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

401–410 of 501 posts

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

#401

Post by ben_w »

daydream wrote: post #321
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument to this is that since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only, it must be possible to do self driving with vision only. That said, augmenting vision with other methods does seem like a no brainer for better performance.

The counterargument to THAT is that human safety levels aren’t acceptable. They are tolerable perhaps, but I wouldn’t call the number of accidents and fatalities we have today acceptable.

The average human isn't acceptable, but in principle a system like this should still be better than the best human just because it has more cameras than humans have eyeballs and they can arranged so there are no blind spots, and even with just two cameras placed (for no good reason) inside the cabin should be able to reach the performance of the best human all of the time.

Current AI isn't that, but in principle it could get there.

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

#402

Post by Ekaros »

smileysteve wrote: post #183
weezin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to mention that the upside of self-driving cars is capped at the cost of an uber driver An uber driver that can drive 24/7. Also there are a lot of cars that sit in parking lots 95% of the day that can be used.

The parking lot problem is way far off though, and efforts like Zipcar attacked the utilization problem but have not seen wide adoption

Parking lot problem is also demand problem. Demand is not sufficiently elastic. How many people would be happy have their commute car available on one day maybe at 6 and then next on 10 or 11 or 12...

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

#403

Post by ben_w »

nuker wrote: post #384
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument to this is that since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only, it must be possible to do self driving with vision only. That said, augmenting vision with other methods does seem like a no brainer for better performance.

> since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only No AI (reasoning) exists yet, only Machine Learning. It will take decades if not centuries.

Even ignoring that "AI" is generally accepted as a term of art:

What do you mean by "reasoning", such that there is no example of a ML system that does this?

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

#404

Post by jeffrallen »

Why are we not talking about the lead of this story, which is that the tech not working caused a headache for uninvolved people, and the company refused to take responsibility for it until it was embarrassed in the press, and then hid behind the weasel words of "our cars were following applicable laws".

Maybe the problem with driverless cars is that we do not need them and do not want them and are not willing to tolerate the hijinks of big business trying to force them on us?

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

#405

Post by itsoktocry »

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…

>The technology is progressing faster than is generally recognized

How can you possibly make this claim when the leader of the company you say is "ahead of everyone" said they'd have FSD years ago?

Also, FYI, watching Tesla fanatics promote FSD in edited videos isn't a good judge of the technology.

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

#406

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#407

Post by itsoktocry »

phpthrowaway99 wrote: post #381
kortex wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there's a car in front of you, and you're following at normal following distances, it might not be enough. That person will keep going decently fast, and your radar car will follow. The lead car comes to an almost instant stop when it hits, and while radar might pick up the hit, it won't be able to stop as fast as a car hitting a stationary car.

Do you understand how radar and stopping distances work? Are you another armchair self driving car expert?

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

#408

Post by itsoktocry »

onedognight wrote: post #357
phi-y wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cruise is going the uber route for their service. The robo-cars are already available in some areas

Not to the public. Or at least it’s “invite only”.

And Tesla FSD is public and not invite only? And the company that has actual driverless cars that you can hire isn't "shipping", but the the car you aren't allowed to take your hands off the wheel is?

Hilarious.

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

#409

Post by ksec »

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…

It is another 80/20 rule with project management / prediction / projection. The last 20% is going to take as much time as the first 80%. And I would argue we are not even reaching 80% yet.

Not to mention most of the edge case training it had in US may have little resemblance to say UK or AUS. And that is ignoring culture difference in places like India or China. I am not an expert in DNA, but I don’t understand how DNA sequencing isn’t a finite problem. Comparing to AV, in a real world with so many edge cases, you are practically looking at an infinite problem.

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

#410

Post by nuker »

ben_w wrote: post #403
nuker wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since humans reach acceptable safety levels with vision only No AI (reasoning) exists yet, only Machine Learning. It will take decades if not centuries.

Even ignoring that "AI" is generally accepted as a term of art: What do you mean by "reasoning", such that there is no example of a ML system that does this?

Nope, not one. And not on any car for sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_reasoning

From actual AI wiki article: “highly mathematical-statistical machine learning has dominated the field”. This will never be able to drive as good as humans.

Post reply on HN