[HN Gopher] Waymo's collision avoidance testing
___________________________________________________________________
Waymo's collision avoidance testing
Author : EvgeniyZh
Score : 288 points
Date : 2022-12-14 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.waymo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.waymo.com)
| nixpulvis wrote:
| I almost feel like AI enabled vehicles need a special light on
| the exterior to indicate to other drovers that this thing is a
| robot. As I'm driving I would probably learn to approach these
| vehicles differently from the average normal driver.
| [deleted]
| quitit wrote:
| This sounds like an excellent idea. There is a lingering issue
| about drivers not paying attention and even sleeping while
| their vehicle is in self-driving mode, that's contrary to the
| requirement that the driver is actively supervising.
|
| I don't think it's a realistic expectation that drivers are
| always fully attentive and able to respond in time to a crash
| situation when the self-driving mode is active. Such a light
| would give me the heads up that I should stay on my toes.
| latchkey wrote:
| I'd love to see an independent body conducting the same exact
| tests across all platforms (ie: Tesla).
| linuxftw wrote:
| IMO, public road, public code.
| cobaltoxide wrote:
| That's a nice phrase, but it seems impractical given the
| enormous complexity of these systems.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Impractical or not, public streets belong to the public,
| and the public gets to dictate how they are used or not
| used.
|
| I'm willing to negotiate. If companies don't want to
| release their code, they can put up $50M in a trust, and
| $1M bond per car, and automatically accept at-fault for any
| fatalities involving one of their self-driving units, with
| a minimum of $1M paid out for each deceased to their
| survivors.
| jeffbee wrote:
| It should be adversarial. An independent body should administer
| test suites provided by the manufacturers. Everybody has to
| pass 99% of the union of all test scenarios before being
| allowed on the road. The tests are run monthly.
| xoa wrote:
| > _It should be adversarial. An independent body should
| administer test suites provided by the manufacturers.
| Everybody has to pass 99% of the union of all test scenarios
| before being allowed on the road. The tests are run monthly._
|
| While I appreciate the spirit you're being overly glib, and
| we should all be wary of overly simplistic answers since
| reality can have surprising emergent effects. Like, your
| proposal as written would give behind manufacturers who cut
| corners and were bad an effective veto over companies doing
| well. If say Tesla finds they have to pretty much start from
| scratch, that they're 5 years behind Waymo now because they
| took a shoddy haphazard approach, well they might as well
| create a bunch of impossible tests that Waymo can't pass. It
| doesn't matter that they can't pass them, because they
| couldn't pass the ones Waymo proposes either, so this way
| they could throw a spanner in the works and pull back on the
| leaders. You could alter your suggestion to be that
| manufacturers can only propose tests that they themselves can
| pass with ready-to-ship vehicles, so everyone has to meet
| each other's standards. But what if there really are tests
| that everyone should pass but that no one can yet? Or what if
| there is explicit or tacit collusion in the other direction,
| where everyone low balls the tests because ultimately it's
| more profitable to get stuff shipping?
|
| Basically I don't see any reason to not just have the
| government continue to be involved here and come up with
| independent road safety standards as advised by their own
| experts, with public comment and rationale. Ultimately it's
| the public interest at stake and the rules are about use of
| public infrastructure. Why not just have an aggressive
| federal standard course and set of tests that everyone must
| meet?
|
| I also think in terms of incentives that FSD car
| manufacturers should be fully liable for any accidents caused
| by the car while FSD is active, simple as that.
| jefftk wrote:
| What if you limited to test scenarios that a human
| ("NIEON") could reliably pass?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I'm sure motivated engineers could come up with tests
| that are extremely difficult for current AI but basically
| useless for deploying a real self driving system.
|
| See the millions of examples of trolley problems, for
| example.
| jefftk wrote:
| Trolley problem examples are hard, but your "NIEON" won't
| reliably pass either.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If Tesla can't pass each and every one of their proposed
| tests then they aren't even in the game. What you describe
| would not occur.
| raldi wrote:
| And a meta body should coordinate with manufacturers to
| periodically submit faulty products to make sure they're
| flagged.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| 100%
| latchkey wrote:
| I watched this video yesterday which seems really
| applicable...
|
| How to crash an airplane - Nickolas Means
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=099cHWSbAL8
|
| Reflecting on the video, they don't need to save everyone,
| but it certainly should be the first time when not everyone
| dies.
| laichzeit0 wrote:
| So out of 10,000 tests, it's okay if they fail on 100 of
| them?
| jerf wrote:
| As nice as it may be to think that humans are perfect, it's
| not like they'd score 100% on this level of testing either.
| kibwen wrote:
| In fact, we can even subject human drivers to the same
| tests and compare the results.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > As nice as it may be to think that humans are perfect,
| it's not like they'd score 100% on this level of testing
| either.
|
| Someone posted upthread that current fatalities on
| something stupid like 1.5 per 100000 miles.
|
| Humans are currently ahead in the safety stats game.
| adventured wrote:
| The automated driving systems will have to pass a far
| higher bar than human drivers as a comparison. People
| will get even more upset about self-driving tech causing
| injuries/wrecks/deaths/endangerment vs what human drivers
| cause.
|
| Long after self-driving systems are superior to human
| drivers on average, the headlines will still scream about
| humans being killed by self-driving tech. The
| sensationalism will still sell and people will still be
| very outraged about it.
|
| The expectation will be no mistakes. Anything short of
| that will always draw a hyper emotional negative
| response, which will lure in political/regulatory
| responses.
| gretch wrote:
| >People will get even more upset about self-driving tech
| causing injuries/wrecks/deaths/endangerment vs what human
| drivers cause.
|
| Will they?
|
| I mean for example Tobacco companies lied and the truth
| that we know today is that smoking is very very
| detrimental to their health. It's also detrimental non-
| smokers in society via second hand smoke, and secondary
| effects like cigarette butt litter. It doesn't even
| provide any solid utility like transportation does, it
| just feels good.
|
| Not only do people still smoke today, people _start_
| smoking today given all the information we have.
|
| So when I see behavior like that, I'm not confident that
| people won't want FSD just because it's 'dangerous'.
| mwigdahl wrote:
| You're 100% correct. People will want FSD for themselves
| for sure. That won't stop them from blaming the tech
| companies when they read articles about the cars killing
| people. Ralph Nader's _Unsafe At Any Speed_ tanked
| Corvair sales after publication, although his critiques
| arguably applied to other cars more than the Corvair. The
| sales of other, similar contemporary cars weren't
| affected at all.
|
| FSD will be incredibly convenient, which means humans
| will always be motivated to come up a reason, valid or
| otherwise, that justifies their own use of the tech while
| allowing themselves to condemn others for mishaps
| incurred doing the exact same thing.
|
| "They didn't maintain it correctly." "They didn't listen
| to the warnings." "They bought the wrong brand." "They
| weren't current on software updates."
| Retric wrote:
| I doubt it, the more common self driving deaths become
| the less newsworthy they will be.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Long after self-driving systems are superior to human
| drivers on average
|
| For starters, that's not the correct metric. Self driving
| systems have to at least surpass the median driver, not
| the average (mean). Auto-related fatality stats are
| heavily skewed by a small subset of drivers who engage in
| very risky habits.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Why should they have to pass the median?
|
| > Auto-related fatality stats are heavily skewed by a
| small subset of drivers who engage in very risky habits.
|
| Right and it would be great if those people used self
| driving cars instead.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Why should they have to pass the median?
|
| Because you have to convince people like me to buy a
| self-driving car, and as long as that car is more likely
| to get me killed than I am, my family will remain in a
| car that I drive. I do not drive drunk, I avoid driving
| in inclement weather when not required, or at night, or
| when I'm really tired. I don't race, I don't road rage, I
| am a very defensive driver. I have not had an at-fault
| accident _ever_ (in 30 years and counting since I got my
| license) and the only accidents I 've ever been in at all
| were minor fender-benders.
|
| So convince me why I should endanger myself so that you
| can have an unsafe computer driven auto on the road?
|
| > Right and it would be great if those people used self
| driving cars instead.
|
| So make a self-driving car for _them_. You will need to
| subsidize it, since these types of drivers are more
| likely than not unable to afford a fancy new toy. When
| the technology can finally cross the median point, then
| we can talk again about regular, good drivers hanging up
| their keys.
| Antipode wrote:
| Maybe have variable points per test and have a minimum
| passing point total, so that an important test could fail
| you in its own.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah we can quibble over the details. The key aspect is
| adversaries.
| sekh60 wrote:
| Kinda crazy to think the tests have to be done monthly, but
| they'd have to be due to software updates, what crazy times
| we are approaching.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| The "unit" in "unit test" will now refer to the car crashed
| on every Jenkins build
| kolbe wrote:
| Consensus from the two AV articles today seems to be that Tesla,
| despite releasing more data to the public on their FSD system, is
| evil, incompetent and endangering society (the data doesn't say
| so, but just the fact that Tesla won't release even more data is
| shady). Whereas Waymo making a PR statement with no substance is
| proof Tesla will fail and Waymo will save us.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Tesla, despite releasing far more data to the public on their
| FSD system,
|
| The same Tesla who argues to the California DMV that FSD is a
| level 2 system to dodge reporting requirements? The Tesla who
| has a major EV outlet demanding that they release meaningful
| disengagement data? [1]
|
| Perhaps I missed something but I really have no idea what data
| you could be talking about, unless by "data" you mean access to
| the FSD beta.
|
| [1] https://electrek.co/2022/12/14/tesla-full-self-driving-
| data-...
| kolbe wrote:
| Tesla themselves released safety data quarterly for years. I
| don't know why it stopped, but internet guesses range from
| Tesla is a fraud to the NHTSA started to question its
| accuracy, and they pulled it for liability reason. Tesla
| actually updates miles driven on Twitter. And going on
| YouTube, you can find endless videos of user experiences. I
| said thousands of hours before, but it very well could be
| hundreds of thousands of hours.
|
| Find anything on Waymo. The NHTSA released autopilot and AV
| vehicle crash data in raw number of crashes, and I wanted to
| normalize both Tesla and Waymo somehow, and I couldn't find
| anything from Waymo other than some repeated claim of "over
| 20 million miles" which dates back years. If it is only 20
| million, then Waymo is insanely dangerous, and no one should
| be defending them, but I have a feeling they're into the
| hundreds of millions at this point. Also, look up similar
| YouTube experiences. Waymo has almost nothing--a few people
| following their vehicles
| bhauer wrote:
| I wish HN would be better than that, but your summary is
| perfect.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| What's your response to the fact that Tesla's data is
| actually very bad? [1]
|
| [1]https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1602774335244177408?
| re...
