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

Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#101

Post by gfodor »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #61

We'll all be dead from toxic smog before Google's driverless cars get anywhere. I think the idea is extremely shortsighted. It's a technological feat but not a creative one. It just produces more cars, more fuel-burning and more roads. It's more cars and that will produce more pollution. Ultimately, it solves nothing. You want to stop deadly car crashes? Help save wildlife from excessive roads and urban sprawl? Stop…

You have got to be kidding me, spoken like a true luddite. You realize if autonomous cars were suddenly a real thing, the entire world economy would shift and become wildly more efficient, right? One of the pillars of our transportation infrastructure is that vehicles have an operator. This dictates their form, this dictates the manner in which we build roads, bridges, etc. This dictates the manner in which we design supply chains, the way we transport energy, the way we build cities and towns. It's hard to imagine anyone using the word "short sighted" to describe the concept of autonomous cars. It's one of the most ambitious technology projects going on today and it stands to be as revolutionary as the original automobile.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#102

Post by gfodor »

defrost wrote: post #96
gfodor wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still see it as orders of magnitudes off in complexity. You're talking about a system for autonomously controlling every motor vehicle in the U.S., or even the world -- that's effectively the end game. Google is among the handful of companies that has the computing infrastructure to have a "pulse" on the world at all times, and within those companies they are heads and shoulders above the rest in terms of being abl…

> You're talking about a system for autonomously controlling every motor vehicle in the U.S., Not a (single) system, rather one such system per car - standard protocols for inter system comms are yet to arrive and each vehicle needs to react to local changes such as pedestrians w/out reference to an external global computing infrastructure. It's not a big data, massively interconnected problem at all - the elegance c…

It's both. Its hyperlocal real-time understanding and eye-in-the-sky big data analysis to keep everything running smoothly. Think about where you end up 10-15 years after this technology comes out: "cars" driving on multi-level, many-laned highways travelling 150-200mph a few meters apart, traffic flow coordinated to optimize energy usage and minimize time to destination. It's a hard problem and not solvable via local agents alone.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#103

Post by Gmo »

bambax wrote: post #77
Cushman wrote: post #50

I've been saying this to anyone who will listen for years. I really believe this technology will touch everything . Real estate markets will shift dramatically as the average commute time halves or quarters. Transport costs will plummet, making every single physical object cheaper. Public transit will be dirt cheap, always punctual, and take you absolutely anywhere. Tens of thousands of people each year will escape d…

I can't wait to see driverless cars available everywhere, but I'm afraid of the pushback, especially from governments who will inevitably come up with stupid regulations that will make it as cumbersome to use as possible. Also, given that I live in France, I'm sure there won't be any Google car allowed anywhere before the French automakers are able to make one -- which is to say, probably never.

Right, because, for instance, they prevented Toyota to sell their Prius because none of the French automaker had a plugin hybrid ?

You know, it's easy to always blame the government when the real problem is that you start your thought process as if it was hopeless from the beginning ...

PS: Yes, I'm French.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#104

Post by tiziano88 »

h2s wrote: post #83

Holy shit. Forbes is an absolute cesspool of a website. There are about three paragraphs of text, and then I have to pony up another ad impression by clicking through to the next page in order to keep reading. All the while, two enormous fixed nav bars follow my every move at both the top and the bottom of the page. Meanwhile a veritable flotilla of fixed-position "social icons" on the left beg me to help Forbes adve…

At least the mobile version looks kind of Ok, only a small banner at the bottom, though the pagination is most definitely annoying, especially because it prevents Pocket from correctly extracting the text from the article.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#105

Post by gfodor »

One of great ironies of the 21st century is going to be that humanity had to build autonomous flying drones before it could build autonomous cars (to develop the algorithms), and autonomous cars before it could build flying cars (because average people could never be reasonably expected to pilot a flying car.)

But mark my words in 2100 we will, at last, have flying autonomous cars (or something that can be described that way.)

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#106

Post by thoughtcriminal »

gfodor wrote: post #101
thoughtcriminal wrote: post #61

We'll all be dead from toxic smog before Google's driverless cars get anywhere. I think the idea is extremely shortsighted. It's a technological feat but not a creative one. It just produces more cars, more fuel-burning and more roads. It's more cars and that will produce more pollution. Ultimately, it solves nothing. You want to stop deadly car crashes? Help save wildlife from excessive roads and urban sprawl? Stop…

You have got to be kidding me, spoken like a true luddite. You realize if autonomous cars were suddenly a real thing, the entire world economy would shift and become wildly more efficient, right? One of the pillars of our transportation infrastructure is that vehicles have an operator . This dictates their form, this dictates the manner in which we build roads, bridges, etc. This dictates the manner in which we desig…

You don't seem to understand the resources required to build a car, and the punishing toll it exacts on the planet. And how roads disrupt migratory paths of animals.

