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

421–430 of 501 posts

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

#421

Post by subroutine »

Retric wrote: post #415
subroutine wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if "the breaks on the train failed" and "the train's ai suddenly decided to start running in reverse" would get the same reception even if the result was the same.

Yea that feels different. I kind of want to say odd accidents definitely get attention or something, but I don’t have anything to back it up. Yet aircraft autopilot fails, pilot error, and mechanical error seem to all get the same attention. That might be because the pilots are also at fault for autopilot issues, or it could be autopilot used to be really really dumb so there was a lot of stories that autopilot flyin…

I actually do feel more comfortable with the idea that autopilot is landing the plane rather than a human pilot. Especially at night. And I don't even know if it actually works like that. Interesting. Good chat.

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

#422

Post by badpun »

bastawhiz wrote: post #363
badpun wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to general self-driving, it's relatively simple to make self-driving taxis work in just a couple of cities (preferably ones with minimum adversarial weather, too) - you just test the code against that particular dataset until it performes reasonably well, manually fixing the edge cases along the way if need be. It's still a monumental, multi-billion dollar project, but I would be surprised if it wasn't achie…

Do you know that their tech is specifically optimized for those cities and won't work well elsewhere? Or is that speculation? As far as I'm aware, unless you were able to compare the performance of FSD against Waymo on an arbitrary road, you can't really make that argument.

I'm not talking about any specific tech solution. I'm merely pointing out that getting a self-driving taxi to work in a single city of your choice is a vastly simpler problem than general FSD.

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

#423

Post by GaylordTuring »

JoshGG wrote: post #195
AtomicOrbital wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ fatal vehicle accidents annually, not 3000

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released its early estimate of traffic fatalities for 2021. NHTSA projects that an estimated 42,915 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year, a 10.5% increase from the 38,824 fatalities in 2020. The projection is the highest number of fatalities since 2005 and the largest annual percentage increase in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System’s history…

Shouldn’t these numbers _always_ get reported in relation to how many people are driving (and for how long)? This increase in deaths would actually be step forward in death rates if for example people drove twice as much this year compared to last year.

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

#424

Post by GaylordTuring »

newsclues wrote: post #57
batmanturkey wrote: post #32

WHY is a fully autonomous vehicle even interesting to pursue, given that wheeled vehicles and their infrastructural requirements are such a large expense and social and environmental problem relative to the benefits provided? I mean, out of all the moonshots, why die on this particular hill? I consider an actual hyperloop to be a much more compelling vision for the future: those pneumatic tubes the banks use in subur…

A) people want transportation as a service without the human of a taxi or driver, not just for cost but comfort and not having to associate with people (of a lower class) B) creating a scalable transportation as a service business for profit and power (data)

Regarding A): Exactly! I don’t really mind traveling together with people from my own class (I might even prefer it), but I don’t really want to travel with lower class people. That just makes me feel like I’m one of them.

I think this attitude is quite common, but people won’t admit it. I would never admit it like I just did if I didn’t have an anonymous account. And I don’t see how technology will change this basic preference.

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

#425

Post by GaylordTuring »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #303
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…

Why don't you go by train? If you don't like driving, don't drive.

Maybe there isn’t a train available. Maybe it takes much longer time taking the train. Maybe you don’t like sitting close to other people for several hours each week.

I can think of many reasons why train wouldn’t be an option.

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

#426

Post by GaylordTuring »

dubeye wrote: post #165

Is it binary? I get a lot of value from the level 2 systems already common. And appreciate the incremental improvements.

My thoughts exactly. And the Tesla FSD is already at a level where it allows you to relax and drive more safely (even though you have to be ready to take over).

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

#427

Post by cs702 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #412
cs702 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've yet to see how Waymo and other self-driving systems perform in open-ended testing, outside tightly restricted, geofenced environments. Otherwise, I agree that Tesla FSD Beta has been progressing nicely. I don't know if it will take 1, 2, or 5 years to get FSD Beta to an acceptable rate of graceful failures, but I agree it looks likely to get there before the end of the decade!

> I've yet to see how Waymo and other self-driving systems perform in open-ended testing, outside tightly restricted, geofenced environments But you have seen how Tesla performs in such environments, and you aren't allowed to take your hands off the wheel. What makes you assume Tesla has the right approach and the other have companies have to be measured against it?

I never said that Tesla has the right approach nor that other companies have to be measured against it. What I did say is that I perceive Tesla FSD Beta as now being significantly ahead, based on the beta-tester videos I've been seen online. BTW, a year ago, I wouldn't have said that about Tesla FSD Beta.

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

#428

Post by Keyframe »

airza wrote: post #105
Keyframe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) - existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) - reduced traffic congestion (autonomous vehicles can better react/drive) - improved supply chains (autonomous trucks) (can work 0-24) just to name a few off top of my head

The existing infrastructure is absolutely going somewhere. Maintaining asphalt roads and highways is a constant, expensive, and neverending struggle.

Yes, and that's not going to go away.

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

#429

Post by cs702 »

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: -…

> Everyone in the industry knows that Tesla is nowhere near the tip of the technology. What Tesla does is _fantastic marketing_.

Between one and two years ago, that was my perception too. But the rapid progress I've seen with Tesla FSD Beta over the past couple of years, and over the last year in particular, has forced me to change my mind. (Note: I'm talking only about Tesla's beta software. Tesla's production software is behind by dozens of versions and is without a doubt technologically inferior to Waymo and Cruise.)

Less than two years ago, I would have said FSD Beta could only deal with the "first 95%" too. Now, my perception is that FSD Beta routinely handles the first > 99% and fails only on Of course, IF I see new evidence that contradicts my perceptions, I'll change my mind again. There's no shame in changing our minds when the facts disagree with our views. FWIW, I'd love to see videos of Cruise and Waymo vehicles, filmed by tens of thousands of regular consumers driving autonomously on fully unrestricted roads, with zero editorial input from Cruise or Waymo.

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

#430

Post by pas »

bergenty wrote: post #391
pas wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, pollutio…

Traffic is usually only a problem in major cities and that’s about the only good usecase for public transport. I don’t want to lose the amazing infrastructure we have for cars everywhere that isn’t a major urban center.

Traffic is one thing. Low-density sprawl itself is more costly. (More roads to maintain, more poles along roadsides, more distance to drive, more pipes, more wiring, every SFH is a big box with a lot more surface where heat exchange happens (and then folks want to keep it warm/cool), every backyard is one more sad lifeless walled garden to water and mow. It adds up.)

And I'm not saying there are no benefits, nor am I saying that the alternatives are so perfect people just somehow don't see it. (I'm saying let's quantify the costs and let people choose. For example I'd spend a lot more on soundproofing and a lot less on backyards and frown lawns, but mostly there's no such option. [Hence the big push for more permissive zoning/permitting/etc.])

Post reply on HN