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >Consensus from the two AV articles today
|
| Consensus from informed industry observers who are _sounding
| the alarm bells about how dangerous Tesla 's approach is from a
| first-principles standpoint_
|
| The "data" Tesla released is a meaningless attempt to pull the
| wool over your eyes.
| pugworthy wrote:
| One thing I'm very curious about with AI driven cars, is whether
| they will develop some of the overly cautious / paranoid habits
| human drivers get around bicycles.
|
| Take people passing a bike in a bike lane for example. Some will
| go way under the speed limit, and not just pass the bike even
| though it's in it's own lane. Or others will swing WAY wide to
| pass them, even though again, they are in their own line.
|
| Will AI itself learn that indeed, bikes do suddenly veer into
| your lane, or will AI in fact learn that no, they don't do that?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Self driving cars are mostly a bad idea in most cases. The only
| thing worse then cars with 1 person in it driving around is cars
| with 0 people driving around.
|
| The goal should be less cars overall specially in cities.
| Technology that will cause more cars and more traffic is just
| terrible.
|
| Cities should ban cars, make it pedestrian and bicycle friendly,
| build 'self driving' metros and S-Bahn style train systems.
| wizofaus wrote:
| There's no need to _ban_ cars - it would be quiet sufficient
| just for governments to stop building infrastructure (and
| making various laws around its usage) as though cars were the
| only type of transport that mattered. FWIW, in principle self-
| driving tech could make our cities far more "people" friendly
| and less attuned to the needs to cars, but only if there was
| some sort of motivation for the tech to be developed with that
| goal in mind.
| ape4 wrote:
| So the AI learns - slow down when driving between shipping
| containers
| frogblast wrote:
| Well... Yes. It is a scenario where you you have a blind spot
| on the road ahead of you, so I'd hope a human driver would do
| the same.
| rkagerer wrote:
| They refer to NIEON as an undistractable human driver, but isn't
| it just another model? Is that a bit misleading, or can someone
| shed more light on this?
| kibwen wrote:
| There's a footnote:
|
| _" NIEON is defined by (1) gaze being directed through the
| windshield toward the forward path during the conflict and (2)
| a lack of sleepiness and intoxication-related impairment."_
| snotrockets wrote:
| So basically, a public transit driver.
| tantalor wrote:
| NIEON is "a reference model that represents an ideal human
| state for driving"
|
| You can use this for comparison, as in "what would NIEON do in
| this situation"?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's just a hypothetical for comparison: "is our self driving
| car doing as good or better than a competent, undistracted
| human driver?"
| bingblogger wrote:
| Share your unique Blog post, create a Backlink to your site and
| raise your site's rating in Google search, Your BingBlogger
|
| website: https://bingblogger.com
| random_upvoter wrote:
| As with all AI, it works until that special set of circumstances
| pop up where it fails and when it fails there is no bottom as to
| how it fails.
| nojvek wrote:
| I'm the side of LIDAR is a crutch. Not only is it crazy expensive
| and has many moving parts, but the sensor input is a bunch of
| dots. One has to have cameras anyway for the high density vision
| input.
|
| With newer algorithms, you can stitch multiple cameras to
| reconstruct a scene and semantically identify important objects.
| I do like what Tesla is doing with its new voxel neural net.
|
| Yeah it will take a few more years, but the hard problems are
| doing what our visual cortex does with two cameras (our eyes).
| Also keep in mind a car has multiple cameras around to give full
| 360 view. They also sense in IR range that our eyes do not.
| samwillis wrote:
| Teslas vision based system makes a prediction of what the
| environment around it is, how far away things are. A LIDAR
| based system knows _with certainty_ how far way things are.
|
| LIDAR may be expensive now, thats not to say it won't get
| cheeper, with fewer parts.
|
| But the main issue is a social one, I don't think the public
| will except _any_ fatalities as a result of a vision based
| system making a mistake. Even if the deal rate from accetends
| is lower than with a human driver.
|
| A self driving car can't be 50% better, or even 200% better it
| needs to be thousands of times better than a human driver for
| it to succeed. I think the certainty of a LIDAR baed system is
| the only way to do that.
|
| An AI based vision system is Tesla saying that can make a
| "brain" better than a human at understanding vision.
|
| LIDAR is saying, humans can't measure how far away things are,
| we can do better than humans by doing something they can't.
| abraxas wrote:
| I really want to see how testing goes for MobilEye when they
| start to open up their prototypes a little more. Of the youtube
| videos I've seen theirs is by far the most impressive and I have
| a lot of respect for Amnon Shashua.
| tr33house wrote:
| can't wait for the day I'll leave work, get into a self-driving
| car, watch a movie, have it stop for takeout, sleep as it drives
| me across the country and then wake up in the morning on the
| other side of the country ready to start my day. Rooting for
| Waymo!
| voz_ wrote:
| I spent a few years in self driving, I have immense respect for
| Waymo, and very little for Tesla. I think ultimately they will
| win the space.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| This is my view as well. (I did self-driving related research,
| like platooning and taxi scheduling/allocation.) Waymo, Baidu,
| Didi, and others are the names that come to mind for places
| that produce research, produce data, _and_ apply their
| technology in real-world practice.
|
| My impression of Tesla is mostly shaped from (1)
| nonparticipation in the research community, (2) a very early
| "mission accomplished" declaration by calling their cars fully
| self driving, and (3) a longterm refusal to use LIDAR.
|
| I don't consider Tesla a player in self-driving (edit: self-
| driving _research_ ), but I don't think Tesla does either.
| There's no reason for them to try to "win" the space.
|
| From Tesla's side, it makes more sense to continue on their
| current tack: Applying results from existing research. I think
| Tesla's strategy is to be the highest bidder when it comes time
| for Waymo (or Didi, etc) to sell their tech.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| How do you view the approach of comma.ai ?
| lynndotpy wrote:
| I don't know anything about them to be honest! Just
| searched them up.
|
| AFAIK, they aren't working on self-driving or trying to
| advance research there, so it doesn't make sense to compare
| them to Waymo either.
|
| But an open-source driver-assist upgrade package is
| interesting, but doesn't overlap with my experience. Sorry
| I don't have anything more meaningful to say!
| azinman2 wrote:
| They literally sell a package to purchasers of cars called
| full self driving and autopilot. They claim their competitive
| advantage is all the cameras of miles driven. They put
| special boards in cars for it. They absolutely consider
| themselves a player.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| I don't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers
| _themselves_ to be a player, especially since it sells more
| add-ons to their cars. Repeatedly publicly knocking the
| benefits of LIDAR in self driving demonstrates otherwise.
| mehwoot wrote:
| > _I don 't think anyone is doubting that Tesla considers
| themselves to be a player_
|
| > _I don 't consider Tesla a player in self-driving, but
| I don't think Tesla does either_
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| They clearly are a player in the self-driving cars
| _market_. They may not be a player in self-driving
| _research_. These things can both be true at the same
| time.
|
| I think that's the distinction driving the confusion
| here.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| Let me clarify my position: Tesla does not advance self-
| driving research, and they don't need to. Tesla won't be
| the first to release fully self-driving cars. (I think 'SAE
| levels' are bunk, but let's say this is level 4.5 for the
| sake of discussion.)
|
| EDIT: Sorry, and to clarify, I meant "not a player in self-
| driving _research_. I also do not think anyone has any
| vehicles we should call "self driving".
|
| (I'll keep the rest of my pre-edit clarification below.)
|
| To clarify further:
|
| Tesla's offerings come from applying and engineering
| existing published research. That takes work, and they're
| making some money from that.
|
| To the extent that "fully self driving" is an achievable
| goal, it makes no sense to expect Tesla to make the
| advances that get us there, when (1) they aren't doing
| that, and (2) they don't need to do that to make money.
|
| To make this even more clear, let's make it concrete with
| one plausible future: In 2032, Waymo (or Didi, whoever)
| achieves true 'level 4' fully-self driving with proprietary
| technology. Their tech is seen in trucks, busses, taxis, as
| well as being equipped to a few thousand private vehicles.
| The safety stats are superhuman, and insuring such a
| vehicle is cheap.
|
| In this future, Tesla Motors would like to enter into an
| exclusive partnership to integrate this technology into the
| cars they manufacture.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Tesla won 't be the first to release fully self-
| driving cars._
|
| Technically speaking: yes, they were the first ones, back
| in 2017.
|
| Their car might've been more likely to crash then
| actually end up at the desired destination, but they did
| release first with a pretty hilariously bad product.
| kiratp wrote:
| Literally making their own AI training chips with novel
| architecture doesn't count as participating in research?
|
| Google has tried and failed at commercializing similar
| technology in other verticals (like building
| environmental automation from their DC tech). The reason
| is actual incumbents (rightly) see the value of their
| position while Google comes at it as "our AI is the
| value, you just make dumb things".
|
| I expect the automakers to ship mediocre stacks that are
| put together by existing players like Bosch.
|
| As an ex-Googler I would be floored if Waymo actually
| lands a sell-into deal with an automaker. A fully
| vertical taxi service is their path today because they
| tried and failed to sign any partnerships.
| hcrisp wrote:
| Maybe it depends on how you define "full" self-driving. Is
| it full if it works only for the scenarios it was designed?
| Are you working full time if you only work 30 hours a week?
| munificent wrote:
| They want customers to consider them a player.
|
| They doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves believe
| their own marketing.
| mv4 wrote:
| can you elaborate? something wrong with Tesla's approach?
| everly wrote:
| Yes. Photogrammetry + ML is fundamentally inferior to a
| LiDAR-based solution, particularly on the time-scale motor
| vehicles operate on.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They have a habit of running into things.
| aantix wrote:
| How do the number of accidents compare to Waymo when fleet
| size is taken into account?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The stats don't matter much when it's clear they can't
| handle collision avoidance with anything outside their
| limited training set like airplanes. You have to ask what
| else can't they detect in front of the car if they're
| 100% dependent on ML to decide there's an obstruction.
| That is an irresponsible threat to public safety no
| matter how lucky they are scraping by on their current
| architecture.
| jcims wrote:
| Except the stats *do* matter. It's how we measure things
| that operate in the real world. The blind baby stroller
| benchmark might be academically interesting, but if
| distracted drivers are smashing kids on public roads for
| another decade while Waymo perfects it's craft the net
| result is just more flat people.
| redox99 wrote:
| Talking of FSD beta here, I don't think there has been
| any death or even major accident to date. But that's
| mostly because (especially until a few months ago) it was
| bad enough that nobody would trust it, so people were
| always alert to intervene.
|
| If you were to let FSD beta just drive by itself enough
| time, and intentionally never intervene, it _would_
| eventually crash, no doubt about it. Before v10.69 it was
| hard to get a 20 minute drive with no interventions
| (unless it was mostly straight roads).
| amf12 wrote:
| Relevant HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33984922
|
| Comparing disengagement and driver intervention data
| might be useful to compare Tesla FSD vs others.
| threeseed wrote:
| I wouldn't rule out Cruise.
|
| They already have robotaxis in SF and are expanding into
| Arizona and Texas by the end of this year.
| zndr wrote:
| Saying they have taxi's in SF is a bit hyperbolic. I have an
| invite to that program and it's
|
| - only after 10pm - used such an odd slice of the city I not
| only can't get picked up, it doesn't GO any where I go.
|
| I would love to use either of these programs both for the
| novelty and because I think Autonomous driving is great, but
| I literally can't use the program I do have access to.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I think the parent wasn't referring to it being perfect,
| but that open road real-life testing is something very few
| companies have, and was implying we shouldn't count out
| Cruise because they are at least at that stage.
| [deleted]
| hemloc_io wrote:
| as a fellow beta tester, they are expanding their service
| area to include a majority of the city incl Mission.
|
| Totally agree w/ you rn thou right now it's basically a
| neat party trick I have to go out of my way to show off
| instead of a super useful service.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > used such an odd slice of the city I not only can't get
| picked up, it doesn't GO any where I go.
|
| It's been a month and a half since they've covered almost
| the entire city except FiDi/Union Square (and Twin
| Peaks)[1]. That's not a trivial omission, but do you really
| never take rides that start or end in any other area? In
| particular, that entire area is a fairly close walk from
| the only dense transit line in the city.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/kvogt/status/1587589014525448192
| aeternum wrote:
| Great appeal to authority. Why not explain the technical
| reasons you believe Waymo will win?
| guilamu wrote:
| I did not spent a few years in self driving, but correct if I'm
| wrong, but how would Waymo win when they can work only with HD
| maps (aka, nearly nowhere) while Tesla FSD work nearly
| perfectly now even on dirt roads (aka anywhere) with no map at
| all?
| Zigurd wrote:
| This is a _very_ good question. Elon is dumping on LIDAR and
| 3D high resolution mapping.
|
| That may be a smokescreen. Tesla collects a lot of data from
| their cars. What they do not have are these supposedly
| superfluous high resolution maps. If Tesla's camera-sourced
| data proves to be insufficient, that will have been a very
| bad gamble, in addition to whether camera data is sufficient
| for real time decisions.
|
| When they pay off, bold gambles make businessmen look smart.
| That's why nearly all business hagiographies are the product
| of survivorship bias. Just like your buddy who won in Vegas.
|
| We will see this risk-taking play out in Starship and
| Starlink, too.
| voz_ wrote:
| Collecting HD Maps is an 80/20 problem (I have a patent in a
| subfield of this, for better or worse lol) - you can get a
| ton of value from a small set of focused areas. If you can
| solve greater metro areas (no dirt roads?), you've got a real
| solution.
