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

381–390 of 501 posts

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

#381

Post by phpthrowaway99 »

kortex wrote: post #375
cptskippy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps it will be their advantage in the short term. Imagine a foggy condition that causes a 50 car pile up on the highway. Which is more likely to avoid the collision, a Tesla that slowed down because it couldn't see or a Waymo/Cruise blasting down the highway at 65 mph because it's Lidar can see through the fog?

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.

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

#382

Post by flutas »

nichochar wrote: post #283
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…

[Disclaimer] I worked for Cruise for 4 years. I agree with everything you said, but chuckled at this particular part (which is very wrong): > Tesla is significantly ahead of everyone else. Everyone in the industry knows that Tesla is nowhere near the tip of the technology. What Tesla does is _fantastic marketing_. Their whole self-driving division is just a mechanism to sell more cars. At a high level, this is why: -…

My favorite case so far of the '5%' that you mention happened on my Tesla irt:(object recognition) and I still laugh about it to this day.

I was driving down the road as normal, 4 lane divided highway that's a bit hilly. Suddenly my car starts having what I can only describe as a panic attack saying I'm running a stop sign and blaring alarms.

It was detecting a giant 40ft tall red circle sign a bit away as a stop sign...

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

#383

Post by pas »

bergenty wrote: post #351
oblio wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be blunt about this. Most of this research is funded in the US and the hyper individualistic Americans as a group don't believe in public transport.

Yes, as a hyper individualistic American fuck public transport. I don’t want to travel with other people, I don’t want to live in dense cities and I don’t want to go to like the 10 places with public transport. I love national parks, camping, hiking, road-tripping etc.

I also like the benefits of invidualistic cultures, but there's a cost to it too.

The US got this way because it was super-charged between pre-WWII and the dotcom boom. Both economically and culturally. The post-WWII high wages allowed the rise of suburbia, the Cold War induced WW3 scare led to the highway system, and so on.

The low-efficiency of it is taking its toll. (Sitting in traffic for hours each day, pollution, etc.)

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

#384

Post by nuker »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #311
katbyte wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird to me people forget how bad vision can be for driving and Exocet Tesla to somehow be better then our own eyes. How often a do you encounter situations like bad fog/sun set/rain at night where it’s a total struggle to drive and you slow right down to a crawl and even then only do alright because of a ton of inference? i think Tesla deciding to go vision only will be regarded of one of the greatest blunders…

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.

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

#385

Post by anticensor »

emporas wrote: post #220
Lutger wrote: post #106

Huge waste of money that could have been poured into public transport to actually solve our problems and improve our lives. What a tragedy.

Well, why not then create bigger cars, or smaller buses? Between 5 people in a car or a 100 people in a bus, an optimal solution should be able to converge slowly, to 20 people in a vehicle. It would be different for every city, or region or country. Most cars spend most of their time, being stationary in a parking lot or a garage, 93 percent of the time to be more specific, or 23 hours/day. Buses spend a lot less ti…

20 people minibuses already exist. Examples include Mercedes-Benz Sprinter.

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

#386

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

#387

Post by nojvek »

CyanLite4 wrote: post #276

These companies are swinging for the fences and instead striking out. A base hit would suffice for most people. I just want a reliable car that can steer in the highway so I can eat a burger or answer a text message. GM’s SuperCruise is nearly there but has too many safety restrictions. It doesn’t need to work in inclement weather or construction zones. Being able to answer emails or watch a YouTube clip on a long ro…

I’ve honestly been impressed by comma.ai. The little $1000 device does well with Seattle rain. Once it was snowing and it followed well.

It’s not perfect but I love that it makes it clear what it can and can’t do. It follows lanes on a highway and monitors you’re paying attention.

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

#388

Post by jakeogh »

jhoechtl wrote: post #103

Because we are nowhere close to Artificial Intelligence in layman's sense of understanding. Not even close, as long our computing principles are still based on zero and one.

Agreed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23432601

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22087410

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

#389

Post by bergenty »

nicbou wrote: post #377
bergenty wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as a hyper individualistic American fuck public transport. I don’t want to travel with other people, I don’t want to live in dense cities and I don’t want to go to like the 10 places with public transport. I love national parks, camping, hiking, road-tripping etc.

You can have both. You can have fewer cars and excellent public transportation.

I rather have a full fledged car infrastructure and excellent public transport.

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

#390

Post by bergenty »

matchbok wrote: post #364
bergenty wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as a hyper individualistic American fuck public transport. I don’t want to travel with other people, I don’t want to live in dense cities and I don’t want to go to like the 10 places with public transport. I love national parks, camping, hiking, road-tripping etc.

Is this a parody?

No, I gave reasons for my preference.
Post reply on HN