Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 501 posts

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#371

Post by [deleted] »

tttttt5ts wrote: post #369
GekkePrutser wrote: post #367

I think it would go significantly better if we make roads for self-driving cars. Right now cars are trying to drive like a human. Based on the same cues and road markings, signs etc. What if we started embedding road signs with radio beacons. Cars with transponders like aircraft have. Road markings in a digital way that's easier to follow for a machine. We could start with some lanes dedicated to automated traffic. I…

Why not just invest in public transport instead? To date all cars with any self driving tech are expensive and only available to the wealthy.

[deleted]

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#372

Post by brutusborn »

viscanti wrote: post #35
brutusborn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One good reason is to help the AIs make better decisions through greater certainty. For example, if a road sign has machine readable data there is a greater certainty that an AI will interpret it correctly. This could affect safety and ease of implementation.

The question is what value would a city get after, what seems to be, a very expensive process? What value do they get from unlocking semi competent AI cars that's worth the time, effort, and requires dedicated street space and an inconvenience to everyone else who travels a different way? It doesn't seem like it's replacing public transit and if someone needs a private vehicle to go beyond the area that's optimized t…

How is my example, street signs, an inconvenience to others or needs dedicated street space? Signs need to be replaced anyway, just add a code at the next replacement.

You're thinking back and white "it's not replacing...". What does that matter? To me what matters is "can we make transport better"

I thought the question was "can we actually make fully autonomous vehicles?" If we have that, the value is pretty obvious.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#373

Post by pcurve »

nichochar wrote: post #283
cs702 wrote: post #185

In the short run, technological progress is much slower than anyone hopes, but in the long run it is much faster than anyone expects. My favorite example is that in 1987, the scientific consensus was that it would take "at least 100 years" and likely much longer to sequence the entire human gnome.[a] But the vast majority of it was sequenced by 2000, only 13 years later. Moreover, just two decades later, anyone could…

[Disclaimer] I worked for Cruise for 4 years. I agree with everything you said, but chuckled at this particular part (which is very wrong): > Tesla is significantly ahead of everyone else. Everyone in the industry knows that Tesla is nowhere near the tip of the technology. What Tesla does is _fantastic marketing_. Their whole self-driving division is just a mechanism to sell more cars. At a high level, this is why: -…

With cost of lidar plummeting, I wonder how long it will be before Musk changes his mind.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#374

Post by subroutine »

Retric wrote: post #343
subroutine wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree with that estimate. But sheesh, 50 years from now seems like forever. Two final thoughts... (1) Maybe within the next 50 years devs can instill into AI, some meaning of death. As it is, I find some comfort knowing my driver realizes the difference between a field and a 40-foot cliff along the coast of Big Sur, and our shared theory of mind regarding the consequence of swerving to avoid something in those si…

I think (2) is more cultural than that. People reacted poorly to automatic elevators when they where first introduced and now people just don’t think about them as much more complicated than a light switch. The elevator broke and my light broke have the same feel of an inanimate object not working even though elevators are a lot more complicated.

I'm not sure if "the breaks on the train failed" and "the train's ai suddenly decided to start running in reverse" would get the same reception even if the result was the same.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#375

Post by kortex »

cptskippy wrote: post #344
katbyte wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird to me people forget how bad vision can be for driving and Exocet Tesla to somehow be better then our own eyes. How often a do you encounter situations like bad fog/sun set/rain at night where it’s a total struggle to drive and you slow right down to a crawl and even then only do alright because of a ton of inference? i think Tesla deciding to go vision only will be regarded of one of the greatest blunders…

Or perhaps it will be their advantage in the short term. Imagine a foggy condition that causes a 50 car pile up on the highway. Which is more likely to avoid the collision, a Tesla that slowed down because it couldn't see or a Waymo/Cruise blasting down the highway at 65 mph because it's Lidar can see through the fog?

Lidar can't see through fog (or snow/rain to enough of a degree), which is one reason tesla has avoided it. Do you mean radar? In the case of radar, I would hope that it becomes a base features of all cars eventually to avoid/mitigate rear endings by preemptive braking.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#376

Post by kortex »

birdyrooster wrote: post #313
Salgat wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Waymo and Cruise constrained to specially tailored cities? Autonomous driving that can be activated literally anywhere in the country is far more impressive, even if it has cases where it doesn't perform as well.

The more far flung reaches are are served well by traditional vehicles and the people are trained to use driving machines since most of the workers are agricultural. The city centers and suburbs are a big enough win even if it isn't as magical as taking a self driving trip from a small cottage in northern Vermont all the way to a campsite up in Big Sur.

I'm in Upstate New York and despite my penchant for gardening, I'm hardly an agricultural worker. Any urban-geofenced product is useless to me and the half a million folks in the greater capitol area and nearby counties aside from the tricity residents. Which is at least 50% of the folks. Hardly a passing grade, let alone big win.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#377

Post by nicbou »

bergenty wrote: post #351
oblio wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be blunt about this. Most of this research is funded in the US and the hyper individualistic Americans as a group don't believe in public transport.

Yes, as a hyper individualistic American fuck public transport. I don’t want to travel with other people, I don’t want to live in dense cities and I don’t want to go to like the 10 places with public transport. I love national parks, camping, hiking, road-tripping etc.

You can have both. You can have fewer cars and excellent public transportation.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#378

Post by nitwit005 »

cs702 wrote: post #185

In the short run, technological progress is much slower than anyone hopes, but in the long run it is much faster than anyone expects. My favorite example is that in 1987, the scientific consensus was that it would take "at least 100 years" and likely much longer to sequence the entire human gnome.[a] But the vast majority of it was sequenced by 2000, only 13 years later. Moreover, just two decades later, anyone could…

In the long run, the technological progress is also in fields people didn't predict, or entirely new fields.

A lot of ideas just never pan out, despite considerable investment. Or, they get it to work, but proves to be of niche use. Progress happens elsewhere.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#379

Post by kumarvvr »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #123
saimiam wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there is India. Please come here if you want zero infra AND zero adherence to basic rules of driving AND the language and script changes every few hundred kilometers AND all roads have human and non-human users at all hours of the day.

It's odd that it's treated as a matter of pride that, while other cities have AVs today , your own city or nation will take much longer simply because it's full of dangerous drivers breaking the law and infrastructure full of literal roadblocks. It's like claiming that cars are infeasible globally because the roads around you are full of potholes and manure. Congratulations? Rather than assume this is a death knell f…

It looks like what he meant was if an AI system works well in India, then it has very high probability of working in the rest of the world.

Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere

#380

Post by Gibbon1 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #337
Gibbon1 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in an American suburb you're swimming in that sort of authoritarianism.

I live in a small American suburb, have lived in large cities, and travel to Europe, NYC, LA, SF on the regular. And I wouldn’t trade my car and the ability to drive somewhere for anything in the world. There are a lot of great things about cities but you are dependent on other people for everything in your life, and it can go sideways incredibly fast. I.e the energy situation in Europe, or with COVID-19. Personally…

> you are dependent on other people for everything in your life

This is everywhere true past, present and future. I would argue your small suburb gives you an illusion that isn't true.

Post reply on HN