|
| I also think that the mapping and routing component matters a
| lot less than how good your collision and realtime avoidance
| systems are. And in that arena, Tesla is an unmitigated
| disaster.
| guilamu wrote:
| Thanks for your anwser. I see a lot of bad things on Tesla
| FSD and I totally get the critics.
|
| Yet, I follow DirtyTesla's YouTube channel and I think FSD
| is quite impressive compared to any other self driving
| software I've seen.
|
| Would you mind to direct me to similar videos from Waymo
| for example in similar situations? I can't find anything
| even remotely as good as what Tesla is doing now.
|
| I'm not a fanboy nor do I possess any TSLA actions (or even
| a car for that matter), I'm just interested in the field
| and until now I thought Tesla was the most promising tech
| (it seems I'm wrong, but I really like to see it!).
| vgt wrote:
| Compare Waymo[0] with Tesla [1]..
|
| These are easily searchable which leads me to question
| your sincerity in feinting ignorance.
|
| [0]https://youtu.be/mWvhw1KCmbo
|
| [1]https://youtu.be/3mnG_Gbxf_w
| Zigurd wrote:
| They're just asking questions. Geeez.
| zaroth wrote:
| I think you missed OPs point.
|
| As I understand it, Waymo can't drive on unmapped roads,
| and therefore there are no comparable videos of Waymo
| actually doing that.
|
| You chose a Waymo video from their marketing channel, and
| a newspaper hit piece. And then questioned sincerity of
| OP...
| simondotau wrote:
| Not to mention that there's no evidence that any
| autonomous driving system was engaged on that Tesla.
| vgt wrote:
| did I? Here's a direct quote I was responding to:
|
| >I see a lot of bad things on Tesla FSD and I totally get
| the critics...I think FSD is quite impressive compared to
| any other self driving software I've seen. > >Would you
| mind to direct me to similar videos from Waymo for
| example in similar situations? I can't find anything even
| remotely as good as what Tesla is doing now.
|
| I can't believe one can make an honest argument that
| Tesla is ahead of Waymo on FSD
| dinobones wrote:
| Waymo has proven driverless operations in Chandler, then
| Downtown Phoenix, then San Francisco. Truly driverless, no
| people in car. They've demonstrated driverless capability and
| the ability to expand to new regions, even if it means taking
| HD maps.
|
| Tesla has not proven any reliable driverless operation,
| anywhere. They have removed hardware from their cars (radar,
| uss) and have not shown any meaningful progress in the past
| ~5 years nor any willingness to change from their "vision
| only, big data" strategy.
|
| If things continue on the current trajectory Waymo will
| likely be operating in all major US cities and metros in a
| few years while Tesla's self driving offering will probably
| be forcibly renamed by regulation and end in a class action
| lawsuit.
|
| Basically, Waymo has proven N and N+1 capability, meanwhile
| Tesla has yet to prove N, and has lied to consumers and
| actually reduced their chances at achieving N due to cost
| cutting measures.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > Waymo has proven driverless operations in Chandler, then
| Downtown Phoenix, then San Francisco.
|
| And how many years did that take. Are they adding
| profitable operations in new cities year after year, with
| every year adding new cities?
|
| As far as I can see they simply lose billion and billions
| of $ for no real success in actually having a product.
|
| Tesla is actually using the technology to improve its Level
| 2 systems and make money with it.
|
| > meanwhile Tesla has yet to prove N
|
| First of all, Waymo has not proven N, because they don't
| make money on any of these things.
|
| Tesla at least try to drive in N+10000000 other cases and
| navigate many of them without seeing them first.
|
| If you have to go one by one threw every single city in the
| world its not clear to me that this is a better approach
| then solving a more general problem.
|
| > reduced their chances at achieving N due to cost cutting
| measures
|
| Tesla just made 3 billion $ of profit in a quarter. What
| cost cutting? They are currently doing major investments in
| upgraded sensors suits, upgraded data-centers and overall
| their team is still growing.
|
| How much did Waymo make again?
| dinobones wrote:
| Just because Tesla is profitable and making money by
| selling vehicles does not mean they are on a better path
| to engineering a self driving system than Waymo.
|
| The opposite is also true, just because Waymo does not
| make money does not reflect the capability of their self
| driving systems. Saying "Waymo has not proven N, because
| they don't make money on any of these things." doesn't
| make any sense, and is not even true.
|
| I can go to downtown Phoenix right now and request (and
| pay for) a fully self-driving ride from point A to point
| B. Teslas can not reliably complete any self driving
| route without any disengagements.
|
| We are discussing who is closer to realizing a fully
| self-driving system, not who runs a better business.
| simondotau wrote:
| > and have not shown any meaningful progress in the past ~5
| years
|
| Really? I've had some casual interest in the progress of
| FSD beta and the past six months alone has seen dramatic
| improvements to numerous adversarial situations.
|
| FSD beta is currently able to drive with confidence on
| unmarked roads at night in the rain, with only basic maps
| for wayfinding. This has been demonstrated by customers in
| their own cars, driving roads which haven't been vetted by
| the developers.
|
| I'm sure Waymo and other systems can do this too, but I
| haven't seen it demonstrated.
| guilamu wrote:
| "ot shown any meaningful progress in the past ~5 years nor
| any willingness to change from their "vision only, big
| data" strategy."
|
| I guess they did now that they can make their own cheap
| lidars and adding them back in 2023.
| daveguy wrote:
| Reversing the "cameras only" position is a step in the
| right direction. They are currently ~3 years behind
| collecting lidar data compared to Cruise / Waymo. I
| wonder if they'll be able to make it up with "ghost-
| rider" volume in 2023.
| RankingMember wrote:
| ? Where are you seeing that they're adding lidar? The big
| news recently was that they're going to bring back radar.
| vel0city wrote:
| > nor any willingness to change from their "vision only,
| big data" strategy.
|
| It sounds like they might actually be including a new radar
| system in January. Nothing official yet though from what
| I've seen.
|
| https://electrek.co/2022/12/06/tesla-radar-car-next-month-
| se...
| Laremere wrote:
| This is something that seems really important, and is
| definitely a significant effort, but actually is
| inconsequential.
|
| Think about a section of lightly used suburban road. The
| amount of work that went into making it involved was immense.
| A crew of road workers using expensive machines and large
| amounts of material were required to make it, and are
| required in it's maintenance. Don't forget the surveyors and
| engineers who made a highly detailed map and plans in the
| first place! (Though that map format isn't useful to self
| driving cars).
|
| Also consider the sheer number of cars that drive that patch
| in a day. One car every few minutes adds up over hours, days,
| months, years.
|
| So, yeah they have to drive a mapping car down the street a
| bunch of times to expand their coverage area. However this is
| insignificant compared to the effort that goes into our
| transportation infrastructure already.
| crote wrote:
| Not to mention that Google Street View has demonstrated
| that such effort is viable even with way less incentive!
|
| Besides, most miles driven are spent on highways and other
| town-connecting roads. To the average consumer, self-
| driving cars are way more interesting for commuting or
| long-distance travel than they are for a 5-minute drive to
| the supermarket.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The cars themselves have the hardware necessary to make an HD
| map.
|
| That means that Tesla could make an HD map covering 95% of
| miles driven in the USA within a week with their fleet of
| users. And next week they could make an updated version of
| the same map.
|
| So, making and updating an HD map isn't an issue.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Tesla cars do not have LIDAR sensors. The downside risk is
| that high resolution imaging using multiple sensors is a
| requirement for level 5 AVs to work well enough. That means
| all the data Tesla has collected could be of limited value.
| HereBeBeasties wrote:
| I created some 3D models of a real world building and
| surrounding environment using photogrammetry from 20+
| megapixel DSLR photos and decided the accuracy was totally
| inadequate and the artefacts were too hard to manually
| clean up.
|
| I then hired a dude with a LIDAR scanner and did it
| properly. The difference in quality/accuracy is like 120x80
| ASF video files in 1996 compared to 4K footage today.
|
| Anyone who thinks you can build "HD" virtual worlds using
| the crappy cameras on a Tesla needs their heads examining.
| Maybe with thousands of passes and some epic compute and
| signal processing, but why bother? Just LIDAR it.
|
| My Tesla can't even decide if a traffic light is a single
| traffic light or not on a sunny summer's day from a
| distance of twenty feet. Almost every time it is either
| dark or humid or winter (road grime) it tells me one or
| more cameras are obscured. But only after I've already
| started driving, obviously. This supposedly cutting edge AI
| driving machine frequently thinks I'm leaving the
| carriageway on UK B-roads (it's almost dangerous) and is
| significantly less reliable at distance cruise control and
| lane-assist than my Skoda. (I presume VW just quietly
| bought a black box from Bosch or whoever to do this.)
|
| Tesla are barking up the wrong tree IMO. At this point the
| camera-only stance feels like a religious thing, not based
| on sanity or the real practical world. I imagine that
| someone came to Elon and said "reconciling conflicting
| radar and camera signals is hard" and he applied his
| considerable genius and issued an edict to "let's not do
| that then!" like it would magically make all the actual
| hard problems go away.
|
| Heck, Teslas can't even seem to reliably parallel park
| themselves, frequently getting stuck halfway, or hitting
| kerbs. If they can't solve that highly constrained problem,
| I'm hardly going to trust taking my eyes off it at 70mph.
| codenesium wrote:
| 99% of the time it doesn't kill you isn't what we're shooting
| for.
| daveguy wrote:
| With 1.5 fatalities per 100,000,000 miles[0], the benchmark
| to meet is 99.9999985% of the time it doesn't kill you.
| Injuries are going to be a lot higher, obviously. Still, I
| think most self-driving enthusiasts underestimate the bar
| that needs to be crossed wrt safety. And general vehicle
| safety isn't going to remain stagnant. I think it's going
| to be a cost vs injuries tradeoff for quite a while until
| we get human-level or better self-driving safety in all
| circumstances.
|
| [0]https://www.statista.com/statistics/193018/number-of-us-
| cras...
| margalabargala wrote:
| Waymo currently works with HD maps.
|
| Tesla currently works not at all.
|
| It's not valid to compare Waymo's current capability
| unfavorably to a version of Tesla's capability that only
| exists in someone's head.
|
| I would bet on Waymo working on a dirt road before Tesla
| does.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| ??
|
| Literally a Tesla with FSD working well on a dirt road:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv1l6aTnB_I
| margalabargala wrote:
| Fair enough; my "not at all" was hyperbole, Tesla's
| driver assistance software does not in fact crash every
| single time it is used without human intervention.
|
| I do find it mildly disturbing that in that video, the
| driver points out the car making fully blind turns where
| it cannot see that there's nothing it would hit.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| my dumb car "works" for self driving assuming a straight
| enough road without obstacles. A safety critical system
| needs to have a very robust definition of "works" that is
| far beyond "it happened to not crash on this particular
| road at this particular time with this particular set of
| obstacles".
| paxys wrote:
| I like the level 5 or bust approach taken by Waymo and Cruise.
| Anything in the middle (like what Tesla is doing) is IMO more
| dangerous than useful. The whole "the car is self-driving but
| you must also pay attention and have your hands on the wheel at
| all times" thing is idiotic.
| jvolkman wrote:
| Here's Chris Urmson talking about this 7 years ago when he
| was still working on (what is now) Waymo:
| https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=169
| Justsignedup wrote:
| Humans are notoriously bad at just paying attention and not
| being in charge. Those few seconds their actual attention is
| needed are critical.
|
| I do appreciate that my car can do full distance control and
| assist if I am drifting, but it doesn't control itself, so I
| can never disengage. Personally I feel that this is wonderful
| and should be the limit. Anything past that should just be
| fully autonomous. Otherwise you're asking for trouble.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| 100%. If I'm driving and my attention wanders, I need the
| _immediate_ feedback of drifting out of the lane and having
| to abruptly course correct, and being like "dang yeah,
| let's not do that again", possibly reinforced by passengers
| scowling at me from elsewhere in the vehicle.
|
| I can't imagine trying to focus on supervising an AI pilot
| without that kind of feedback.
| xplanephil wrote:
| interestingly, I don't have much trouble with that, as it
| works exactly like most airplanes that I fly as a pilot.
