41–50 of 497 posts
Is there any possible future, where Waymo is NOT one of the major players in self driving software?
It seems like they compared apples to apples. Which make that an exciting result! “The benchmark was calibrated using both mileage (driving exposure) and residence zip-code (geographic region). Specifically, only the claims associated with vehicles registered to addresses (i.e., where the insured resides) within Waymo’s operating zip codes in San Francisco, the Phoenix metropolitan region, Los Angeles, and Austin wer…
> It seems like they compared apples to apples. Which make that an exciting result! I'd want to compare to our best drivers (e.g. ambulance drivers), not average drivers.
They should be compared to taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers that is what is being replaced by this and as such where the net harm increase or reduction will occur.
So one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself".
(all of these regularly happen all in the same place)
Good to see studies of incidents in comparison to human drivers. Historically what I have seen is 'self-driving car crashes into X, which seems to be concentrating exclusively on outliers to prove a point.
How did Waymo do this? As far as I know, replacing drivers with an AI was the goal of ever-money-losing Uber and Lyft, however, Waymo managed to get to this much sooner while having less funds.
With Cruise gone now there's basically just Waymo, Zoox, and Tesla (bit controversial) that are the names thrown around when talking about self driving market share, and out of those only Waymo has a functional service.
So one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself".
How did Waymo do this? As far as I know, replacing drivers with an AI was the goal of ever-money-losing Uber and Lyft, however, Waymo managed to get to this much sooner while having less funds.