Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

blog.waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 691 posts

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#71

Post by bob33212 »

gfodor wrote: post #27

Kind of interesting to consider how this adjusts priors on these outcomes: - Self driving is not possible - Self driving is not possible anytime soon - Self driving is possible, but requires LIDAR - Self driving is possible, and can be done with normal cameras I've engaged with a lot of people who presume self-driving reduces onto AGI, therefore it will not be achieved anytime soon if ever. I wonder which of their as…

self-driving is more of a language problem than a technology problem. In 2005 grad students had cars driving themselves on a course. Tesla and Waymo both have cars that very drive well on many roads. self-driving is here, now all that is left is for people to argue about what "L5" means as the systems improve. They will improve as there is a clear path to improvement.

I don't expect that we will ever see the day where everyone is OK with self-driving cars on the roads regardless of the safety statistics, because there will always be edge cases of crashes and personal preferences around driving styles.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#72

Post by pm90 »

t0rt01se wrote: post #12

Can't wait for these to be launched in my city! Love from Dhaka.

Considering the Density of Dhaka, it would be much better served with public transportation/metro.

While the US has a lot of Urban Sprawl, dense Asian cities have the option to invest and reap the benefits of public transportation instead. Eg im incredibly excited about all the metro lines in India, HSR in China etc.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#73

Post by exikyut »

Maybe I'm just out of the loop on corporate presentation overload (I don't watch TV at all, and it's mildly jarring watching advertisments and whatnot), but this video feels so... formula-driven and lacking in depth and interestingness that would give me the room to explore the concept and form/own my own view about the service's safety, efficiency and relevance... that it just feels boring. I love tech and self-driving, but the way this is presented, I'm completely turned off the idea.

And then there's the fact that there's a shot of a driver in the front seat shown for like 400 milliseconds. What's up with that? Why is a token driver required to be in the front seat? I thought the foundation of the service was automated self-driving that obviates that...? If for whatever reason it is required, alright, then own up to it and properly integrate it into the video so it doesn't feel so awkward.

Overall this presentation feels like it's hiding something, simply because it's so poorly put together.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#74

Post by bluGill »

willvarfar wrote: post #18

I can’t wait for truly autonomous cars. I live in the countryside and have to drive to collect and deliver kids, or abstain as a designated driver and so on. Self driving will change this. The aspect I dislike is the move towards hiring cars on demand instead of owning them, though.

hiring cars on demand makes sense in dense cities where most trips would not be by car even if you owned one (walk, bike, transit...). When most trips are by car anyway you are better off owning your own car.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#75

Post by id »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #59

“All rides in the program will have an autonomous specialist on board for now” This tells me that we’re still a long way from full level 4 (and certainly level 5) autonomy in a busy city like San Francisco. The edge cases requiring immediate human attention are still too frequent for the human safety driver to be remote, as is the case in Phoenix. Also, just a reminder that Waymo in Phoenix is nowhere close to being…

Is this not a legal requirement?

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#76

Post by tshaddox »

espadrine wrote: post #47

Waymo is currently the only SAE Level 4[0] self-driving car in use, right? The wheel must not be used. Even though it is limited to two cities. Their technology seems an order of magnitude above the rest, although factoring in its cost could make it look worse. (Can it turn a profit, when including the development costs?) Tesla FSD is at best SAE level 3 (can need human fallback), and at worst level 2 (needs constant…

Those SAE levels apparently don’t specifically mention the geographic range the vehicle can operate in [0], but at some point that’s pretty important. Having “full automation” on a very tiny section of roads is hardly what I would call “orders of magnitude above the rest.”

[0] edit: that's incorrect, L4 and L5 are primarily defined by differences in geography range.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#77

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

morpheos137 wrote: post #51
gfodor wrote: post #27

Kind of interesting to consider how this adjusts priors on these outcomes: - Self driving is not possible - Self driving is not possible anytime soon - Self driving is possible, but requires LIDAR - Self driving is possible, and can be done with normal cameras I've engaged with a lot of people who presume self-driving reduces onto AGI, therefore it will not be achieved anytime soon if ever. I wonder which of their as…

Most important one you missed: Given sufficient qualitative and quantitative investment self driving may be technologically feasible at some point in the future but not price competitive with human driving. Self driving proponents seem to assume the tech is free. Just keeping sub meter scale 3d street maps up to date has a massive cost.

There are enough people in the developed world who are physically unable to drive or use public transportation in their area and who also don't want to be homebound that the economics could still work out even if they were the only market, which they aren't.

> Just keeping sub meter scale 3d street maps up to date has a massive cost.

True, but probably not actually necessary.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#78

Post by sjcoles »

espadrine wrote: post #47

Waymo is currently the only SAE Level 4[0] self-driving car in use, right? The wheel must not be used. Even though it is limited to two cities. Their technology seems an order of magnitude above the rest, although factoring in its cost could make it look worse. (Can it turn a profit, when including the development costs?) Tesla FSD is at best SAE level 3 (can need human fallback), and at worst level 2 (needs constant…

FSD is still technically level 2. In Tesla's eyes and the law's eyes you are driving and in liable for what happens.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#79

Post by noneeeed »

As someone who lives in Bath, an old european city with roads (and other drivers) that can give experienced human drivers a nervous breakdown I'm rather more interested in how they do in SF than their current deployment in Phoenix.

From what I've heard repeatedly, SF sounds much more irregular and messy than Phoenix, so it should be something of a stepping stone to making them usable more widely if they can crack it.

I've been expecting it to happen for literally decades, but always been disappointed.

Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco

#80

Post by mjmahone17 »

Lammy wrote: post #67
ra7 wrote: post #19

It's fantastic to see Waymo's progress. SF is a real nightmare to drive. If they can nail it there, that's 2/2 for busy, urban street driving (SF) and "boring" suburban driving (Chandler, AZ). They've been quietly very confident of their tech, but this is a real test. Tangentially, I've also noticed that Waymo has picked up pace ever since the recent leadership changes. They are publishing more blog posts, offering m…

> SF is a real nightmare to drive. 'cause they decided not to build most of the roads: https://www.cahighways.org/maps/1955trafficways.jpg

Wait do you mean? As in, the highways proposed in 1955 weren’t built?

I’m not sure how highways going through SF would make it easier to drive in SF (outside of the highways): wouldn’t that generally increase traffic and conflicts?

Post reply on HN