|
| An airplane autopilot is a dumb device, in that it does
| execute _exactly_ the plan you tell it to, and it is up
| to the pilot to at all times decide whether the current
| plan still makes sense or needs to be altered. So the
| pilot makes the strategic decisions, and leaves most of
| the physical tasks of flying to the autopilot.
|
| I find myself using my M3 w/FSD in exactly the same way,
| as that I put on autosteer pretty much immediately when
| I'm out of the driveway, but I constantly nudge it into
| the lane that I want it to be in (by using the turn
| signal) or push the accelerator when I think it is taking
| too long pondering a turn. So i leave the physical
| driving (keep lane and distance) to the car but manage
| the car to always go exactly where I want it.
|
| I have no trouble staying alert this way when doing
| medium long drives. Long highway drives where autopilot
| is so good that it requires no manual interaction is
| where the trouble starts and I find it hard to keep
| paying attention.
|
| This is where in an airplane you have a copilot and can
| discuss strategic things like overnight stops, fuel
| stops, etc... Maybe Tesla needs a built-in chatbot to
| make me do that :)
| mtgx wrote:
| jsnell wrote:
| Aren't they geofenced, which would make them level 4?
| redox99 wrote:
| > Anything in the middle (like what Tesla is doing) is IMO
| more dangerous than useful.
|
| Even if a hypothetical, future Tesla FSD sometimes crashes in
| ways that could be prevented had the driver payed attention,
| it could still be statistically safer than a fully human
| driver (ie the number of FSD crashes even if left unattended
| < the number of crashes by humans driving).
|
| To clarify, I'm not talking about the current state of FSD,
| I'm talking about a hypothetical, future Level 3.
| paxys wrote:
| Doing such aggregations is pointless. The majority of
| traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers, drivers who
| are too young/too old, people on their phones or otherwise
| distracted, people driving in bad conditions, people
| driving unsafe cars etc. So yes, while Tesla autopilot may
| be better than all of them on average, I will still only
| use it if it is better than ME.
| redox99 wrote:
| > I will still only use it if it is better than ME.
|
| You're free to not use it. But if Tesla FSD is safer than
| the average driver (even if that's because the average
| driver is on their phone) then, going back to your
| statement, it _is_ more useful than dangerous for the
| average driver.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >Anything in the middle (like what Tesla is doing) is IMO
| more dangerous than useful
|
| Intuitively I would have agreed with you, except Tesla has
| been doing it for years and their cars are statistically
| safer by every metric (fatalities, indicents, etc.).
| twiceaday wrote:
| > their cars are statistically safer by every metric
|
| Compared to what population? Older, tech-savvy people
| buying 60k-120k usd vehicles? And do you mean in full self-
| driving mode Beta, which Tesla won't allow you to use
| unless you have a track record of save driving?
| peder wrote:
| I suspect the below-"Level 5" driving systems will become
| more of an "augmented driving". I've driven in newer vehicles
| with automatic lane centering, pedestrian detection, etc. and
| they don't really seem like they're even doing anything, you
| still feel like you're the one driving, except that it's more
| precise with the occasional interruption by the car when it
| perceives risk of a collision.
|
| These augmented systems will probably reduce the risk of
| accidents so greatly that the value proposition for Level 5
| driving systems just won't be there.
| chime wrote:
| > These augmented systems will probably reduce the risk of
| accidents so greatly that the value proposition for Level 5
| driving systems just won't be there.
|
| I've driven a lot for decades and frankly enjoy driving. I
| drove from TPA to SLC via PHX and back for fun. But I will
| pay $500/mo level-5 subscription for a comfortable car that
| drives itself.
| oangemangut wrote:
| I'm trying to figure out how many hours a month are you
| in a vehicle where that makes sense for you?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Having level 5 available honestly opens up tons of
| options that were not available before. A 90 minute
| commute is so much more palatable when you can be
| sleeping. So are road-trips.
| david_allison wrote:
| That's $17/day. If it gives you an extra hour a day and
| eliminates driving-based stress then it seems very well
| priced. Especially if it includes the car
| dpkirchner wrote:
| $500 seems reasonable compared to loan payments, full
| insurance, and parking. The math may not make as much
| sense if you would otherwise own your car outright,
| though.
| amf12 wrote:
| > These augmented systems will probably reduce the risk of
| accidents so greatly that the value proposition for Level 5
| driving systems just won't be there.
|
| The value proposition of L5 systems is also the _not
| driving_ part.
| Animats wrote:
| "Augmented driving" is Level 2. That's where commercial
| products (GM, Mercedes, Tesla) are now.
|
| Volvo was talking about level 3 back in 2017, but they gave
| up.[1] Level 3 means that the system may ask the driver to
| take over, but if the driver does not do so, the system
| must get the vehicle to a safe condition. Preferably pulled
| over out of traffic, but as least stopped without hitting
| anything. The driver is not required to watch the road.
|
| The serious players are trying to get to level 4, where the
| driver is not expected to take over but the set of roads
| you can use is limited.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q00jIBhkq4
| peder wrote:
| The leveling system is a bit off. Level 3 doesn't mean
| "better" than Level 2. A Level 2 system might actually
| offer the best safety profile of any of the Levels.
| That's what I'm getting at: there's a lot of runway in
| Level 2 systems, and I think they'll be so good that it
| will kill momentum for Level 3+ systems.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes. Eliminating or vastly reducing the head-on
| collisions caused by drivers drifting across the center
| line, and the rear-end collisions where they don't see
| the stopped or slow car ahead of them, are a huge win.
| I'd trade full self-driving for really effective lane
| departure warnings and auto-braking collision avoidance
| any day of the week. Next step (or included) would be
| reacting to red lights/stop signs if it appears that the
| driver is not stopping. Deal with those things well and
| you've eliminated the causes of most serious accidents.
| masklinn wrote:
| The problem is that when a level 2 system gets too smart
| it can confuse drivers and lead to bad reactions in
| response.
|
| e.g. let's say you have a level 2 system which starts
| auto-evading, suddenly steering without user input, the
| user is likely to reflexively try counter-steering in
| response.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I think Mercedes has level 4 on highways now? I think
| this is the way forward actually, let cars drive cars
| themselves on the long boring bits (which are actually
| easy for AI) and leave the driving to the humans
| everywhere else. Having tried many augmented systems I
| don't believe in self driving in varied conditions within
| 10 years. I think the locations where waymo operates is a
| good indication of what is possible at the moment.
| peder wrote:
| I'll also add that I think what Waymo is doing right now is
| closer to a semi-autonomous streetcar. There's probably
| immense value in that approach, especially as an
| alternative to mass-transit systems that have costly labor,
| but it's not clear that they are imminently close to
| "anywhere, anytime" self-driving.
| babelfish wrote:
| What does 'win' mean here? It seems like being able to pass on
| the costs of fleet management, insurance, gas, parking/storage,
| etc to drivers (the way taxis/ride sharing apps currently do)
| will always be cheaper than maintaining it yourself, even if
| you save on the driver fees.
| paxys wrote:
| This would imply that Uber/Lyft drivers on average are losing
| money by being on the service, which is obviously not the
| case. Having a large fleet of driverless taxis, even if you
| have to maintain them yourself, will be a very profitable
| business. There are other potential revenue sources as well,
| like licensing the tech to car manufacturers.
| just-ok wrote:
| _> obviously not the case_
|
| This is a strong claim. I thought there was a decent body
| of evidence that suggested most drivers make much less
| money than they think, when you take
| depreciation/repairs/etc. into account?
| kibwen wrote:
| At the rate things are going right now, Waymo will win when
| Tesla throws in the towel on developing in-house and licenses
| Waymo's tech in order to finally deliver on full self-
| driving.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| They are also Chinese solutions in that space like Baidu
| Apollo.
| moonchrome wrote:
| Tesla already sold self driving for years - waymo uses way
| more sensors than a camera from what I can tell - not only
| would that bump unit cost they would probably have to
| upgrade previous customers due to their marketing.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| and fuck with the aerodynamics - causing drag on the
| cars, decreasing range.
|
| LIDR isnt an option.
| cycomanic wrote:
| That highly depends on the lidar system. All players are
| working a lot on minaturizing LIDAR systems and they
| fundamentally don't have to be as big as the waymo
| systems.
| someotherperson wrote:
| > not only would that bump unit cost they would probably
| have to upgrade previous customers due to their
| marketing.
|
| Only if they don't change they name. They can call it an
| upgraded RealDrive(tm) QuantumSense(tm) feature that no
| longer requires having your hands on the wheel.
| hobofan wrote:
| How things are going right now, I'd be surprised if anyone
| will be willing to license Tesla's tech.
| siquick wrote:
| One reason to introduce self driving cars is to hopefully remove
| the number of SUVs from city roads, which are only driven by
| people because they're "safer and protect me". At best they're an
| absolute nuisance to every other car and pedestrian, and at worse
| they're absolute death traps that clog up roads.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The self driving cars will be SUV or CUV at a minimum and there
| will be more of them, not less.
| akira2501 wrote:
| The fact that they don't highlight any night testing is
| troubling, and that they have a single closed course facility in
| a place where it never snows.
|
| I often wonder if these companies are truly trying to
| revolutionize driving, or just trying to put a couple of "Johnny
| Cabs" in the southwest and call it a day. Their strategy really
| does seem geared towards the latter outcome.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Waymo has been testing in other cities, including ones with
| snow, for years.
|
| One example: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10/waymo-starts-
| testing-in...
| abhorrence wrote:
| Recently there have been Waymo vehicles out on the streets in
| the Seattle area. I even saw one driving around the day it was
| snowing here.
|
| I suspect we'll start seeing more training and testing in
| places with less nice weather as time goes on.
| kibwen wrote:
| Night isn't especially concerning for vehicles that have more
| sensors than simply cameras; headlights and infrared cameras
| exist. Rather, dealing with winter conditions seem like the
| reason that these will be confined to the southwest.
| dvirsky wrote:
| It could just be that night testing doesn't look as good in a
| blog post.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Night isn't especially concerning for vehicles that have
| more sensors than simply cameras
|
| This is precisely the type of presumptions I'd like to see
| tested. I mean, if you're going to go to the trouble of all
| this and have a 118 acre road course, it seems the height of
| hubris to just say "well, the sensors will probably be better
| than cameras at night."
|
| It's amazing to me that on Hacker News people people have
| this puritanical embarrassment over obvious technical
| questions.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| Oh this is definitely false!
|
| Night is very concerning and is a problem for computer vision
| systems.
|
| During the day illumination is fairly consistent. Sure the
| sun moves around, but it's not a spotlight. At night,
| illumination varies a lot. A detector that works during the
| day may not work at all at night. This is no joke, there are
| papers that show dramatic performance losses for tasks like
| pedestrian detection at night.
|
| Cameras are worse at night. They need to be more sensitive
| which dramatically increases their noise. They may need to
| have longer exposures leading to blur, which is of course
| made worse if you are moving the camera.
|
| Headlights also don't provide the same visibility so your
| reactions must be faster. Reflections are a big problem too.
| Oncoming headlights are also an issue.
|
| Nighttime testing will be critical.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| >Cameras are worse at night. They need to be more sensitive
| which dramatically increases their noise.
|
| This is solved by having multiple sensors. Nighttime is
| really not a problem, especially given the broad spectrum
| and LIDAR.
| jack_pp wrote:
| These speech recognition systems don't really work that well
| when there's a lot of speakers present, talking over one
| another. Are these researchers even trying to revolutionize
| speech recognition? it seems their only goal is to make speech
| recognition work with one speaker in a silent room and call it
| a day.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I think the safety margin between a speaker and a car are two
| entirely different things. If your smart speaker fails to
| work for you, this does not offer any potential to harm me.
|
| I think it's worth putting them into different classes, don't
| you/
| jack_pp wrote:
| Research and all tech advancements are done in increments,
| there's no other way about it. I see no point in tackling
| rough weather conditions when the basics aren't even
| finished. Of course for the product to actually hit the
| roads it needs to be held to a very high standard but
| that's beside the point. You were criticizing their
| progress, even though we know they don't have a final
| product yet and they're probably some ways off.