Technology isn't the answer to problems of air quality and the preservation of wildlife. Making significant changes to our lifestyle is, but we need to snap out of this delusional wishful thinking and make changes based on reality.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#107

Post by MichaelApproved »

tluyben2 wrote: post #95
cynwoody wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Car companies will go broke when demand plummets. Just because it doesn't have a driver doesn't mean it doesn't need to be manufactured. Car companies will do fine. > Pizza delivery will not be an entrylevel job. Nope. But pizza making still will be. Sebastian, are you listening? > I think the net effect will be hugely positive You got that right. > but like all paradigm shifts this is going to cause immense social…

> Just because it doesn't have a driver doesn't mean it doesn't need to be manufactured. Car companies will do fine. No they won't; every > 1 car family will have 1 car only after this, because, when at work, you just send your car back on it's own for the wife and kids. Big reduction. If your neighbor has different hours than you have, you can combine that by sending the car back when you arrived. I think it'll have…

Take the next leap and see that you don't need to actually own the car at all. No need to send a car back home. No need to negotiate with your neighbor.

We all share a fleet of cars like a taxi service. Need a car? Pull out your smartphone app and push the "call" button that sends a nearby car to your location. You could also schedule a pickup for the exact time you get off work.

No need to send an empty car back home to your family during the day. No need to let the car sit empty in between rides.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#108

Post by joesb »

tluyben2 wrote: post #95
cynwoody wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Car companies will go broke when demand plummets. Just because it doesn't have a driver doesn't mean it doesn't need to be manufactured. Car companies will do fine. > Pizza delivery will not be an entrylevel job. Nope. But pizza making still will be. Sebastian, are you listening? > I think the net effect will be hugely positive You got that right. > but like all paradigm shifts this is going to cause immense social…

> Just because it doesn't have a driver doesn't mean it doesn't need to be manufactured. Car companies will do fine. No they won't; every > 1 car family will have 1 car only after this, because, when at work, you just send your car back on it's own for the wife and kids. Big reduction. If your neighbor has different hours than you have, you can combine that by sending the car back when you arrived. I think it'll have…

> when at work, you just send your car back on it's own for the wife and kids.

And I have to wait for my car to come back if I have any immediate need to use it during the day?

> If your neighbor has different hours than you have, you can combine that by sending the car back when you arrived.

I'm not sure people are that much into car pool. And then there is issue with whose property the car is, people don't always let other people use their property even if they don't need to use it right now.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#109

Post by lsc »

visarga wrote: post #64
Cushman wrote: post #50

I've been saying this to anyone who will listen for years. I really believe this technology will touch everything . Real estate markets will shift dramatically as the average commute time halves or quarters. Transport costs will plummet, making every single physical object cheaper. Public transit will be dirt cheap, always punctual, and take you absolutely anywhere. Tens of thousands of people each year will escape d…

How about terrorism? A terrorist could load a bomb on one of these cars and send it to its destination. It will be a poor man's guided missile. That would have implications on security procedures.

There was a Clint Eastwood move in the '70s wherein Clint and his Chinese (yes, kung-fu was a theme) partner were chased through the streets of San Francisco by a remote-controlled car with a bomb strapped to it. At the end of the chase, the car exploded, with Clint and his partner still in it. It's where the "Dirty Harry" franchise is generally considered to have jumped the shark, but I personally thought it was great fun. Personally, I think the film was clearly a parody, but Clint played is completely straight, which I found pretty amusing.

What's my point? "oh no, terrorists!" is about the silliest objection I can think of to self-driving car technology.

Re: Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

#110

Post by kaolinite »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #106
gfodor wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have got to be kidding me, spoken like a true luddite. You realize if autonomous cars were suddenly a real thing, the entire world economy would shift and become wildly more efficient, right? One of the pillars of our transportation infrastructure is that vehicles have an operator . This dictates their form, this dictates the manner in which we build roads, bridges, etc. This dictates the manner in which we desig…

You don't seem to understand the resources required to build a car, and the punishing toll it exacts on the planet. And how roads disrupt migratory paths of animals. Technology isn't the answer to problems of air quality and the preservation of wildlife. Making significant changes to our lifestyle is, but we need to snap out of this delusional wishful thinking and make changes based on reality.

No, technology is potentially an answer to air quality problems and preservation of wildlife - it's just not the answer you want, for some reason.
Post reply on HN