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

Google's Driverless Future

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#41

Post by hexis »

h0w412d wrote: post #34
jareds wrote: post #11

"But is everyone really so eager to see the automobile, which stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty, evolve into a giant tracking device controlled by a $250 billion corporation that makes its money through an increasingly intimate and obtrusive knowledge of its customers? " As a blind person the short answer is yes. Unfortunately job opportunities don't always line up with the…

Not to mention the annual 40,000 lives lost and even more injured due to car accidents, and the huge swaths of land that would be freed up when parking lots are no longer necessary. Not everything is about jobs.

Neither is everything about safety or land use efficiency.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#42

Post by maratd »

roc wrote: post #14

Anyone using Google Now is already sending all the data that constitutes the article's undesirable dystopic vision to Google. And anyone running Android, I suppose, could get an update that began surreptitiously phoning home data. If that's a thing Google wanted to start doing. Short of being in a faraday cage, we also already know cell phones have a habit of not really rendering you 'untrackable' even when lay users…

> Yet this article chooses to worry about the cars?

The article doesn't really focus on your car phoning home and telling Google where you are.

Instead, it talks about restrictions on how fast you can drive, driving style, and loss of autonomy by having an AI drive for you. Almost all of the benefits being touted as advantages of driver-less cars only become reality if everyone uses the AI. In theory, in some dystopian future, everyone would be forced to rely on the AI to drive.

I don't want to be forced into a situation where I cannot drive my car.

Of course, the problem here isn't the presence of some AI, but laws requiring me to use one. Having the choice to drive with an AI is certainly better than not having the choice, but choice is key.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#43

Post by axus »

jareds wrote: post #11

"But is everyone really so eager to see the automobile, which stands as one of history’s great amplifiers of personal autonomy and liberty, evolve into a giant tracking device controlled by a $250 billion corporation that makes its money through an increasingly intimate and obtrusive knowledge of its customers? " As a blind person the short answer is yes. Unfortunately job opportunities don't always line up with the…

The key word is "everyone". "Everyone" will not be happy about it, but I expect 90% of us will be.

Truck drivers might be the hardest hit, but I thought they're still needed to inspect what's being picked up/dropped off, and make sure it's correct.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#44

Post by melling »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7
melling wrote: post #3

It's going to take a long time to get people comfortable with driverless cars. In the meantime, can the technology be immediately converted to "assisted" driving to help avoid collisions, crossing the center line, etc.? Make it a lot harder for people to "bump" into each other. We might be able to get some of the benefits of driverless cars sooner.

Start using it in places you absolutely have to. Retirement communities where the elderly have lost their ability to drive, etc.

Wouldn't you want to start with saving people's lives? 30,000-40,000 people die in the US every year.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#45

Post by will_work4tears »

mdip wrote: post #30

I can only take an example from my own life: I'm a licensed motorcycle rider, I use it as my primary form of transportation when it's over 50F rain or shine. Being a motorcycle rider, I can never get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, or driving with all of my doors open (silly analogy, I know). All of these safety devices don't apply and riding a bike requires substantially more skill and practice than the weeken…

You bring up some good points, I think it's a great idea to make it tougher to get a driver's license and driverless cars will allow those that can't pass, or aren't interested in driving themselves the ability to get around. Older people need to get places too, but it becomes clear that many, past a certain age, cannot do so safely.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#46

Post by munificent »

riggins wrote: post #9

there's a fundamental assumption in this article that I think is very doubtful. this article assumes that part of the customers 'payment' for a self-driving car will be advertising. That seems like a very poor assumption. Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. Just because the search business is free and makes their revenue through advertising doesn't me…

> Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business.

I am a Googler and I've heard Larry, Sergey, and many on the self-driving car team talk about the project. While I'm sure monetization is on their minds as well, the very clear message from them is that they view this project as changing the world for the better.

In today's world, it is very hard not to be cynical, and it's especially hard not to be cynical online without looking like a Pollyanna or a corporate shill but in this case, I believe the opportunity for public good is the strongest motivator for the project.

Much like NASA, Google gets tons of ancillary benefits from doing all of this R&D so even if the project itself isn't a revenue generator, it will still deliver value to Google, but I think what gets many of the people working on it up in the morning is the chance to reduce the number of traffic fatalities, to turn parking lots back into parks, and to let people spend time on the road enjoying themselves and not grimly staring at the car in front of them.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#47

Post by toomuchtodo »

melling wrote: post #44
toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start using it in places you absolutely have to. Retirement communities where the elderly have lost their ability to drive, etc.