|
| It's like criticizing the Wright Brothers, saying stuff
| like "meh, they barely were off the ground, who cares"
| STM32F030R8 wrote:
| What does that have to do with self driving cars? These are
| meant to be used on roads in varied conditions. Your comment
| isn't applicable.
| pb7 wrote:
| Some conditions don't exist in many places. Someone can
| have a self-driving car and use it for life in Arizona and
| it doesn't matter that it wouldn't work in Alaska. It's
| still progress and still useful to a subset of people.
| Hell, even a car that works 9 months out of the year in the
| Northeast would be useful. Don't see too many bikes out
| when it's -5 degrees but no one is claiming bikes aren't
| useful.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| To be fair I have seen a large number of people say that
| bikes aren't useful because they can't perform a
| supercommute or can't be used when it's below 0.
| xnx wrote:
| Waymo and Tesla's approach to self-driving could not be more
| different. One of the scariest parts about Tesla is that they
| don't even seem to know what they don't know. In related news: It
| looks like Tesla may add radar back:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/12/12/tesla-...
| freedom-fries wrote:
| The thing is - nobody cares!
|
| People can scream bloody murder till the cows come home, but
| Tesla for all its faults is king of the hill - literally more
| valuable the rest of the car industry combined. Musk is the
| invincible and irrespective of any shortcomings he's literally
| the richest person on Earth.
|
| Tesla's approach is demonstrably the best approach in the court
| of the customer, irrespective of what we (others on the road)
| think or are put at risk.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Market cap has absolutely no relation to the "court of the
| customer", nor should it in terms of what safety features we
| allow or disallow.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| "we (others on the road)" is not "nobody", and we definitely
| care. The law is supposed to intervene in tragedy of the
| commons cases like this for precisely this reason. The free
| market is known to have a few blind spots and this is one of
| them.
| stardenburden wrote:
| > literally the richest person on Earth
|
| Not anymore https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63963239
| bdcravens wrote:
| "invincible"? He has literally lost over $100B this year.
|
| Tesla's market share is eroding every year, and is expected
| to decline to less than 20% by 2025.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/29/teslas-dominance-of-evs-
| is-e....
|
| There are plenty of people like me, who are choosing non-
| Teslas when they buy EVs.
| macawfish wrote:
| He sucks
| [deleted]
| adrr wrote:
| They need to add radar back. Ability to "see" slow downs or
| stopped traffic even if your vision is obscured is a great
| benefit for self driving.
| freedom-fries wrote:
| That's your opinion, but Tesla does not "need" to add
| anything from the point of view of actual Tesla customers!
|
| Tesla cars are selling faster than they can make them and
| adding a Radar will slow down the manufacturing, not make it
| faster.
| RankingMember wrote:
| > Tesla cars are selling faster than they can make them
|
| If this is true, why are they reportedly cutting production
| and offering incentives? If they were booked solid, no
| incentives would be needed.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/tesla-...
|
| > Radar will slow down the manufacturing, not make it
| faster.
|
| ? They are adding radar, though:
| https://electrek.co/2022/12/06/tesla-radar-car-next-month-
| se...
| threeseed wrote:
| > adding a Radar will slow down the manufacturing, not make
| it faster
|
| Tesla told the FCC that it plans to market a new radar
| starting next month.
|
| https://electrek.co/2022/12/06/tesla-radar-car-next-month-
| se...
| appletrotter wrote:
| Tesla is currently being sued by actual customers based on
| this exact issue. They've promised FSD, and can't deliver
| it - especially without lidar.
| threeseed wrote:
| They need LiDAR. The biggest problem for FSD is still around
| bounding box detection.
|
| I just don't believe that you can infer the dimensions of
| objects using stereoscopic images with a reliability that you
| need to make FSD work.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| How do our eyes work?
| threeseed wrote:
| By us constantly moving them around in three dimensions
| unlike a car.
|
| And also having a computer behind them that deeply
| understands what an object is, the forms it should take
| and what its expected behaviour should be. We don't ever
| confuse billboards for real people.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >By us constantly moving them around in three dimensions
| unlike a car.
|
| Fair but to compensate the car has many more cameras than
| we do.
| vel0city wrote:
| For looking forward Tesla's have three fixed cameras
| looking from the rear view mirror. All the other cameras
| do not have stereoscopic vision and are not looking
| forward. A camera looking out from a side pillar isn't
| helping gauge the distance to something far up the road.
|
| On top of that these cameras can't move, can't be re-
| aimed, and have generally far worse dynamic range than
| our eyes.
| RankingMember wrote:
| Our eyes work in concert with a supercomputer accessing
| huge stores of contextual data (far eclipsing anything in
| a Tesla neural database) to understand and react to
| unique situations.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| Rather poorly, given the rate of traffic accidents by
| humans.
| vel0city wrote:
| Far more complex sensors than cameras attached to some of
| the most complicated and least understood processing
| systems running a general intelligence with millions and
| millions of years of training.
|
| Also, when you're in the car, you probably move your head
| more than you realize. Moving your head around and
| looking around also gives you better understandings of
| distance. Far more than a couple of cameras feeding a few
| megapixel images into a ML model.
| xnx wrote:
| Why make the difficult task of self-driving any harder,
| by artificially limiting the sensors you use? Planes have
| rigid aluminum wings and jet engines instead of bone
| muscle and feathers.
| [deleted]
| leesec wrote:
| And one of the scariest parts of Waymo is that they may never
| ship and it'll be 20 billion dollars down the drain
| marricks wrote:
| I mean, that's good though right? If it doesn't work it
| doesn't work. Worst comes to worst taxi drivers still have a
| job.
| leesec wrote:
| I think you mean, worst comes to worst 1.35 million people
| still die in traffic accidents every year.
| michael1999 wrote:
| I don't understand what you mean. Doesn't the Phoenix launch
| count? They've definitely shipped something to prod.
| nova22033 wrote:
| But Tesla's software version is 10.69.x....69...get it...LOL!!
| [deleted]
| jeffbee wrote:
| I agree. Tesla FSD has so many obvious limitations that can be
| worked out on closed courses that it has no legitimate reason
| to be tested on public roads. For example, it cannot drive
| directly into the sun. That's a flaw they could work out on the
| test track (by adding different sensors). There needs to be
| regulatory intervention to force FSD off the road.
| taf2 wrote:
| Curious you mention this I was using it this morning driving
| directly into the Sun... even without our lanes painted after
| they repaved the roads it kept me in the right part of the
| road and even engaged the turn signal automatically as it
| stopped at the traffic light before our right turn... I know
| they had issues with direct Sun few years ago but it would
| seem to me driving with it enabled into the sun works just
| fine...
| jeffbee wrote:
| https://youtu.be/DMa9VrEoUoY?t=420
| taf2 wrote:
| Yeah, I see that is a pretty intense road and
| situation... my road is much much straighter... I'll try
| to capture it and share definitely not difficult...
| appletrotter wrote:
| What is a "pretty intense road and situation" for you is
| some people's daily commute.
| palm-tree wrote:
| How is this an intense road? It looks pretty wide and
| clear of traffic with a few parked cars. If it can't
| handle this, it's got no chance in an average city in
| Western Europe.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Might've been because it perfectly obscured the straight-
| ahead view, given the hills where he's driving. While not
| perfect, the lenses on Tesla's forward-facing camera is
| good at retaining detail if the sun is above eyeline. htt
| ps://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1200626377097129984?
| ...
| bhauer wrote:
| Which is consistent with what they had said at the time when
| they removed the low-resolution radar they had been using.
| Specifically, they had said that radar would be useful if it
| were sufficiently high resolution. The radar in the works and
| rumored to be added soon is anticipated to be high resolution.
| ajross wrote:
| I don't see how that's supported here? I mean, clearly Tesla
| does its own closed-track testing. I've seen coverage of that
| in the past. They don't release public software the doesn't
| pass these kinds of tests. Likewise it's not like Waymo
| restricts their testing to closed tracks, they have vehicles on
| the streets too.
|
| > One of the scariest parts about Tesla is that they don't even
| seem to know what they don't know.
|
| I'm curious what the reference here is? Again, are you taking
| coverage of Waymo's test environment as evience of its absence
| at its competitors?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Tesla claims they are safer than human drivers by fudging
| statistics about accidents per mile.
|
| Waymo describes in detail how they test their algorithm
| against specific scenarios and makes statements about those
| experiments.
|
| One company is trying to sell you cars and telling you what
| you want to hear, the other company is extremely careful with
| their statements.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > fudging statistics about accidents per mile.
|
| How? The only problem with this page[0] is that they
| haven't released 2022 stats. Otherwise:
|
| > To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any
| crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds
| before impact, and we count all crashes in which the
| incident alert indicated an airbag or other active
| restraint deployed.
|
| 0: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| That "vehicle safety report" is 70 words, none of which
| answer the question of "how many crashes were there" or
| "how many people were injured or killed." One of the few
| numbers they give us, the percentage of incidents/hour
| for driving "with active safety but without autopilot,"
| bounces around by like a factor of two from quarter to
| quarter, which doesn't make any sense. Literally every
| provided number is in Tesla's favor, and context is only
| provided in ways favorable to Tesla.
|
| This is a press release, not a safety report.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| Tesla's FSD is so terrifyingly bad at routine tasks (I used
| it for six months before giving up) that it's natural to
| assume whatever closed track testing they did was
| ineffective. Or perhaps they did a lot, I don't know--but it
| doesn't feel like many of those lessons learned made it into
| the "production" system.
| jsight wrote:
| I really like AP in general, but for FSD Beta, I tend to
| agree. I've seen enough mistakes from even the really
| careful Youtubers that I don't understand why its still in
| the field.
|
| And those are the mistakes that they were willing to show!
| To be clear, I mean situations where the driver needed to
| take over but either didn't, or didn't in sufficient time
| to avoid an illegal or dangerous maneuver.
| simondotau wrote:
| From what I can tell of people posting FSD videos on
| YouTube, they are actively seeking adversarial conditions
| with a desire to show where it fails. I'm sure there are
| some YouTubers that are trying to sugarcoat FSD, but I
| haven't seen any.
| jsight wrote:
| I partially agree. I mean, I find dirty tesla's videos to
| be pretty fair.
|
| Having said that, he's also been really clear that the
| video doesn't always make it obvious just how many
| aspects of FSD are just plain weird. Even when its not
| actively failing, it moves in odd ways that are
| uncomfortable.
|
| He's also said that earlier versions resulted in curbed
| wheels.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| There's no reference. It's just fashionable to hate on
| anything associated with Elon at the moment.
| mannykannot wrote:
| While both Waymo and Tesla are testing vehicles on the
| streets, and have done so for some time, their approaches
| could hardly be more different.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > They don't release public software the doesn't pass these
| kinds of tests.
|
| Do we actually know that this is true? October of last year
| "internal QA" found regressions on an already public release
| and they rolled out an update in less than 24 hours after
| that was published. Both the fact that it was already public
| when QA found an issue and that they were able to push new
| public version in such a short time seems to me like they
| don't necessarily have a release gauntlet for each version,
| or at least not a very robust one.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/tesla-rolled-back-fsd-
| beta-v...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I'm honestly curious what test tracks Tesla uses. Do they
| just rent private tracks for their road testing before it
| gets to public beta? It clearly isn't done onroad by safety
| drivers.
|
| GM has Milford and Yuma + others, Waymo has Castle, Zoox uses
| Altamont Raceway, Nuro has a track at the Vegas speedway. I
| can't imagine Tesla's small Fremont loop and their winter
| track in Fairbanks are sufficient.
| [deleted]
| panick21_ wrote:
| The really scary part is actually the one nobody in these
| comments seems to address. We are letting humans drive these
| things with barley any training on roads that are terrible
| designed for safety of the people around the vehicles.
|
| This utter disaster of a situation leads to 10000s of deaths
| that has well known solutions.
|
| But instead of preventing these deaths with well known low tech
| solution, a super expensive technological holy grail is gone
| somehow fix those problems.
| mabbo wrote:
| I think the problem we have with self-driving cars is more social
| than technological at this point.
