, which talking points get pushed, and which votes get bought. Whether the public ends up particularly happy about the outcome is at best, secondary, and at worst, irrelevant. Don't think I've run into too many people happy about our healthcare system, yet that remains stubbornly broken. No one I've met really wanted to lose our lower-middle class to China, yet there it went.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#446
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

I'm a bit surprised by how negative a view HN has towards human adoption of technology.

What technology is perfect? What code is perfect and doesn't have bugs in it? And yet we adopt automated systems anyway. Yes, sometimes it is painful and an entire airline grounds all planes for half a day... But that doesn't stop the unending march towards efficiency and technological progress.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That announcement was from 2019. Honest question, how can I see the progress made from this investment? Did they build any, some or all of these homes yet? It does sound great though, I hope they did.

Skimmed, this is probably the San Jose page on it: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-office...

Thank you for that. Looks like no ground has been broken and Google is still cutting through bureaucracy.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a particularly spicy viewpoint: It doesn't matter if you obliterate public confidence in self-driving cars, or if there are lethal accidents that would've been avoided. As t approaches infinity, what are the chances that self-driving cars won't take over the world?

pretty high if people won't use them because they don't trust them.

If you think governments can't simply legislate away people's freedom to drive in the service of corporate profits or what's "best for them", you haven't read the news lately.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#449
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

>human drivers, who aren't actually all that great. A large fraction of human drivers are actually all that great. The majority of accidents/deaths are caused by a minority of terrible drivers, or good drivers who found themselves in terrible but rare circumstances. The majority of drivers drive hundreds of thousands of miles without any accidents that were their fault, or even any accidents at all. In other words, i…

I don't think it's easy to beat the mean human driver and to demonstrate with solid data that you've done so.

In 2019 in California, there were 1.06 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Any self-driving automobile technology that doesn't have at least 1 billion vehicle miles of data is in no position to claim that it is safer than human drivers and less likely to kill people.

Self driving cars don't make the same kinds of mistakes as human drivers do, but they make different kinds of mistakes. Some of these can be fatal.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#450
post #421

Many comments in this thread are variations on a theme of "self-driving cars don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better than human drivers, who aren't actually all that great." I think it would be nice if this were true, and I suppose it is from an actuarial perspective, but it's also an extremely flawed point. From a public confidence perspective, it doesn't matter if a self-driving car crashes one tenth,…

Counterpoint - nobody actually cares about traffic fatalities. Nearly 40,000 deaths a year in the US, and the majority of people get in their cars every day without ever thinking about this risk and go about their lives (or to put that another way, the risks are already so low as to be negligible to most people, and anything else within the ballpark of negligible is still negligible). Normalcy bias is incredibly strong and as soon as self-driving cars are "normal" people will get on board without thinking twice. Tesla is slowly acclimating people to self-driving, basically everyone is familiar with the idea at this point, and as soon as it's available and someone tells you it's "just as safe as driving yourself", most people will just go with it. Especially given how big the upside is - you don't have to deal with the stress of driving anymore, you can just relax in your car. Or in terms of getting a ride, maybe it's 1/4 the price of a taxi driven by a human. Sounds good, people will roll with it.

Of course the more it starts taking off, there will always be a vocal subset of the population that is strongly opposed to it, just like there are vocal anti-vaxxer groups and there were anti-seatbelt protests back in the 80's. But I can't imagine the naysayers having a very big impact on the progression of the technology, the upsides are just too enormous.

Post reply on HN