23 ms·

I'm sure he's right, but then why is everyone joining the race now? Wouldn't it be way less expensive to wait until at least some of the problems are solved? A

I'm sure he's right, but then why is everyone joining the race now? Wouldn't it be way less expensive to wait until at least some of the problems are solved? Also, it sure seems like level 5 autonomous driving is just a few steps short of general AI, which is still lightyears away.

matt-attack 9y ago
Not sure how waiting would help. The solution is primarily software, and I'm not sure how one company can learn from its competitors' private code. The only way to get there is to start along that long road.
- aroman 9y ago
  Code and data. The fuel for self-driving tech is data.
abduhl 9y ago
Start early and patent early to maintain market share and relevance. This is obvious even now with the Waymo v Uber lawsuit.
Leader2light 9y ago
People are joining because Tesla is scaring them into it. Musk is a dumbass, but his idea self-driving is happening now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consumers LOVE it. So even having some level of driving assistance will win you more customers.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  "Musk is a dumbass, but his idea self-driving is happening now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy." If you thought about it for like 5 seconds, you just contradicted yourself here. But your latter point is a good one. Part of what makes Musk effective is, even if he starts with just a half-baked kernel of an idea (usually borrowed from somewhere else), hyping into existence whole new industries (beyond just the companies he controls), which Musk can thus harvest for recruiting and better ideas, which makes those once-silly ideas actually work. That's kind of the opposite of being a dumbass.
skywhopper 9y ago
People are jumping in because they get attention and money for doing so (and because lots of non-experts who tend to be the money-distributors believe the hype) including government grants. The real threat is not that the hype will waste private investors' money (although it is) but that it will draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment.
- w0utert 9y ago
  >> draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment. Not just government funds, but also car maker funds. I honestly don't understand why all the research in automated driving doesn't focus on making better versions of the driver assists we already have first, instead of shooting for full autonomy, which I honestly believe to be a pipe dream. Of course many of the advances in researching autonomous driving will trickle down to safety systems for 'normal' cars, so that's a good thing. I just feel like everyone is approaching the problem from the wrong direction, wasting a lot of R&D effort that could have produced much better results much sooner if car companies would start from what we already have and incrementally improve it. You can blame car companies for being slow to adopt many things that could benefit all of us (such as electric drivetrains), but you can hardly deny car safety has already improved tremendously in a relatively short timespan. Whether they were forced by regulation or because they thought making safer cars would be more profitable doesn't really matter.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > but that it will draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment. Here in the United States, such funds are meager and almost non-existent. That is not likely to ever change anytime soon. Even in the areas where such funds are allocated, most people do not want to take public transit, for a variety of different reasons. If you have the ability to own a car, using it for transportation and other tasks tends to be preferable than other means. You have more flexibility in where you go, when you go, and how fast you'll get there. You are dependent on a system outside of your control, or other people to transport you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
moxious 9y ago
I'd guess level 5 is general AI, not a few steps short. Or rather it's a specialized set of sub skills that an AI would have. Everybody's jumping in because the prize is ridiculously huge. This justifies jumping in even if you deem your odds < 1 in 100
qntmfred 9y ago
because the industry now at least sees the path ahead to full autonomy. if we didn't think it was possible or feasible before, now we see that we CAN in fact achieve this, even if it's a long road in front of us.
jcims 9y ago
It seems like you could have a hybrid where the vehicle operates at level 5 with augmented infrastructure and lower levels for everything else. Add a 10-20% upcharge to every resurfacing/construction contract to embed sensors and whatnot and over the course of the next 20 years you get coverage for 90% of the miles that people travel on a daily basis.
cc81 9y ago
I think it is because there is also a lot of value of just assisting the driver. It is much more comfortable to drive if the car itself keeps the same speed as the car in front of me and follows the road. I also feel a lot safer if my car would automatically brake if I'm distracted and a kid runs out in front of the car.
bluGill 9y ago
No car maker dares not be in the race. There is the very real risk that somebody in the race will release an autonomous car, and in just a few months(worst case, but it is believable) governments will see those car is significantly safer and mandate it on all cars. If that happens any manufacture not close to finished won't exist anymore. Note that being in the race just means they have a plan in place. Car makers partner all the time - it is common to see the same car from several different makes with only the logo changed, or an optional engine from someone else. I expect that in the end there will be about 5 different self driving systems on the road that are shared between different cars. Designing a system is complex and expensive on the one hand; and not a differentiator that customers will pay for on the other hand: so it won't be worth the cost to continue to develop a system if you have it when you can buy from someone else. (though each might customize the UI as the UI is a feature they can sell)

matt-attack 9y ago

Not sure how waiting would help. The solution is primarily software, and I'm not sure how one company can learn from its competitors' private code. The only way to get there is to start along that long road.

aroman 9y ago
Code and data. The fuel for self-driving tech is data.

abduhl 9y ago

Start early and patent early to maintain market share and relevance. This is obvious even now with the Waymo v Uber lawsuit.