|
| Consider the hypothetical: a million self-driving cars on the
| road that, collectively, will have 1/10th of the fatal accidents
| that human drivers would have[0]. _But_ , the ones they _do_ have
| are accidents a human driver would almost certainly have avoided.
|
| Is this something we would accept?
|
| My guess is that no, we wouldn't. Because the accidents avoided
| don't make the news, but the accidents that occur- especially
| ones that you say "my god, how did it screw that up?" will make
| the news, and our perception would be that they are more
| dangerous.
|
| Until Waymo's cars are better than most humans _in every single
| situation_ , they won't be able to win over the public perception
| war.
|
| [0]I'm making those numbers up. I acknowledge that. But it's a
| hypothetical so give me some leeway on this!
| amelius wrote:
| It's not necessarily true for people who think they are in the
| 99th percentile of best drivers.
| tim333 wrote:
| So far people have been pretty good about accepting self
| driving cars, even the Teslas on autopilot that crash into
| parked trucks quite regularly.
| qwezxcrty wrote:
| Why self-driving trains are much easier to implement, yet there
| are not that many systems capable of doing that? Many newer
| metro lines are GoA 2 or 3, theoretically capable of running
| autonomously, but they always require a driver in the loop.
|
| My partial answer is, making an extremely reliable system is
| hard. If someone wrote a deadly bug even only happen at a very
| corner case, it still can kill people. And it's quite hard to
| prove there isn't such bugs.
| konschubert wrote:
| Regulations. Nobody ever got fired for buying microsoft or
| for requiring a driver in the seat.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| A bigger problem is this: Say you need to prove to the public
| that the autonomous car is significantly safer, and you do an
| apples-to-apples comparison between a hypothetical Level 4/5
| car and well designed new Level 2 electric car like a Volvo C40
| or a BMW i4.
|
| The modern Level 2 car is already today at below 1 fatality per
| billion vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The autonomous car then
| needs to be below 0.1 fatalities per billion VMT. Meaning that
| if you have 1 million vehicles of your make deployed, they each
| need to have driven 30-40 000 miles autonomously before you
| have enough statistics!
|
| That means _proving_ the safety of a Level 4 /5 autonomous
| system is extremely expensive and slow, and requires
| significant public adoption before it's proven to be safe. The
| consequence is that, _assuming_ proven safety is necessary
| before public adoption, it becomes impossible to prove safety.
|
| Another point is that OTA upgrades for autonomy become entirely
| pointless, as you'll be polluting your statistics if you change
| the code more frequently than every ~3 years.
| cipheredStones wrote:
| > The modern Level 2 car is already today at below 1 fatality
| per billion vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
|
| Does this statistic count fatalities to people outside the
| car? I ask because (in the US, at least) car safety ratings
| don't take those into consideration.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > in the US, at least) car safety ratings don't take those
| into consideration
|
| Which ratings? The NHTSA does include non-occupant
| fatalities in their statistics. E.g.
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-
| data...
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| I think you'd use crashes, not fatalities.
| rwmj wrote:
| My semi-serious suggestion is self-driving cars should be
| painted bright orange with big squishy bumpers and a maximum 20
| mph speed limit. They would still be perfectly useful as taxis
| in big cities but it would greatly limit the damage they could
| do to anyone.
| alphabetting wrote:
| If 10% of the time they got into accidents humans would have
| avoided we wouldn't be where we are today. I can't imagine any
| scenarios where these cars get in accidents that a human would
| have certainly avoided. You also say avoided accidents don't
| make the news but I'm pretty sure footage of them avoiding
| accidents that humans would have no chance of will be a major
| part of their marketing.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| >I can't imagine any scenarios where these cars get in
| accidents that a human would have certainly avoided.
|
| Then you've not been following the space. The one that
| immediately comes into mind is the Tesla that slammed into
| the side of the semi truck because it was painted blue like
| the sky.
| alphabetting wrote:
| I've been following it pretty closely. I don't consider
| Teslas to be anywhere near self driving. By saying "these
| cars" I was referring to Waymo.
| brightball wrote:
| Another part of this is that driving is a lot of fun. People
| (like me) really enjoy it and definitely wouldn't give it up
| easily.
| lynx23 wrote:
| You're hitting the nail spot on with this one for me. As a
| blind pedestrian, I very much feel I am in danger of falling
| into exactly that group of potential victims you are hinting
| at. Right now, I have the illusive comfort of the
| "Vertrauensgrundsaatz" which basically tells every driver
| obtaining a drivers licence that they need to take special care
| when it comes to disabled pedestrians. Sure, one might say
| these new self driving systems will "just" have to follow that
| same rule as well, but I am very much doubtful this is
| technically possible. So currently, I feel like the drive to
| put innovation on the streets and pull money out of pockets is
| actually actively endangering me in the future. Not very bright
| outlook I must say.
| nicbou wrote:
| By your use of German, I assume that you experience a far
| higher driving standard than people in North America and
| frankly most of the world, and even that is far from perfect.
|
| The Vertrauensgrundsatz does not account for distracted,
| tired and inebriated drivers.
| [deleted]
| konschubert wrote:
| As a pedestrian who isn't disabled but just inattentive and
| erratic, I know I will feel much safer around 100 waymo cars
| than 100 human cars.
| jjeaff wrote:
| My guess is that self driving cars are already far, far
| better than human drivers at not hitting pedestrians.
| [deleted]
| krferriter wrote:
| My guess is that it depends a lot on the driver. There are
| a lot of really reckless drivers, or really bad drivers out
| there on the roads right now. I know people who've been in
| several (relatively minor) car crashes, driving the same-
| ish sort of route to/from college and work that I was
| during the same period. I think they're just a bad driver.
| I feel like they're driving recklessly when I'm a passenger
| in a car they're driving. So a self-driving car might be a
| better driver than them, while also being worse than the
| median driver, and much much worse than like the upper
| portion of the human driver spectrum, like the 1st quintile
| of the 20% of human drivers who are pretty good.
|
| Given how reckless some drivers are, I'd imagine the
| distribution of crashes among drivers is very skewed. I
| don't know numbers, but I'd expect to see something like
| 80% of car crashes involving (or objectively caused by) 20%
| of the drivers, with most car crashes involving people who
| have been involved in numerous crashes, and a large
| minority of drivers having been involved in zero car
| crashes.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > My guess is that it depends a lot on the driver.
|
| There is a lot of variation in drivers. Young ones with
| good reflexes and senses but bad on experience, old ones
| with worse reflexes and senses but better on experience.
| Ones that stop at stop signs, ones that blow through them
| if they think they can get away with it. Cities like New
| Orleans where drivers are much more aggressive because
| the cops don't care, etc...
| bandyaboot wrote:
| I think the important point is that self driving cars are
| likely better than the averaged real world group of
| existing human drivers at avoiding pedestrians.
| alexose wrote:
| This is one reason I never understood Tesla's vision-based
| approach. In order to be accepted, self-driving cars don't need
| to be just somewhat better than humans most of the time. They
| need to vastly better in _every_ situation, as you mention, to
| the point that they 'll need every sensory advantage they can
| get.
|
| I got out of a ticket once because I didn't see a "no through
| traffic" sign against a bright sunset. No chance that same cop
| gives a self-driving car a pass, nor should he.
| jkeddo wrote:
| They are standing firm on the vision-only approach because it
| is the correct approach. FSD cannot be perfected unless the
| Tesla team puts 100% exclusive focus on perfecting vision
| based models that don't have lidar as a fallback. Tesla can
| only use lidar again for redundancy only after vision is
| fully solved problem.
|
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BurningTheShips
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Combing multiple sensory inputs is a hard problem in
| itself. Say Tesla uses LIDAR with vision...they can have a
| great vision experience, a great LIDAR experience, but
| fuses those two experiences together can create lots of
| problems that wind up being worse than either by itself.
| szundi wrote:
| Karpathy claimed they worked for years and could not reap the
| benefits from multiple sensors however hard they tried. He
| seemed really convinced and does not get to me as one who
| tells stuff just to justify cost reductions, like Elon
| sometimes is carried away.
| hackmiester wrote:
| The problem is, in reality, we have Tesla vehicles that
| sold with other sensors that are now disabled, and those
| cars are now very difficult to drive with any automation
| enabled, even simple cruise control, due to the limitations
| of vision-only driving. And this is leading to them
| slamming on brakes at inopportune times, blinding oncoming
| drivers with the bright headlights, etc. - issues that did
| not happen when other sensors were used.
| kiratp wrote:
| This claim is not true.
|
| As someone who drives a Tesla with the FSD beta, the
| vehicle has been getting progressively better since 2018.
|
| It's drives smoother and brakes more predictably dive
| they stopped using the front radar.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This claim is not true.
|
| As someone who owned a 2019 Tesla and who owns a 2023
| Tesla, the older car had better autopilot. It was
| starting to degrade in 2020. The new one is worse.
| Phantom braking was quite rare in 2019. The very first
| night I drove home the new car, it phantom braked on a
| lonely, empty stretch of I-5.
|
| I want the radar back.
| jkeddo wrote:
| FSD stack is disabled on highways. You are using the
| years old code. Beta v11 when it comes out will enable
| OP's FSD referenced improvements for highways.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| In reality, we have Tesla vehicles that sold with other
| sensors that are now disabled, and those cars are now
| better to drive with automation enabled than with the
| extraneous sensors, even simple cruise control is better
| and phantom braking is actually decreased vs spurious
| radar returns that existed previously, due to the
| limitations of low resolution radar. Auto high beams is
| now better at not blinding oncoming drivers with bright
| headlights, etc. - issues that happened all the time when
| other sensors were used previously.
| papertokyo wrote:
| How is your experience the direct opposite of the parent
| post, given the same change?
| kiratp wrote:
| Believe it or not, if you spend enough time with a Tesla,
| you quickly realize that actually detecting things is a
| solved problem.
|
| The thing they need to improve and are doing so rapidly
| is actual trajectory policy calculations.
|
| And that's not going to get better with more sensors
| seeing the same things it already sees.
| muglug wrote:
| It's also possible they weren't able to see benefits given
| the processors that were available to them at the time.
|
| It's also possible that they were so far behind Waymo in
| the journey to FSD that they weren't yet at a point where
| multiple sensors would make a significant difference.
| alexose wrote:
| This is my read on it as well. I listened to the same
| interview (it was definitely on the front page, if not at
| #1 for a while). I stepped away feeling like Karpathy had
| described a lot of good business reasons for not using
| other sensors, but not a lot of good technical reasons.
| Sensor fusion is hard, yes, but maybe not harder than
| perfectly re-projecting 2D pixel images into 3D vector
| space.
|
| Just my interpretation, but it felt to me like a hail
| mary because they were fully committed to being the first
| mover. Waiting around for LiDAR prices to come down would
| have meant that Waymo would have beat them.
| impulser_ wrote:
| I always thought it came down to two reason, costs and
| looks. Telsa has to sell a car people want to drive daily.
| They can't have a bunch of lidar sensors on their cars no
| one would buy them even if they could drive themselves.
| Also they would most likely cost a lot more due to lidar
| sensors not being cheap compared to normal cameras.
|
| Unlike Waymo who doesn't care about selling cars to people
| to drive daily. No one going to care that the taxi they are
| taking looks ugly as long as it get them to the place they
| are going for cheaper. The cost is also a less of a factor
| due to them being able to produce an income by charging
| people to ride in them.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > They can't have a bunch of lidar sensors on their cars
|
| Why not? There are production cars with lidar now that
| isn't the big spinning thing on top of the car.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| If you're referring to the Lex Friedman interview, at the
| start of his answer, he mentions it was a cost-based
| decision. And that _radar /ultrasonic_ wasn't worth it for
| them, due to the additional time it took. Not that it
| wasn't helpful, just more effort that could be better spent
| elsewhere.
| 10x_contrarian wrote:
| He clearly states that extra sensors "contribute noise
| and entropy into everything. And they bloat stuff."
