Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#11

Post by kgwgk » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:11 PM UTC

zyxley wrote: post #10

kordless wrote: post #3

> A full robocar product is only workable if you would need to correct it in decades or even lifetimes of driving. I had a conversation about this with friends in Germany a few months back. In most societies, a mistake that causes suffering to another individual is usually 'blamed' on the person causing the suffering. In many cases where causality is obvious, this assignment of blame is fairly straightforward. Exampl…

> get the software to the point it only makes mistakes in a timeframe that is, at a minimum, several orders of magnitude greater than Bob making the same mistake That seems to be more or less the case with the Google cars. 300,000 miles, with no accidents caused by the cars. Of course, so far that's limited to more-or-less good weather so far.

Unless you think Bob was causing accidents every thousand miles, I don't see how Google cars are "several orders of magnitude" better. Leaving aside the good-weather/known-roads aspect, of course.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#12

Post by taytus » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

oneJob wrote: post #4

Tesla has stated publicly they believe that within three years their cars will be capable of full autonomy, and expect it to take another two years to receive regulatory approval. By fully autonomous they state you will be able to walk outside, have the car approach to meet you, it will open and close the door for you, you can fall asleep, and several hours later wake up at your destination. Yes, Tesla is taking an i…

"...the Google cars look like something one buys for their four year old niece or nephew. " They really are quite ugly. I believe that will impact adoption rate.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#13

Post by the-dude » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:19 PM UTC

kordless wrote: post #3

> A full robocar product is only workable if you would need to correct it in decades or even lifetimes of driving. I had a conversation about this with friends in Germany a few months back. In most societies, a mistake that causes suffering to another individual is usually 'blamed' on the person causing the suffering. In many cases where causality is obvious, this assignment of blame is fairly straightforward. Exampl…

This argument has been beaten to death. But another line of reasoning really struck me this week after seeing the Tesla collision avoidance.

I think before deathly accidents become a problem for self driving cars/manufacturers, the public will already be convinced of it numerous benefits.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#14

Post by hackuser » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

kordless wrote: post #3

> A full robocar product is only workable if you would need to correct it in decades or even lifetimes of driving. I had a conversation about this with friends in Germany a few months back. In most societies, a mistake that causes suffering to another individual is usually 'blamed' on the person causing the suffering. In many cases where causality is obvious, this assignment of blame is fairly straightforward. Exampl…

Liability will not depend on current laws; it will be determined in legislatures after intense lobbying by manufacturers. They will claim that without liability protection, the government will stifle innovation and economic growth.

Perhaps clauses banning class action suits and requiring arbitration will help them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483024

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#15

Post by makomk » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:48 PM UTC

joelwilliamson wrote: post #8

turs0und wrote: post #2

"This is not a difference of degree, it is a difference of kind. It is why there is probably not an evolutionary path from the cruise/autopilot systems based on existing ADAS technologies to a real robocar." Really interesting. I did not realize that.

The author didn't justify that statement at all. If we have gone from an error once per minute (cruise control) to once per 30 minutes, and think that level of improvement can be repeated twice more, we will be at one error every 450 hours. A third time will put us at one error every 13500 hours. Is continuous, gradual improvement the best way to fully autonomous cars? I don't know. But the author's argument is simpl…

The trouble is that if they're not continually involved in the driving process, drivers can't actually concentrate well enough to be able to step in quickly when something happens that the automated systems can't handle. If I recall correctly, there have been studies on this and it takes tens of seconds for drivers to be able to respond to an unexpected situation sensibly if they haven't been actively driving. Mostly-automated cars that rely on drivers to step in when something goes wrong are probably not an option.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#16

Post by mikeash » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

Google's car is an attempt at full autonomy.

Tesla's Autopilot (mostly) keeps you within the lines and regulates your speed to match the car in front of you.

Does this really need a full article?

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#17

Post by gfodor » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

The thing the author is missing is that Google can't incrementally improve, since they're not in the car business. Tesla, on the other hand, has the option of either incrementally introducing autonomy to their cars or taking the Google approach of shipping a 1.0 in a big release years down the road. That they've clearly chosen the former is telling.

The author pretends that both companies have a choice and have chosen different strategies, but it's clearly not the case. Unless Google was planning on building a traditional car business first (a fairly ridiculous proposition), or partnering and integrating with the supply chain of a major manufacturer (a stretch, if just to introduce fancy cruise control), they were never going to be able to iterate towards a robocar.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#18

Post by forgetsusername » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

oneJob wrote: post #4

Tesla has stated publicly they believe that within three years their cars will be capable of full autonomy, and expect it to take another two years to receive regulatory approval. By fully autonomous they state you will be able to walk outside, have the car approach to meet you, it will open and close the door for you, you can fall asleep, and several hours later wake up at your destination. Yes, Tesla is taking an i…

>Tesla has stated publicly they believe that within three years their cars will be capable of full autonomy

Tesla has stated many lofty objectives, some of which they've met, some of which they haven't. These engineering problems are hard.

I agree with the article; what Tesla has introduced with "Auto Pilot" is an improvement on current technology, like adaptive cruise control and park assist. It's cool, but it isn't in the same sphere as what Google is doing with their autonomous cars.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#19

Post by keehun » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

I've always wondered how autonomous cars would handle the first and last quarter mile of the journey. I'm talking specifically like portions of the trip like the driveway, getting out of the parking ramp, or navigating small alleyways where the car could be parked (where GPS could be weak in the city). Things like even knowing which entrance to go to. Will fully autonomous will ever be able to take us from A to B 100%? Will humans always take over the last tiny bit where the maps aren't detailed and to park? Humans love to drive around the lot to park at exactly the "perfect" spot. Cars can parallel park now, but how will cars decide where to park exactly? Will we ever be able to have the car take us through the drive-thru?

I personally think autopilot-like auto-cruise just on the highway and more established local roads would be good enough. The convenience afforded by having the robot take us from A to B parked to parked may not be worth the insane price it must have on its tag to get there.

Re: Why Tesla's Autopilot and Google's car are entirely different animals

#20

Post by slyall » Sat, Oct 31, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

oneJob wrote: post #4

Tesla has stated publicly they believe that within three years their cars will be capable of full autonomy, and expect it to take another two years to receive regulatory approval. By fully autonomous they state you will be able to walk outside, have the car approach to meet you, it will open and close the door for you, you can fall asleep, and several hours later wake up at your destination. Yes, Tesla is taking an i…

"...the Google cars look like something one buys for their four year old niece or nephew. "

You have to stop thinking like some guy from Mad Men and more like somebody buying AWS instances.

Imagine that instead of buying a single car that you drive everywhere you instead reserve a car for your daily commute, you might get various options, eg:

  $500/month - Tesla Sports car, 30min journey, unshared occupancy
  $300/month - 2 seat Google-Car, 30min journey, unshared
  $125/month - 8 seat van, 40min journey, shared, up to 1 vehicle change

Now if you are a go-getter gunning for VP you'll pick the sports car. But others might not see the extra expense as being worth it.