Leader2light 9y ago

People are joining because Tesla is scaring them into it. Musk is a dumbass, but his idea self-driving is happening now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consumers LOVE it. So even having some level of driving assistance will win you more customers.

Robotbeat 9y ago
"Musk is a dumbass, but his idea self-driving is happening now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy." If you thought about it for like 5 seconds, you just contradicted yourself here. But your latter point is a good one. Part of what makes Musk effective is, even if he starts with just a half-baked kernel of an idea (usually borrowed from somewhere else), hyping into existence whole new industries (beyond just the companies he controls), which Musk can thus harvest for recruiting and better ideas, which makes those once-silly ideas actually work. That's kind of the opposite of being a dumbass.

skywhopper 9y ago

People are jumping in because they get attention and money for doing so (and because lots of non-experts who tend to be the money-distributors believe the hype) including government grants. The real threat is not that the hype will waste private investors' money (although it is) but that it will draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment.

w0utert 9y ago
>> draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment. Not just government funds, but also car maker funds. I honestly don't understand why all the research in automated driving doesn't focus on making better versions of the driver assists we already have first, instead of shooting for full autonomy, which I honestly believe to be a pipe dream. Of course many of the advances in researching autonomous driving will trickle down to safety systems for 'normal' cars, so that's a good thing. I just feel like everyone is approaching the problem from the wrong direction, wasting a lot of R&D effort that could have produced much better results much sooner if car companies would start from what we already have and incrementally improve it. You can blame car companies for being slow to adopt many things that could benefit all of us (such as electric drivetrains), but you can hardly deny car safety has already improved tremendously in a relatively short timespan. Whether they were forced by regulation or because they thought making safer cars would be more profitable doesn't really matter.
cr0sh 9y ago
> but that it will draw government funds away from transit projects that would be a far better investment. Here in the United States, such funds are meager and almost non-existent. That is not likely to ever change anytime soon. Even in the areas where such funds are allocated, most people do not want to take public transit, for a variety of different reasons. If you have the ability to own a car, using it for transportation and other tasks tends to be preferable than other means. You have more flexibility in where you go, when you go, and how fast you'll get there. You are dependent on a system outside of your control, or other people to transport you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

moxious 9y ago

I'd guess level 5 is general AI, not a few steps short. Or rather it's a specialized set of sub skills that an AI would have. Everybody's jumping in because the prize is ridiculously huge. This justifies jumping in even if you deem your odds < 1 in 100

qntmfred 9y ago

because the industry now at least sees the path ahead to full autonomy. if we didn't think it was possible or feasible before, now we see that we CAN in fact achieve this, even if it's a long road in front of us.

jcims 9y ago

It seems like you could have a hybrid where the vehicle operates at level 5 with augmented infrastructure and lower levels for everything else. Add a 10-20% upcharge to every resurfacing/construction contract to embed sensors and whatnot and over the course of the next 20 years you get coverage for 90% of the miles that people travel on a daily basis.

cc81 9y ago

I think it is because there is also a lot of value of just assisting the driver. It is much more comfortable to drive if the car itself keeps the same speed as the car in front of me and follows the road. I also feel a lot safer if my car would automatically brake if I'm distracted and a kid runs out in front of the car.

bluGill 9y ago

No car maker dares not be in the race. There is the very real risk that somebody in the race will release an autonomous car, and in just a few months(worst case, but it is believable) governments will see those car is significantly safer and mandate it on all cars. If that happens any manufacture not close to finished won't exist anymore. Note that being in the race just means they have a plan in place. Car makers partner all the time - it is common to see the same car from several different makes with only the logo changed, or an optional engine from someone else. I expect that in the end there will be about 5 different self driving systems on the road that are shared between different cars. Designing a system is complex and expensive on the one hand; and not a differentiator that customers will pay for on the other hand: so it won't be worth the cost to continue to develop a system if you have it when you can buy from someone else. (though each might customize the UI as the UI is a feature they can sell)