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W1JBAfV4Io
|
| Essentially that trying to utilize multiple sensors
| cripples any progress (given that resources will never be
| infinite).
| righttoolforjob wrote:
| Then something else was the bottleneck at the time. It is
| very easy to prove that some sensors in some situations
| will be able to perceive things that other sensors cannot.
| In those situations the additional sensors are crucial
| first steps. I would guess the bottleneck is shitty
| reliance on statistical machine learning with a long tail
| of unhandled edge cases. Each case very uncommon, but in
| aggregate a very important sum.
| typon wrote:
| You are misunderstanding the situation. Karpathy claimed
| that sensor fusion of radar, sonar and vision isn't working
| well. He made no such claim about Lidar. Lidar is the
| sensor that is the crucial difference between Waymo and
| Tesla's approach to self driving.
| stergios wrote:
| The reason he claimed sensor fusion was not working well
| was due to vendor versioning. He claimed the same sensor
| from different manufacturing batches performed
| differently and thus needed to be re-characterized, which
| then has follow on effects in various math models.
| Multiply this by many sensors, and the need for
| replacement parts inventory for a decade or two and the
| problem becomes intractable was his claim on his most
| recent appearance on the LF podcast.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Almost sounds like a supply chain/manufacturing problem
| than a software problem.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Wasn't the Summon feature downgraded when they moved to a
| vision-only approach? One YT video I saw compared a version
| 1 and a more recent version and the vision-only wasn't able
| to do as much. Contradicts the idea additional sensors do
| not add value.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| One of my biggest concerns about Tesla's vision based
| approach is that it appears to be entirely about cutting
| costs. Nothing about it says they _actually_ think it is
| superior; the cameras on a Model 3 /Y are mediocre. They were
| mediocre the day the Model 3 was first released. If you were
| going to rely on a vision system in a serious way, you'd at
| least invest in better camera tech. Hell, Subaru EyeSight has
| a significantly better camera setup, last I checked, and who
| looks to Subaru as a technical leader?
|
| Someone else said it here on HN, and I think they're
| absolutely right -- Tesla is all about vertical integration,
| and this is preventing them from excelling at anything other
| than saving pennies. A good part of why the new EV
| competition is doing everything better is they didn't roll
| their own tech. They bought packaged solutions from companies
| that only do one thing, but do it _well_.
| taeric wrote:
| I also never understood why we had to use "vision" approaches
| that have the same visual spectrum as what humans see. Any
| sort of sensor on a device is already synthetic, why limit
| the spectrum that you attach it to? Should use light sensors,
| sound sensors, gps, everything.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| And even then, the best cameras today are still a long ways
| off from matching human eyesight. Tesla's cameras are not
| state of the art, either.
| wongarsu wrote:
| So far nobody really cared how road markings, signs etc
| look outside of the human visual spectrum, so there's
| likely a lot more variation there. Both in terms of how
| things look like when new, and in terms of acceptable wear.
| taeric wrote:
| Right. But that is in designing the existing roads. I'm
| talking about the cars. And I'm specifically asking why
| not adding more options? I don't mind a camera being part
| of the solution at all. Gives an obvious path to human
| labeling of training data. But, why not have more?
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| To me, self-driving seems like a band-aid fix for terrible car
| infrastructure. Driving a car is already one of the most
| dangerous things the average American can do. Due in part to
| larger, heavier vehicles, high speeds in residential areas,
| etc. Even if you had a "perfect" driver that doesn't prevent
| someone from ramming into you.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > one of the most dangerous things the average American can
| do
|
| About comparable to the risk of falling. Lower risk than
| suicide. Or death by opioid overdose. And of course, the most
| dangerous thing most Americans do, by a huge huge huge
| margin, is overeat and lounge on the couch.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| It is a valid point but the financial incentives are so big
| that some jurisdictions will allow it. In fact they already do
| allow these autonomous systems on public roads. That is going
| to continue to expand and since the financial incentives are
| huge even when deaths happen the governments will continue to
| allow it.
|
| And in fact some regulators fully understand the tradeoffs and
| will prefer autonomy for the better good of the public. An
| example of this is the Boeing 737 Max, those crashes wouldn't
| have happened if there were no autopilot systems. But
| regulators are not suggesting that all autonomous systems on
| planes be turned off because of the safety and financial
| advantages of keeping them in place even though they are
| obviously not perfect.
| larusso wrote:
| As a software engineer myself they will always lose the
| argument. I saw so many smart systems falter in some weird way
| that I would never trust a software system completely. I drive
| an EV with some AI based system that automatically throttles
| the car etc. But to trust my life and my Familie in the hands
| of this system (or any other) no thank you.
| taeric wrote:
| To double down further on the social side of this, public
| transit is largely getting there faster than point to point
| driving. In that many trains and such are already largely
| "hands off the wheels" for operation.
|
| Relatedly, another "problem" with "self-driving" cars is that
| we want all of the convenience and ease of use, without
| adjusting liability and ownership considerations. Consider, if
| Waymo gets to the point where they have a self driving car that
| you have to have a subscription to use, do you own the car? Are
| you the liable for any accidents it has?
|
| To lean in on that hypothetical. I'd imagine a lot of families
| will use self driving cars to send kids to school. Is
| effectively a bus that terminates at your house. Who is liable
| for a mistake if the operation of it is completely remote?
| amf12 wrote:
| > Consider, if Waymo gets to the point where they have a self
| driving car that you have to have a subscription to use, do
| you own the car? Are you the liable for any accidents it has?
|
| I'd imagine the company would take on liability, as long as
| humans can't drive the vehicle or they aren't driving when
| the accident occurred. Mercedes already got the ball rolling
| on this [1].
|
| [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-
| if-...
| taeric wrote:
| I can't see that path getting taken without you basically
| losing ownership of the car?
| cbsmith wrote:
| This is the gist of it, but you have to ask yourself why it's
| just the accepted wisdom that it's okay to have the massive
| level of failure we have now.
| yyyk wrote:
| I agree it's a social problem, but IMHO it's a rather different
| social problem: Current cars, roads and car culture is adapted
| to human drivers, and AI is expected to be able to integrate
| into that.
|
| What if we would make cars and rules that are adapted to AI
| cars and ignore human drivers? e.g. Ban human drivers from some
| roads, allow AI cars with designs that exploit AI advantages
| (e.g. much better reaction time) but do not require or even
| allow human backup (enabling us to put the passengers in a
| secured shell), etc. I suspect we could than reach a 1/20th
| rate today.
| amelius wrote:
| > will have 1/10th of the fatal accidents
|
| I think I'm relatively safe from cars on the sidewalk. Yet with
| fsd cars I'm not so sure anymore.
| 10x_contrarian wrote:
| I think you're mistaken. There are still massive technological
| challenges. I have seen nearly no evidence that current self-
| driving car technology is even remotely close to matching the
| ability of a novice human driver. Sure while the "don't crash
| into things" algorithms may generally be fine, these systems
| seem to frequently deadlock in completely mundane situations.
| They also seem dependent on remote operator assistance when
| encountering non-ideal conditions, greatly limiting their
| maximum speed.
|
| If anything, legislation and social acceptance has moved faster
| than the technology. That's the opposite what many of us
| observing this space expected 10 years ago.
|
| At this point I'm starting to have doubts about whether the
| full dream of self-driving cars will even be realized within my
| lifetime.
| baby wrote:
| I read this comment after taking a cruise in SF, which is a
| self driving cab with no driver. It basically reminds me of
| all the comments saying that VR has no future, written by
| people who have never tried VR and would get their mind blown
| by it if they tried the latest iteration. Maybe you should
| come to SF and try one of these self driving cars yourself :)
| 10x_contrarian wrote:
| I actually do live in the Bay Area and spend a lot of time
| in San Francisco. I applied for the Cruise waitlist well
| over a year ago but have not been accepted. I've tried to
| organize with friends who have access but we rarely have a
| reason to go the Richmond or Golden Gate Park after 10PM.
| The coverage area is very limited.
|
| I'm impressed that they're actually offering driverless
| rides on SF streets, but my point stands. The cars operate
| only on the slowest streets at the quietest hours. Any
| problem they encounter is handled by remote operators.
|
| I'm not outright dismissive of self-driving cars. I truly
| want them to exist. I don't even own a car and dislike
| being behind the wheel. I just don't buy into infinite hype
| pushed by a revolving door of charlatans.
|
| Also I do have a modern VR headset and celebrate the
| technology. But, to make a similar comparison, the
| metaverse "ready player one" vision is not within our
| lifetimes.
| just-ok wrote:
| I agree with you entirely.
|
| Continuing with your hypothetical, even though we'd be 90%
| safer _as a collective_ , the safety of the _individual_ feels
| compromised: the risk of an accident is non-uniform when
| involving humans (depending on e.g. age, experience, safety,
| alertness, etc.), but becomes uniform (or at least more
| uniform) with an algorithm in charge.
|
| That's a tough thing for people to buy into.
| jsbg wrote:
| > the safety of the individual feels compromised
|
| Exactly. I have had zero accidents in 20 years; I'm not
| interested in a car that will lower the overall accident rate
| if it increases mine.
| _cs2017_ wrote:
| A very good observation. Based on your comment, I think we
| can relax the requirement stated by OP by saying:
|
| "Until Waymo's cars reduce any individual's chance of an
| accident."
|
| So for example, suppose a Waymo car is better than humans
| overall, but tends to do worse than humans when there's a
| small bump on the road. And suppose that all humans (in a
| given regulator's area, e.g., California) tend to encounter
| such bumps at roughly the same rate (per mile driven) over
| their lifetime. In that case, it's probably going to be
| acceptable, since every individual is better off.
|
| I don't know, maybe this is not impactful / obvious enough
| for people to care about?
|
| What certainly is obvious is that the safest drivers are much
| safer than an average driver (does anyone know of a study
| that estimates this ratio?). Therefore, _at the very least_ ,
| the threshold for Waymo should be not the average accident
| rate, but the accident rate for the safest drivers.
| watwut wrote:
| I really don't think so. And we are not nearly close to that
| situation either. We have some obvious crashes in cars that are
| nowhere near to be probably "safer then human". And then we
| have super confident claims of safety by manufacturer.
| godelski wrote:
| I appreciate that in this they demonstrate not just rigs where a
| manikin is thrown in way of danger, but actual humans performing
| regular/irregular tasks. This to me is akin of the bullet proof
| {vest,glass,etc} manufacturer willing to put themselves behind
| their product for demonstration. With AI systems I think this is
| particularly important because with such high dimensional data it
| is possible that the vehicle picks up on things like the pull
| cable or that it is a manikin and not a human (e.g. pneumonia
| predictions strongly correlating with medical equipment within
| x-rays rather than inflammation). A kinda two for one confidence
| builder here.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| > akin of the bullet proof {vest,glass,etc} manufacturer
| willing to put themselves behind their product for
| demonstration.
|
| I suspect the cyclist in the video is not a $500k/year ML
| engineer, it's a $50K/year veteran trying to stay out of the
| welfare line.
| 1024core wrote:
| While Waymo is spending $$$ gathering driving data, Tesla has
| 100s of 1000s of cars doing it, for free. In terms of sheer data,
| in this race, Tesla wins. Now whether Tesla can actually use the
| firehose of data and actually train models that use it
| productively, remains to be seen. With the departure of Karpathy,
| I am not so sure.
|
| If Tesla gave all the data to Waymo, Waymo would reach L5 in no
| time.
| dundermuffl1n wrote:
| Seems like something I'd expect CNBC to say, not Hacker News.
| influxmoment wrote:
| Hacker News is superficial negative group think. Inverse
| hacker news is where it's at. Then you can predict the
| success of startups like Dropbox and Coinbase
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| Waymo was collecting data before Tesla, and switched to
| simulated training a long time ago because it's more effective.
|
| The self driving AI can gain 100 years experience in just 1 day
| using simulation: https://blog.waymo.com/2020/04/off-road-but-
| not-offline--sim...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Tesla uses simulation to but there is no replacement for real
| world data. The real world is crazy and Tesla can see people
| driving in real condition from Alaska to Miami Florida.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Waymos velocity seems to have slowed dramatically since 2015 when
| they first did fully driverless rides on the public road and
| started deploying to multiple regions.
|
| Now, 2 billion dollars and 7 years later, they are still only in
| a handful of small regions with limited numbers of vehicles.
|
| That tells me there is still some fundamental issue that is hard
| to solve. I wonder why they aren't more transparent and tell us
| what that issue is that they've been battling for 7 years?
| jmartrican wrote:
| I suspect that the issue is with cars being so cautious that
| they just stop as people keep walking, or at best herky jerky
| move fwd. In NYC, a car like that wouldn't get anywhere as the
| pedestrians just won't stop. the pedestrians stop when they see
| that the driver isn't going to stop and they gonna get hit.
| londons_explore wrote:
| It's clear which bits they haven't been focussing on... There
| are multiple videos on youtube of rides (some where it has gone
| wrong) and the user experience is terrible. The car has a
| robotic voice which plays a long and annoying unskippable
| message with every ride, and 'Rider support' sounding like they
| are following a strict script with no ability to be helpful or
| fix the problem [1]...
|
| Imagine if every time you started your car, a robotic voice
| said "Welcome to your Ford Pickup XYZ model. Please ensure your
| seatbelts are fastened. If you are too hot, you can adjust the
| climate with the climate controls. If you want to lower the
| windows, please don't put your arms out. etc etc. Have a nice
| ride today in your Ford(tm) Pickup(tm).".
