Live data from Hacker News

Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

blog.waymo.com

641–650 of 691 posts

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder where "a country road with no lanes which barely fits 1.5 car in winter in the Czech republic" is on your scale... Something like this, just imagine the snowdrifts around it https://www.google.com/maps/@49.080269,16.4569252,3a,75y,307...

I live in north-central Idaho. 10 minutes from 2 state-universities, but in an otherwise relatively rural part of the county with a 1/4 mile long, somewhat steep driveway. Every year, I'm amazed at how quickly our personal "veneer of civilization" collapses in the snow. The prior owners of our home would just keep their kids home from school, and work from home an average of "about a week every winter." We're a littl…

Why do you live in a place where you have to shovel snow from 5am on a week day? I mean I appreciate building character but at some point you're just deciding to live life on hard mode.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People at Tesla and other autonomous driving companies, of course are aware and worry about such situations. If you have a few hours and want to see many of the technologies and methods that Tesla is using to solve them, check out Tesla's recent "AI day" presentation. Tesla is quite cool about openly discussing the problems they have solved, problems they still have, and how they are trying to solve them. An incomple…

> People at Tesla and other autonomous driving companies, of course are aware and worry about such situations. Yeah, a Tesla couldn't possibly drive into a stationary, clearly visible fire engine or concrete barrier, on a dry day, in direct sunlight.

As awful of a failure as that is, and as fun as it is to mock Tesla for it, that claim was that they're aware of edge cases and working on fixing them, not that they're already fixed. So your criticism doesn't really make sense.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#643
post #304
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you describe Tesla's tendency to crash full speed into stopped emergency vehicles during highway driving as "excellent"? https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/16/business/tesla-autopilot-fede...

I would say it's better then the Human's tendency to drive full speed into anything while impaired by a drug. Especially since the bug was fixed in Tesla's case but the bug in Human's case is probably un-fixable.

They fixed driving into stationary things? That's news to me. What's your source?

It's not an easy problem to fix at high speed without false positives, and they seem to really hate false positives.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder where "a country road with no lanes which barely fits 1.5 car in winter in the Czech republic" is on your scale... Something like this, just imagine the snowdrifts around it https://www.google.com/maps/@49.080269,16.4569252,3a,75y,307...

Autonomous driving systems are set at various levels of autonomy. Level 0 is no automation, level 1 is just a dumb cruise control, level 2 is radar adaptive cruise control plus lane keeping (which is where most production systems like Tesla Autopilot and GM Supercruise are currently at). Level 2 still requires full human supervision, if you engaged it on the road above it would either fail to engage or you'd crash an…

Actually it doesn't matter if your cruise control is dumb or adaptive. If you have only cruise control, of either kind, then it's level 1.

And if you have lane-keeping but not cruise control, that's also level 1.

The difference between 1 and 2 is weird.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#645

“All rides in the program will have an autonomous specialist on board for now” This tells me that we’re still a long way from full level 4 (and certainly level 5) autonomy in a busy city like San Francisco. The edge cases requiring immediate human attention are still too frequent for the human safety driver to be remote, as is the case in Phoenix. Also, just a reminder that Waymo in Phoenix is nowhere close to being…

All that tells you is that they are cautious in the famously litigious California yet confident enough to actually launch their service there. In the unlikely event something goes wrong, even if it is not their fault, they had a person onboard. It's the difference between that being just a minor incident or getting a class action lawsuit with millions/billions in damages. The law is by far the biggest obstacle to level 4 and 5 driving. So, launching in San Francisco is kind of a big step for them.

Once it has proven itself for a bit of time and they know how to set up their geo-fences and which streets to avoid, they can probably get rid of the person. That would be evident by that person never actually doing anything long before that.

The remote safety monitoring is a smart feature but it's not going to help much for the type of accidents people worry about most where something unexpected happens very rapidly. AIs are actually really good with dealing with those situations. Arguably better than humans for whom this is probably a leading cause of traffic fatalities. The way Waymo operates without hands on the wheel (i.e. level 3 & 4), basically means they have safety nailed already in those kind of situations.

There's no way a remote person would be quick enough to intervene. That person is there for other reasons. It's complex traffic situations that cause AIs to get stuck occasionally that require human intervention. Usually this is less of a safety concern and more of an annoyance.

The key metric of interventions per hundreds of thousands of miles of distance traveled is the key metric that both Tesla, Waymo, and other companies use for this. Both companies boast some pretty impressive statistics for that. Though of course it's hard to confirm those independently.

