41–50 of 501 posts
WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…
So? Okay, we're not there yet with autonomous vehicles, and have spend tons of money on it. But the tech we have now didn't exist a decade ago. Give it another decade.
Another decade for prototype self-driving cars to cover another state part of the US? $100BN in funding these gadgets and contraptions that don't work. Not even Tesla FSD can drive itself reliably at night without supervision, because it is not Level 5. Until LiDAR becomes more cheaper and these cars CAN drive themselves safely at night without supervision in any state at scale and as advertised like a robotaxi, then…
A lot of the self driving tech has already made its way into safety systems in cars. Things like automatic breaking seem generally useful. There's a question about if it's worth $100B for research into partially autonomous safety solutions, but I don't think it's useful to attribute zero value to self driving research until we get full self driving (certainly some value is being realized already).
WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…
Still, that argument doesn't count if the software problem is "impossible" to implement, or if it turns out that you also need "stuff" for it.
Edit: typo
$100B is not that much when you compare it to the value self-driving cars will create. There are over 1 billion cars on the road which need humans to drive them. How much are they used? I don't know. Let's say one ride per day. When cars turn into a service business, the "driver" will be software. What will be paid to the driver? Let's say $1 per ride. That is 1B * $1 * 365 = $365B per year. Give that a p/e ratio of…
I would like to nit-pick and say you're estimating some novel metric. The value add would be somewhat higher than that because the alternative is a human driver, so the value-add of the software is approximately ($/h value of driver x hours) that it frees up to do something else. Plus all the evidence I see suggests that whatever the current state, sooner rather than later computers are going to be superhuman at driv…
What is that evidence, exactly? I agree that we might eventually get there, but the scale seems to be 50-100 years at this point. We are as arrogant as the researchers in the 60s who famously announced that absolutely perfect image recognition is only 1-2 years away - except the problem is several orders of magnitude harder.
WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…
Those infrastructure requirements are already satisfied - and ~3000 people died on US roads last year.
WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not only off topic, it's also wildly unrealistic (IMO). 1$/day may seem little, but that's for middle-class US standards, and it gets proportionally worse when you realize many people make more than one trip per day. What incentive do you have for people to pay that amount?
With self-driving cars, you don't have to own cars anymore. That $1 per day frees your $5.000 per year budget for owning a car.
Let me put it this way - it would already be cheaper for me to just take an Uber to work than own my car. And yet, I(and I imagine most people will too) prefer to own my car.
WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…
- existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything)
- reduced traffic congestion (autonomous vehicles can better react/drive)
- improved supply chains (autonomous trucks) (can work 0-24)
just to name a few off top of my head
We already have self driving cars. We call it public transport.
We already have self driving cars. We call it public transport.