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/2ZmdxkBV5Tw?t=180
| saxelsen wrote:
| Not entirely different from getting on a plane? You have to
| listen to the safety protocol before take-off.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Most things about planes are pretty user unfriendly to be
| fair... "arrive 2 hours before departure"... "queue for
| hours through security"... "walk miles to your gate"...
| "have to buy your ticket a long time in advance, and then
| 'check in' more than 3 hours in advance but less than 48
| hours"...
|
| We're a long way from the ideal of "show up at the airport
| 5 mins before, hop on a plane, and hand cash to the pilot
| for your ride".
| stevehawk wrote:
| (I know nothing about self driving)
|
| I seems like the hardest 90% of the work is the last 10%.
| summerlight wrote:
| Regulation is one of the major factor that slows down. You need
| more and more test cases to achieve higher reliability, but
| data collection at scale need approvals and regulators want to
| see if it's reliable enough to approve. This chicken and egg
| problem is not something easy to solve since at its heart it's
| a trust problem. Tesla was an exception because they choose to
| put all the responsibility to the drivers by making it
| technically ADAS but marketing it as "full self-driving".
| gok wrote:
| Waymo first deployed on public roads in 2019
|
| (I appreciate 2019 _feels_ like 7 years ago)
| jeffbee wrote:
| Did you mean offered a service to the general public? Because
| Google's older self-driving car drove that one blind guy to
| the Taco Bell drive-thru more than 10 years ago. And they had
| been driving Googlers back and forth from their homes and
| offices for years prior.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I realize this is essentially a PR piece, but still, it makes me
| feel _much_ better about the potential future of automated
| driving than what Tesla is doing. If I owned TSLA right now I 'd
| sell.
| teacpde wrote:
| Not to defend TSLA, but I don't think self driving is the
| reason why Tesla cars sell, it is more about being arguably the
| best mass produced EV out there.
| watwut wrote:
| Afaik, they are not. They have best charging network in
| United States. They come low in reliability index. And many
| people like their software.
|
| They are not obvious winner among EV cars currently. They
| were first to do actual high end EV car and that vision
| changed the market back then.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > more about being arguably the best mass produced EV out
| there.
|
| In 2018 this would be a really good argument. What does Tesla
| do better now, compared to another modern purpose built EV,
| for example a Ford Mustang Mach E, or a Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia
| EV6, etc?
|
| I struggle to identify any particular feature I would say
| they are better at, much less something that would make it
| the best mass produced EV. I say this as a two-time Model 3
| owner, having just bought the most recent one two weeks ago.
| I don't quite have buyers remorse yet, but it's nagging at me
| that I may have just made a foolish choice for the wrong
| reasons.
| lallysingh wrote:
| I think Tesla's charging network is a nice part of the
| package. I'm pretty worried about going EV -- I'm not going
| tesla, because I don't like the way they look -- mostly
| about dealing with finding charging stations that work (and
| well) when I need them.
| aeternum wrote:
| A canned test should not make you feel better. This could be
| the first time they actually passed the test. They might still
| fail with a cardboard cutout half the size.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Will I ever be able to have self driving on a personal vehicle,
| or is this just centralized automating the work of a taxi
| driver? IMHO, these are two _very_ different things for the
| consumer. This is why I actually prefer the Tesla approach, or
| actually Comma AI. (If it can be made to work robustly...)
|
| It would suck to be in a world where the only way to do self-
| driving is indistinguishable from the Uber or taxi service we
| already have (and likely wouldn't even be cheaper if it's
| proprietary to one or two mega-companies who can extract nearly
| all the productivity surplus from this as monopoly rents).
| i_love_cookies wrote:
| tbh car ownership for day-to-day is kind of silly, leave it
| to more commercial use and enthusiasts
|
| i may be biased since i use public transit or bike for
| everything
| kfarr wrote:
| Coming from a corn-fed midwesterner who got his license as
| soon as legally possible, car ownership is totally silly.
| We are all fleet managers of extremely complicated
| mechanical objects with huge liabilities from a financial,
| legal and moral perspective. If self-driving cars do one
| thing it could at least set people free from personal
| vehicle ownership, even if they still have car dependent
| lifestyle.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > i may be biased since i use public transit or bike for
| everything
|
| That's just a different way of saying that you never have
| any cargo (children, groceries, etc) to move.
|
| You should also bear in mind that not everyone wants to
| live in such high density that everything you could ever
| need is 5 minutes away on foot.
| kfarr wrote:
| > That's just a different way of saying that you never
| have any cargo (children, groceries, etc) to move.
|
| We have plenty of cargo (children and groceries) and do
| not own a car.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Having just had to get around quite a bit via walking and
| scootering, I'm definitely not excited about a future
| totally without personal cars. This works very well if
| you're childless or if you live in a place like Manhattan
| (loved the subway there) or with excellent weather, but
| it's just not the same as the personal room and safe area
| with your personal belongings that a personally owned car
| provides.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Kids can use bicycles from when they are very young, and
| until then you can put them into a little thing you can
| drag behind your bicycle.
|
| If you are doing longer travel, using the train is
| actually awesome. Those trains have actual places for
| children to play in.
|
| If you cities and that goes for small cities as well are
| properly designed its very possible. Its just that in the
| US cities are literally designed so as to make it
| impossible.
| jonasdegendt wrote:
| I extensively use car sharing services in Europe and it
| covers almost all of my use cases, the only exception
| being long distance trips, those are just too expensive
| when you're paying by the minute or kilometer at todays
| prices.
|
| There's options with fixed parking spots, and services
| that allow pick up and drop off anywhere.
|
| You tend to structure your life a little different once
| you don't own your own car anymore, you start to think
| twice about little trips you would've done otherwise. On
| the flip side I now have access to 5 different types of
| cars ranging from small to big (vans) from my phone. It
| doesn't even require that much more planning considering
| it's reached critical mass around here and there's a ton
| of cars available.
|
| The biggest player around is profitable too, so it's not
| going away any time too. It's saved me thousands and
| spared me from so much hassle surrounding car ownership.
| I consider myself an enthousiast but I just got a
| motorcycle for the weekend instead, pennies on the dollar
| compared to a car.
|
| All in all I notice I'm just happier not being in a car
| all the time anymore, you might consider it your safe
| area but it might as well be a golden cage at times.
|
| I understand it's different once your throw small
| children in the mix so it might make sense there, but the
| reality is that a lot of people could do with a lot less
| car at most points in their life.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Something that seems to happen a lot on HN is the
| pervasive assumption that everyone lives in an urban
| area, or wants to. It is totally fine that some people
| choose that life, but it makes for these one-sided
| conversations where someone explains in detail why they
| have the right answer, while describing things that
| largely do not even exist outside of a relatively dense
| urban environment.
| waboremo wrote:
| What's the difference from a (better maintained) taxi
| service? Especially one that in this hypothetical future,
| would be driverless.
|
| In general I think the trend of personal car ownership is
| something that will become somewhat of a hobby rather
| than a daily necessity, even outside of cities as long as
| Waymo (and others) are able to actually achieve their
| ambitious goals. The only way I see that reversing is if
| people are forced to live out of their cars due to absurd
| home costs, which is a very very bleak future.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Because you don't have your personal belongings in the
| taxi, you have to take them in and out. A personal car is
| a little room, like a little part of your home, that you
| bring with you when you travel. With kids especially
| (diapers, wipes, books, toys, car seats, snacks, a place
| to change diapers or change clothes or breastfed in
| privacy or nap, etc... protected from the elements and
| climate controlled), this is really helpful.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > i may be biased since i use public transit or bike for
| everything
|
| It is good to recognize this. A very large portion of the
| population does not live somewhere that makes good sense
| for pervasive public transit, walking, or biking for
| regular transportation needs. And many of those people
| actively don't want to live somewhere like that. Personal
| vehicles have a use case, and that does not become invalid
| just because it does not match your own preferences.
| krschultz wrote:
| I do not think the outcome is only Uber / Lyft but with AI,
| but if that is the outcome I still think it would be a win.
| Today supply of Uber / Lyft in my area at off hours is
| spotty, and that makes it unreliable. I have gotten stuck
| walking home 2+ miles multiple times in the last year because
| I couldn't get a ride at any price. That's not a problem in
| Manhattan, but not everywhere is Manhattan. Driverless cars
| would be on 24/7/365 so wouldn't have that problem. The more
| reliable these taxi services are, the more viable it is for
| people to get rid of their cars.
|
| I also expect long term self driving cars will be safer than
| humans, and as a person that primarily walks around instead
| of driving that's a benefit to me even if I'm not in the car.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| Why wouldn't driverless cars have the exact same problems?
| A driverless car is pretty expensive, so it needs to be
| making money a high fraction of the time or it's not
| economical for a company to invest in it, just like a
| regular taxi service (I'm really curious how they would
| handle 'surge' times - have fleets of cars that sit parked
| and unused 99% of the time??). Uber and Lyft actually have
| a lot of flexibility in this regard, since the cars already
| exist for other reasons (and don't cost Uber/Lyft anything
| when they're not driving). The idea that 'driverless'
| somehow means 'lots of cars, everywhere, at all times, very
| cheap' doesn't make any sense to me from an economics
| perspective.
| tantalor wrote:
| You can buy puts.
| concordDance wrote:
| The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay
| solvent.
| jsolson wrote:
| If you're buying puts you have bounded risk (the amount you
| invested), albeit with a more cliff-like risk profile than
| other strategies.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| As well as a time/volatility element added so its not
| necessarily "TSLA went down a lot, so you profit a lot".
| ihattendorf wrote:
| In this case replace "you can remain solvent" with "the
| put remains valid".
| panick21_ wrote:
| The argument literally everybody always makes and 99.99%
| they are simply wrong and don't want to admit it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Options are gambling, which is not how I play the market.
| Aside from some lucky YOLOs, you are far more likely to lose
| money in that game.
| Timothycquinn wrote:
| Personally, I don't understand the economics of lidar for self
| driving vehicles. 1) How many lidar units will one vehicle need
| and how much will this cost? 2) How will noise from other lidar
| systems be addressed? Eg two or more disparate lidar systems on
| other vehicles using similar frequencies? 3) How small can the
| lidar systems be made while still being effective in real world
| use? These units being used for testing are massive and probably
| stupendously expensive!
| notatoad wrote:
| i have to chuckle at the use of language to humanize their tech
| here - comparing "the waymo driver" to "NIEON". the one of those
| that sounds like the name of a robot from the future is actually
| just referring to a normal human.
| dmd wrote:
| The whole point is that it's _not_ a normal human; it 's a
| model that is better than any human could be.
| pas wrote:
| also "real agent" which just means human
| jcims wrote:
| Tesla mentioned in this thread almost twice as many times as
| Waymo.
|
| Elon love/hate is a powerful force.
| mooneater wrote:
| Is any of Waymo Driver's design published? Like do they use RL or
| how do they approach control.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-14 23:00 UTC)