Waymo: Google's self-driving car company • Hacker News Board

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#631

Post by erikpukinskis » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:28 AM UTC

cphoover wrote: post #83

joeguilmette wrote: post #49

I'm interested to see where all the major players end up in 5yrs: • Tesla bootstrapping a ride service on the backs of buyers • Waymo directly rolling their own fleet • Uber trying to get a self-driving fleet up, burning mountains of money to maintain their "monopoly" on Uber for rides • Lyft working with GM to get a fleet up • All of the other car manufacturers trying to get autonomous vehicles going, presumably hop…

a whole industry of workers will be out of the job. How will society react? Will we have a socialist revolt? Want to stay clear from politics... but seriously why isn't anyone talking about the socioeconomic impact this will have once drivers are put out of the job? IMHO this is the reason Trump won the election, because there is no plan for these people.

Why would it be different than previous instances of whole industries being out of a job? There was no revolt when the US shipped manufacturing overseas.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#632

Post by taneq » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:30 AM UTC

walrus1066 wrote: post #540

ageofwant wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only needs to be a better driver than you for you to be safer, and its that already. I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout between you and the software you will loose 98% of the time.

Sure, but put a tumbleweed in front of the driverless car and it's stuck. Or wood with a nail sticking out/generic movable obstacle, a human can remove it, the auto-car cannot.

Can it not drive around the tumbleweed? Or, if it's completely walled in by them, make an assessment of their density and likely harm caused, and decide to just run over them?

If we're crediting the car with being able to handle merging into a crowded multi-lane highway and dealing with idiot human drivers who don't indicate or hold lane position very well, it seems a bit odd to arbitrarily presume that it won't be able to identify non-hazards like said tumbleweed.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#633

Post by taneq » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:32 AM UTC

saryant wrote: post #517

amelius wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one way to solve the problem is to simply bring the car to a halt, then wait until the problem is solved by itself (or by the user).

And if you're going 70 down a busy interstate?

The number of times that "you can't stop / brake / slow because someone behind you will run into you" comes up in these threads is always alarmingly high.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#634

Post by Trundle » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:33 AM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #619

ageofwant wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a autonomous car can pass a standard driving test it should be allowed to drive. They always do, every time.

Depending on where you live, "can pass a standard driving test" isn't necessarily saying very much. In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.

Seeing as there are already people trying to use their Tesla autopilot as autonomous capabilities, I'm pretty sure they'll be viable as soon as they are road legal.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#635

Post by kshitijl » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:36 AM UTC

awful wrote: post #349

jcranmer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: Private car ownership is going to fall off a cliff shortly after autonomous ride services arrive. Which probably means general demand for vehicles will fall off a cliff. I've seen this sentiment so many times now that I have to ask a serious question to anyone who echoes this sentiment: Do you own a personal car right now? If so, why? All of this... excitement over the transformations that self-driving vehicl…

I can't add anything profound, but I will say that 40+ years ago I camped at Disney's Ft. Wilderness campground, with all my many brothers and sisters. The electric trams had a routine schedule that came around and stopped almost in front of your campsite, all of kids would simply jump on, go to anywhere in the park like the stores, the showers, the outdoor theater, and hop off again. It was incredibly liberating and…

This is what New York still feels like to me, 4 years after moving here. Don't own a car, hope I never have to.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#636

Post by greedo » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:39 AM UTC

JCzynski wrote: post #330

jcranmer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: Private car ownership is going to fall off a cliff shortly after autonomous ride services arrive. Which probably means general demand for vehicles will fall off a cliff. I've seen this sentiment so many times now that I have to ask a serious question to anyone who echoes this sentiment: Do you own a personal car right now? If so, why? All of this... excitement over the transformations that self-driving vehicl…

Self-driving taxis are in principle way cheaper to operate than human-driven taxis. They never have to stop, they can operate at all hours, there's no cost to pay drivers, and if they do stop they can do it somewhere very cheap. And when self-driving cars are a viable option, insurance will strongly encourage it. And by strongly encourage it I probably mean "absurdly high fees for driving your own car", because peopl…

This is a frequent argument I keep seeing about the cost of insurance rising as autonomous vehicles are introduced. There's no reason they'll rise past what they're currently charging; insurance takes into account current risk. In the future, the risk if anything should decrease.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#637

Post by NamTaf » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:40 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #443

tim333 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Level 3: Within known, limited environments (such as freeways), the driver can safely turn their attention away from driving tasks" Volvo have announced shipping that in 2017. I don't think anyone else has. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q00jIBhkq4 )

Based on the videos on YouTube, I would say Tesla are already shipping that.

That's provably false given there's been cases where Teslas have already slammed into other vehicles on freeways.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#638

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

ageofwant wrote: post #616

legolas2412 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a computer drives better than me. But that's not it's competition. Does it drive better than me driving while being supervised continuously by a computer? I still make the important decisions, and my mistakes are pointed out by the computer. The competition for self driving cars are not humans, but humans being adviced by driver assistance programmes

No sure why you make that distinction, or what the benefit of that will be. I want to read HN on the back seat on the way to work, not "supervise" the driving appliance.

Op has a good point. You might want to read the web in the back seat, but if you supervising the computer makes it safer, will the public let you doze in the back seat putting your life and the lives of others at increased risk?

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#639

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

ageofwant wrote: post #630

marssaxman wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability . Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough,…

Yes of course it is enough, if that is your definition of 'viable product', that should be self-evident. It only needs to be better than a human at driving for it to be a viable product. Are you prepared to pay the insurance premium on a non-autonomous transport appliance in 10 years time ? I'm betting you won't.

[deleted]

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#640

Post by marssaxman » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

ageofwant wrote: post #630

marssaxman wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability . Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough,…

Yes of course it is enough, if that is your definition of 'viable product', that should be self-evident. It only needs to be better than a human at driving for it to be a viable product. Are you prepared to pay the insurance premium on a non-autonomous transport appliance in 10 years time ? I'm betting you won't.

"Driving" is not one single monolithic problem. "Driving" is a whole array of complicated problems. The "standard driving test" exercises a very limited subset. "Better than a human at driving" is a very broad and poorly-specified claim.

Hell yes I will still be using a "non-autonomous transport appliance" in ten years - it's called a "motorcycle" :) - and I don't want your high-tech self-driving future if it has no room for that.