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

Waymo in Dallas

waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 752 posts

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#161

Post by stefan_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105
overgard wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to no…

> humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.

That's an odd claim. Human failures are uncorrelated, but the Waymos all running the same software must be expected to fail in the same way, in the situations in which they fail. Which is why they often make the news; one Waymo stuck soon sees many of its brethren join it.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#162

Post by xnx »

baggachipz wrote: post #94
adrianmonk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ends in 2028: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/24/uber-and-waymo-to-end-exclus...

That's also when the partnership with Rivian really takes off. Uber clearly wants its own fleet of robotaxis; they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago. Looks like they're content letting other companies take the risk while helping fund them.

It's hard to see how Uber is in any way relevant to the future of self-driving.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#163

Post by andrewmutz »

epolanski wrote: post #89
cortesoft wrote: post #60

I live very close to LAX, and we have hundreds of Waymos in our area. At first i was a little weary, and kinda weirded out by all of them. They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers). I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and i…

It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans. On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans. And even though a self-driving car will…

> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.

I completely disagree with this. I don't "give a pass" to humans killing other humans with a car.

Every year that skeptics delay adoption of autonomous driving is another year where tens of thousands of deaths could be prevented.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#164

Post by xnx »

jdlshore wrote: post #92
chrisXOXO wrote: post #83

I am really wondering, how they tackle the long trail problem of unknown situations. Sure they are monitor them constantly but I am asking precisely, how to handle situations that occur ridiculously infrequently: do they sample them 1000x in sim? Or do they use a different model and track uncertainty in the model constantly? How to get another 0 between the dot and the percent sign in situations where the model makes…

There was an article a while back that talked about their simulated world model. It has the ability to do things like floods, elephants on the road, etc.

https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-f...

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#165

Post by DonHopkins »

dylan604 wrote: post #122
epolanski wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans. On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans. And even though a self-driving car will…

When a human driver messes up, there's a person to hold responsible. When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible? If the human messes up to the point they are no longer allowed to drive, that person is no longer on the streets to cause more mistakes. When a robot car messes up, are all of the other cars pulled off the streets as well until the glitch is fixed? Every robot car is essentially the same driver.

I use Old Glory Robot Insurance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Gh_IcK8UM

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#166

Post by chrisXOXO »

xnx wrote: post #164
jdlshore wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an article a while back that talked about their simulated world model. It has the ability to do things like floods, elephants on the road, etc.

https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-f...

Thanks :)

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#167

Post by runako »

cyberax wrote: post #129
warkdarrior wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tried to roll out in New York City, but the city did not approve. https://www.twu.org/twu-tech-newsletter-waymo-no-mo-in-nyc-f...

NYC's government is focused on maximizing the pain and inconvenience for its citizens. So this tracks.

State law requires a human driver to operate vehicles at all times. This is not coming from NYC.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#168

Post by klaff »

porphyra wrote: post #79
Sheeny96 wrote: post #35

Why are the cars so big? Wouldn't it make sense to have a bunch of much smaller, single person vehicles?

Tesla Cybercab has about three or four times the efficiency and like a fifth of the price by having smaller, two person vehicles. Indeed, the vast majority of trips are taken by single people and it's ridiculous to have a giant machine for them. It would also be okay to have a handful of larger, Model Y-sized vehicles for the multi-person trips. To actually answer your question: Part of the reason why the Waymo cars…

I have one of the most inefficient EVs and it's only 2.4x hungrier than the cybercab. It can comfortably carry 6 adults. I've been in Tesla 3s as Ubers before. They only need 31% more energy than the cybercab.

If the cybercab was 1/5 the price it would be $14k. It won't be $14k.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#169

Post by alex1138 »

WarmWash wrote: post #118
cortesoft wrote: post #60

I live very close to LAX, and we have hundreds of Waymos in our area. At first i was a little weary, and kinda weirded out by all of them. They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers). I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and i…

>and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news. Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...

There was a story here about it hitting a child (I think) but it was determined to be much less serious than if a human driver was involved

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#170

Post by johngalt »

whack wrote: post #111
overgard wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to no…

> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why…

That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk.

Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.

Post reply on HN