3 ms·

You're making lots of evidence free statements due to your anti-Google bias that have little basis in reality. You seem to think that Google is using less machi

You're making lots of evidence free statements due to your anti-Google bias that have little basis in reality. You seem to think that Google is using less machine learning than Tesla. Think about what you're saying, Google, the company which uses machine learning for everything, whose long demonstrated the ability to read street signs and crowdsourced massive ML data on it using Recaptcha, and which makes purpose-built self driving vehicles is doing less than Tesla, whose self-driving capability was an after-thought, the vehicle was not designed from the get-go for Level 3 or 4 capability. How would Waymo possibly build a car with Level 3 or 4 capability if they weren't doing a hellava lot of onboard visual field processing? Accurate maps data won't let you deal with bicyclists or pedestrians properly, it won't deal with all kinds of hazards. There's a reason Waymo cars are festooned with LIDAR and cameras and other HW in a giant boxy minivan, and it isn't purely for show to make them ugly on purpose.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Trying to accuse me of "anti-Google bias" is amusing when you are literally paid by Google, and have an inherent conflict of interest/bias of the highest order. Pot, meet kettle. Although, really, I'm not either because I've never been paid by any company with stakes in this discussion. I know you can do better than ad hominem. I am saying there is no evidence, or even a claim by Google, that their cars are capable of functioning outside a pre-mapped area. You have presented zero evidence of it whatsoever, and are trying to use Google's marketingspeak about how fancy their machine learning things are to insinuate I should assume Google's technology is more advanced than they can demonstrate. You are highlighting particular capabilities of their collision avoidance on that mapped area to suggest they don't need a mapped area, which is also a non-supported claim. It is entirely plausible, and in fact, likely, that Google's visual mapping for collision avoidance is sophisticated, and yet still fully dependent on a map as a baseline. Google's marketing claims continue to be extraordinary, and often untrustworthy, and you're going to have to do better than that. Find me any, literally any, evidence that a Google self-driving car can operate outside the very tiny fenced in areas Google says they can operate. As far as I can tell, there is none, because you are making a claim that even Google itself is not making about it's cars.
- cromwellian 10y ago
  Google's marketing claims are extraordinary by running careful, incremental, roll out trials? What company is shipping 'Autopilot' software to drivers today that has actually killed someone, doesn't function in less than perfect highway conditions, whose own fine print says basically not to use it as its name implies, and has numerous calls for it to be disabled? What does it mean "cars are capable of functioning <in an area>"? What does "Functioning" mean? Tesla Autopilot don't function off highways, and barely function on highways. So you think someone should get credit for functioning at scale everywhere, if they ship a consumer product with no restrictions, but it fails badly when people actually try it? You're comparing a broken product to one that purportedly works, but you think it's smoke and mirrors? I love Tesla cars and I plan to buy a P90D, but in my opinion, their whole self driving program is incredibly reckless. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQxIhMBKblY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQxIhMBKblY) Waymo's approach is careful, over engineered, defense-in-depth. Slow by Silicon Valley standards, but you're dealing with public safety. Yes, they use maps as one of their sources of truth, they'd be reckless not to, but they also use LIDAR and vision systems with machine learning, because of course, no map can be real time. Tesla is trying to sell an upgraded lane-keeping system as a self driving system. Maybe you should be more concerned about that. I can only say what is public already, but you can look at the disengagements data to see Waymo cars are three orders of magnitude better than their competitors.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I don't disagree Tesla's marketing is dishonest as well. But if Google's system only works on predefined destinations, essentially within a controlled environment, it isn't even really in the game. If the lane lines are hard to read in a part of Phoenix, Google can ask for them to be repainted before approving the cars for that area but everyone else just has to assume bad lane lines are something they'll contend with. Is there an NDA these early riders will have to sign? Do they have to provide a list of destinations ahead of time? I feel this announcement makes it seem like these cars are ready for public use. But I don't see the evidence to suggest they really are. And as you indicate, Googlers aren't talking.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Trying to accuse me of "anti-Google bias" is amusing when you are literally paid by Google, and have an inherent conflict of interest/bias of the highest order. Pot, meet kettle. Although, really, I'm not either because I've never been paid by any company with stakes in this discussion. I know you can do better than ad hominem. I am saying there is no evidence, or even a claim by Google, that their cars are capable of functioning outside a pre-mapped area. You have presented zero evidence of it whatsoever, and are trying to use Google's marketingspeak about how fancy their machine learning things are to insinuate I should assume Google's technology is more advanced than they can demonstrate. You are highlighting particular capabilities of their collision avoidance on that mapped area to suggest they don't need a mapped area, which is also a non-supported claim. It is entirely plausible, and in fact, likely, that Google's visual mapping for collision avoidance is sophisticated, and yet still fully dependent on a map as a baseline. Google's marketing claims continue to be extraordinary, and often untrustworthy, and you're going to have to do better than that. Find me any, literally any, evidence that a Google self-driving car can operate outside the very tiny fenced in areas Google says they can operate. As far as I can tell, there is none, because you are making a claim that even Google itself is not making about it's cars.

cromwellian 10y ago
Google's marketing claims are extraordinary by running careful, incremental, roll out trials? What company is shipping 'Autopilot' software to drivers today that has actually killed someone, doesn't function in less than perfect highway conditions, whose own fine print says basically not to use it as its name implies, and has numerous calls for it to be disabled? What does it mean "cars are capable of functioning <in an area>"? What does "Functioning" mean? Tesla Autopilot don't function off highways, and barely function on highways. So you think someone should get credit for functioning at scale everywhere, if they ship a consumer product with no restrictions, but it fails badly when people actually try it? You're comparing a broken product to one that purportedly works, but you think it's smoke and mirrors? I love Tesla cars and I plan to buy a P90D, but in my opinion, their whole self driving program is incredibly reckless. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQxIhMBKblY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQxIhMBKblY) Waymo's approach is careful, over engineered, defense-in-depth. Slow by Silicon Valley standards, but you're dealing with public safety. Yes, they use maps as one of their sources of truth, they'd be reckless not to, but they also use LIDAR and vision systems with machine learning, because of course, no map can be real time. Tesla is trying to sell an upgraded lane-keeping system as a self driving system. Maybe you should be more concerned about that. I can only say what is public already, but you can look at the disengagements data to see Waymo cars are three orders of magnitude better than their competitors.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I don't disagree Tesla's marketing is dishonest as well. But if Google's system only works on predefined destinations, essentially within a controlled environment, it isn't even really in the game. If the lane lines are hard to read in a part of Phoenix, Google can ask for them to be repainted before approving the cars for that area but everyone else just has to assume bad lane lines are something they'll contend with. Is there an NDA these early riders will have to sign? Do they have to provide a list of destinations ahead of time? I feel this announcement makes it seem like these cars are ready for public use. But I don't see the evidence to suggest they really are. And as you indicate, Googlers aren't talking.