5 ms·

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

by Trundle 10y ago

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

marssaxman 10y ago
Viable for what, exactly? It is very clear that autopilot will be a successful feature and we can reasonably expect continued improvement in human-driver-assist technologies for years to come. But people keep on handwaving past the very important gap between "automation which assists a human operator" and "autonomous vehicle which gets around on its own", as though doing well at the first problem necessarily makes the achievement of the second problem inevitable. Driver assist technologies make all kinds of sense but they do not fundamentally change the nature of our transportation systems. They just make it easier to do a better job as a human driver. Getting to the point where most wheeled vehicles are self-piloted autonomous robots with no human driver interaction...? I still think that's a really hard problem.
- Trundle 10y ago
  >Viable for what, exactly? Sales. That's what makes a viable product. One that will sell. Despite elsewhere in this comment chain you saying "I'm talking about product viability not technical" I can't help but think that your response to me was about technical viability. People are already willing to buy and trust their cars to drive for them right now, when they're specifically being told "don't trust it to drive for you". The second it's legal to advertise "let it drive for you!" autonomous cars will sell regardless of their ability to perform well in unregular circumstances.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    If "self-driving car" just means "I'll drive for you, most of the time, while you sit behind the wheel", then we are talking about nothing more than a better automobile. Of course that will sell, but in that case the world of the future looks pretty much the same as the world of today, with fewer crashes. But people keep talking about "self-driving car" as though it is going to be a robot capable of running errands on its own, with no human driver and not even necessarily any human passenger. The question is still open: can this be done well enough, enough of the time, solving a valuable enough class of problems, that producing such car-shaped robots will actually become a significant industry? Furthermore, will the problems solved by such hypothetical car-shaped robots be significant and widespread enough to justify the hype currently being lavished on them?
    - Trundle 10y ago
      Meeting the hype expectations of people who practically worship technological change is a pretty high and imo unreasonable bar for viable product. Personally I'm of the opinion that because we've been making tools for 2.5 million years and don't seem any happier than the average animal, the very concept of a new tool making all that much of a difference is absurd.

by Trundle 10y ago

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

marssaxman 10y ago

Viable for what, exactly? It is very clear that autopilot will be a successful feature and we can reasonably expect continued improvement in human-driver-assist technologies for years to come. But people keep on handwaving past the very important gap between "automation which assists a human operator" and "autonomous vehicle which gets around on its own", as though doing well at the first problem necessarily makes the achievement of the second problem inevitable. Driver assist technologies make all kinds of sense but they do not fundamentally change the nature of our transportation systems. They just make it easier to do a better job as a human driver. Getting to the point where most wheeled vehicles are self-piloted autonomous robots with no human driver interaction...? I still think that's a really hard problem.

Trundle 10y ago
>Viable for what, exactly? Sales. That's what makes a viable product. One that will sell. Despite elsewhere in this comment chain you saying "I'm talking about product viability not technical" I can't help but think that your response to me was about technical viability. People are already willing to buy and trust their cars to drive for them right now, when they're specifically being told "don't trust it to drive for you". The second it's legal to advertise "let it drive for you!" autonomous cars will sell regardless of their ability to perform well in unregular circumstances.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  If "self-driving car" just means "I'll drive for you, most of the time, while you sit behind the wheel", then we are talking about nothing more than a better automobile. Of course that will sell, but in that case the world of the future looks pretty much the same as the world of today, with fewer crashes. But people keep talking about "self-driving car" as though it is going to be a robot capable of running errands on its own, with no human driver and not even necessarily any human passenger. The question is still open: can this be done well enough, enough of the time, solving a valuable enough class of problems, that producing such car-shaped robots will actually become a significant industry? Furthermore, will the problems solved by such hypothetical car-shaped robots be significant and widespread enough to justify the hype currently being lavished on them?
  - Trundle 10y ago
    Meeting the hype expectations of people who practically worship technological change is a pretty high and imo unreasonable bar for viable product. Personally I'm of the opinion that because we've been making tools for 2.5 million years and don't seem any happier than the average animal, the very concept of a new tool making all that much of a difference is absurd.