Wouldn't you want to start with saving people's lives? 30,000-40,000 people die in the US every year.

Any place where mobility is needed is where you'll want to start. I was simply stating that if uptake was going to be slower due to human irrationality, you'd start where people absolutely need transportation and have no other option.

People are much more open minded about a choice when they have no other choice.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#48

Post by aidenn0 »

maratd wrote: post #42
roc wrote: post #14

Anyone using Google Now is already sending all the data that constitutes the article's undesirable dystopic vision to Google. And anyone running Android, I suppose, could get an update that began surreptitiously phoning home data. If that's a thing Google wanted to start doing. Short of being in a faraday cage, we also already know cell phones have a habit of not really rendering you 'untrackable' even when lay users…

> Yet this article chooses to worry about the cars? The article doesn't really focus on your car phoning home and telling Google where you are. Instead, it talks about restrictions on how fast you can drive, driving style, and loss of autonomy by having an AI drive for you. Almost all of the benefits being touted as advantages of driver-less cars only become reality if everyone uses the AI. In theory, in some dystopi…

> The article doesn't really focus on your car phoning home and telling Google where you are.

Apparently you and I didn't read the same article, since the main worry of the article seemed to be that Google can't be trusted with your data.

>Almost all of the benefits being touted as advantages of driver-less cars only become reality if everyone uses the AI.

The article does imply this, but it's simply not true. Autonomous cars will be able to reduce accidents and park themselves the moment they are available. There have been some past pie-in-the-sky ideas of ultra-high-speed internetworked cars, but the practical problems of those are (perhaps counter-intuitively) harder to solve than the technical problem of a car that can drive autonomously without communicating to other vehicles.

Furthermore it is obvious with a little thought that autonomous vehicles will have to be able to function well on roads where every other car is driven by a human. Otherwise there will never be a "first" autonomous car.

> In theory, in some dystopian future, everyone would be forced to rely on the AI to drive.

1) IMO that is still far in the future

2) Whether or not this is dystopian is subject to debate; certainly in the hypothetical future where the car sends all your travel data Megacorp X without any option to opt-out it's dystopian, but the same would be true of mandated tracking devices in cars without mandated autonomy. I personally would be perfectly happy with a future where manual driving was forbidden on public thoroughfares but I could still take a sports car to Laguna Seca and burn some rubber.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#49

Post by riggins »

munificent wrote: post #46
riggins wrote: post #9

there's a fundamental assumption in this article that I think is very doubtful. this article assumes that part of the customers 'payment' for a self-driving car will be advertising. That seems like a very poor assumption. Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. Just because the search business is free and makes their revenue through advertising doesn't me…

> Personally, I assume google will make money selling a car (or the tech), just like any other business. I am a Googler and I've heard Larry, Sergey, and many on the self-driving car team talk about the project. While I'm sure monetization is on their minds as well, the very clear message from them is that they view this project as changing the world for the better. In today's world, it is very hard not to be cynical…

I'm an admirer of Google. My point, which I was being kind of oblique about, is that IMO its not really logical to expect Google to have the same revenue model for a car as they do for the search service.

To me it seems totally reasonable that Google would charge for the software. It's an innovative, valuable product. I see no reason why they shouldn't get paid for that.

Re: Google's Driverless Future

#50

Post by elteto »

micampe wrote: post #39
elteto wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Self-driving cars are really just an incremental improvement to what high-end manufacturers like Mercedes or BMW already offer. So you are telling me that I can go to a Mercedez/BMW dealer right now and get a car that almost drives itself in regular traffic conditions? Simply not true. There's a lot of assisted driving technology (blind spots alarms, HUDs, assisted parking) out there, but nothing like Google's self…

“ The company says it is preparing to launch in 2014 its first batch of autonomous vehicles capable of driving up to 31 miles per hour. The limited speed reflects the technology’s expected initial use in heavy traffic. Volvo says it is working on higher-speed autonomous driving, but isn’t yet disclosing when it would be available. Its prototypes have run thousands of miles of test drives on public roads in Spain and…

Well the examples you are citing are PR reports or some assisted driving technologies. While some car companies might be working hard on their projects, as of right now, only Google has shown a working prototype performing on street traffic, and their technology is simply not an incremental step from anything else out there, as he claimed. That was the point I was trying to refute, I was not saying that nobody else is working on it but Google.
Post reply on HN