Do we even need a car in the future?
Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
661–670 of 769 posts
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#662Earlier quoted context omitted.
About the sixth sense - does this not also apply to good doctors? And yet, they are easily outdiagnosed by many ML implementations. I can imagine deep learning to also gain this sixth sense. E.g. a cyclist in front of you looks to the left - a proficient driver predicts that cyclist might turn left very soon. Why should a self driving car/truck not learn the same?
Also, it sounds to me like the feat of controlling a beast of a truck in an emergency situation is easier for a computer.
In terms of execution, I agree. Decision making is where human experience wins. I think an experienced human driver will better predict the irrational things another human driver might do.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#663Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon can collapse really fast. My bet is that if it does it will be almost overnight and everybody will claim that nobody saw it coming. The reason I believe that it may collapse is because now when I want to buy something online I rather go to Walmart,Target or to the specific brand store. When I think of Amazon the picture that comes to mind is of shady people trying to scam me out of my money. My perception, eve…
Do you actually go to the brand stores though? The other day I needed something that wasn't on Amazon, so I bought it from the retailer directly. And then I remembered why I love Amazon and Prime. The ordering was terrible, and I had to wait 10 days for it to arrive. With Amazon the purchasing is seamless. That's where they really win. And they just keep making it easier. Now I can order things with my voice (using A…
A few times yes. So far I've had good experiences. For example, when I decided I wanted to get a new leather notebook from my favorite brand [1] They had it in B&N, Amazon and the brand store themselves. I finally decided to buy it from the brand store and had no problems.
Of course, take everything I'm saying with a big grain of sand since this is all anecdotal. I've also purchased from Columbia Sportwear Store and some other brands that I do not remember right now. I guess so far I've been lucky.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#664Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Clearly 'driving' to you is an expression of personal freedom - not body transport. And that's good and well, but finding unrelated justifications to defend what is essentially a hobby is silly.
People will continue to spend stupid amounts of money on hobbies. I'm not going not hand in the keys to my Landcruiser or my CRF250. But I don't leave those parked at the train station as a rule either.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#665Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If I have to supervise, there is no point. Having a human intervene in what should be 100% automated is putting my life and others at risk. Look at road death statistics: the vast bulk of incidents are are caused by humans sucking at driving - why should anyone want to continue doing that ?
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#666More business info in this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2016/12/13/googles-s... TL;DR: > “We’re now an independent company within the Alphabet umbrella,” > Google is currently equipping a fleet of 100 hybrid Chrysler minivans with its sensors and computing gear that will soon join its nearly 60 prototype autonomous vehicles. The company hasn't yet disclosed when and how it will begin genera…
I still finding it silly that they are trying to go straight for L5 (which is the only case where you can fully remove the steering wheel). By the sound of it, they already have an L4 going (can drive itself in 99.99% of the situations, might need user take over in very rare cases). Why not for now release an initial car with L4, and collect pile and pile of data, which is what they need to get over that last 0.01%.
I attended one of Google's talks on this. The rationale is that humans can't be trusted to take control in a timely manner for that 0.01%. Their internal testing with an L4 system on trained Googlers (who were told to remain alert in the event that action needed to be taken) had instances of testers sleeping, eating, putting on makeup, etc. They concluded that if Googlers with explicit training couldn't behave themselves, then L4 definitely wasn't sufficient for the general public; autonomous driving had to be all or nothing.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#667I still don't understand why every company doing self driving cars is focusing on consumer cars while no major player is doing interstate trucking. Interstate trucking could pretty much be done now, and has several advantages. Driving on interstate freeways is orders of magnitude easier than driving in a city with pedestrians, bikes, cars parked in the road, etc. And there is a great monetization scheme--no driver me…
While the benefits you listed are correct, you're missing the biggest one: relative cost of the sensor array. High-fidelity LIDAR tech is cost prohibitive to include in general consumer vehicles (hence taxi as a service), but it's much more practical for trucks which typically run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#668Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point was that the "urban area" definition in the census was quite broad. I live in an "urban area" on a decent plot of land with a Christmas tree farm on one side and a working farm/apple orchard on the other. Probably not what most people think of as urban.
It is relatively broad, but the point is that it's based on population size and density. The fact that you live next to a farm and an orchard doesn't change the fact that you live near lots of other people.
I suppose it depends on your definition of near. I'm about an hour drive from a major city. Less so to smaller urban areas that have no significant public transit. No it's not the wilds of Wyoming but most people here probably wouldn't consider being on a 100 acres or so with a couple of other houses being near lots of other people.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#669Earlier quoted context omitted.
The car-human interaction bit isn't from a quote, is there any evidence of this actually happening in the field? Would be great if there was a video or something.
You can see one example at the end of the video on their technology page where the cyclist can't make up his mind. It recognizes the left turn sign from the rider (you can see the sybmol change when he extends his arm). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbWeKhAPMig
This kind of predictable reactions to specific human gestures.. I fear it will have great uses for certain type of crimes. What will you do if someone stops you with the purpose of assaulting _for eg, a robbery_ you and the car refuses to run the dude over because he made a gesture and is now in front of your car while his buddies are waiting aside?
There are good reasons why things like these happened:
> The law of some states, such as Louisiana, explicitly lists a killing in the course of defending oneself against forcible entry of an occupied motor vehicle as a justifiable homicide.
While I'm interested in self driving cars that still feature manual controls you can override, like Tesla, I have no interest in a future controlled by Google's AI without my input.
Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company
#670Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a little concerning. Especially to the lee of the lake, snow storms can pop up out of nowhere and can last for days at a time. Usually, with care, a human driver can traverse to the nearest shelter to weather the storm. But if the car just stops out of the middle of nowhere, with limited energy to keep the cabin warm in the harsh cold, that seems like a recipe for disaster.
We're talking about mobility-as-a-service, so presumably the service would use other means to get you to your destination, like having the car towed, or sending out an SUV with a professional driver. These kinds of extreme situations are scary, but that's what insurance is for. Everyone is worried about how we get autonomous driving that's perfect in every situation, but that's not how automation works. You just have…
> We're talking about mobility-as-a-service
We are? I went up the comment chain again and still did not get that impression the second time around. What statement in particular gave you that idea?
> These kinds of extreme situations are scary, but that's what insurance is for.
Like... life insurance?
> You just have to automate the common case so a small number of humans can focus on the corner cases.
If I'm going to be sitting in the car anyway, I can drive it in those conditions, assuming the vehicle allows me to. However, Google has stated before that it is unlikely that they will release a car that needs to be taken over by human drivers. It's all or nothing for them.