It's interesting the way Tesla and Waymo approach this problem in different ways. Waymo goes for level 4 but only in areas they've thoroughly vetted. It's taken them many years to start moving to new areas other than relatively safe and easy Phoenix. Tesla on the other hand offers their AI features just about anywhere they can but positions it as level 2 that is really aspiring to be a level 4 but with a requirement for hands on the wheel just in case (which means it's level 2). Level 2 is a legal tool to dodge a lot of legislation and bureaucracy. It basically means that if anything goes wrong, the driver is at fault. It will stay in place a long time for that reason. Liability, not safety, is the key concern here.

Arguably, Teslas would probably do pretty well in the areas that Waymo has vetted as well. But they are not in the ride sharing market and need to sell cars world wide and not just in specific geofences in Phoenix and San Francisco. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Tesla offer a similar ride sharing service in similarly geo-fenced areas at some point to get to level 4 & 5. I suspect that race is a lot closer than some people seem to think.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#646
post #539
post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, because "autopilot" is not autonomous.

Well yeah, it's like other autopilots: An autopilot is a system used to control the path of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without requiring constant manual control by a human operator. Autopilots do not replace human operators. Instead, the autopilot assists the operator's control of the vehicle, allowing the operator to focus on broader aspects of operations (for example, monitoring the trajectory, weather…

That's just devious marketing on Tesla's part. They can always excuse customer misunderstandings with the original meaning you explained, while normal people can be savely expected to interpret autopilot as full self driving (and I'd be surprised if they didn't have actually tested this with focus groups beforehand). So not really lying (great for the lawsuits), but constructing misunderstanding on purpose (great for the brand image).

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#647
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay... let me know when their market is the contiguous United States.

That's the point of this comment chain. They don't have to make it work everywhere in the contiguous United States to have a useful product. The (robo)taxi market is concentrated in big metro areas and that's what their focus is.

The thing is, with apps providing start and end point, they don't even need to be able to handle a full city to get a benefit. They can geofence really aggressively, and the moment they can ditch the safety drivers from a sufficient subset of journeys based on routes requested, they have an advantage.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#648

I just signed up and actually skimmed the privacy policy (because hey, it's Alphabet). They record video of you during the ride and didn't mention anything that I caught about ever deleting it. I get that they need video in case I do bad stuff in the back, but it's really disappointing that they didn't bother reassuring you like "we delete it after a month" or something. I'm hoping I just missed that line. But I sign…

Everything to do with more tech in cars is a privacy nightmare.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#649
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. If I could choose one car for person use, I'd take any modern adaptive cruise control + lane-keep assist system over an L4 that only worked in one city (even if it's a major city where I live). I'm not really sure how you determine which one is "more advanced," but I would consider the "level of automation" to be the portion of my normal driving habits that are able to be automated.

You're talking about personal driving, which is a different use case than robotaxis. For that, yes, you're better served with an ADAS system. It will take a while for L4 systems like Waymo to trickle down to passenger cars.

The point is that a "level 4 system" like Waymos is never going to trickle down to personally owned vehicles, because nobody wants to pay the hardware premium required for Waymo's autonomous system if it will be locked down to a specific city with specific routes.

Which is exactly GC's point – they don't want a car that can drive itself in Phoenix and SF and that's it. Most people either want a car that can make their life easier for a huge portion of driving but still require them to be in the driver's seat (e.g. Tesla's Autopilot) or a car that can actually drive itself basically anywhere (e.g. Tesla's FSD). Waymo's Level 4 just isn't that appealing for a personal vehicle.

This is why the SAE level system is poorly thought out and not particularly useful for anything except arguing over minutiae.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#650
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those SAE levels apparently don’t specifically mention the geographic range the vehicle can operate in [0], but at some point that’s pretty important. Having “full automation” on a very tiny section of roads is hardly what I would call “orders of magnitude above the rest.” [0] edit: that's incorrect, L4 and L5 are primarily defined by differences in geography range.

Expanding the geographic range for Waymo is straightforward: do the same thing in a new place (plus new hurdles like snow, but that isn't currently the limitation to growth). It isn't clear how Tesla goes from "FSD" to "full automation". They are working on the "draw the rest of the owl" step.

I'd say the opposite. It is clear how Tesla goes from where they are to "full automation" – they just improve their models. Easier said than done, sure, but there is no conceptual leap required.

Meanwhile, for Waymo to jump from level 4 to level 5 requires handling edge cases which it is actually not clear can be handled by the system Waymo has built. In huge swathes of the world, weather conditions are not conducive a system that relies heavily on LIDAR / roads change too much to be effectively mapped like they've done in very stable metropolitan areas like Phoenix and SF / etc.

Said another way: our existing roads are built for entirely visual agents (humans). Getting a system that heavily relies on non-visual sensing (e.g. LIDAR/Radar) to work well on a specific subset of those roads is clearly doable, but that doesn't mean it can be generalized to our entire automobile infrastructure.

Post reply on HN