8 ms·

People just expect it to happen much too quickly, there's no patience. The time it takes to get from say a car that just drives about randomly to a car that dr

People just expect it to happen much too quickly, there's no patience. The time it takes to get from say a car that just drives about randomly to a car that drives pretty well 75% of the time is about a day's worth of work with today's technology. Going from 75-80% is a week or two. 80-85% is months. Getting to the 90% is years, and who knows what we need for 99+%. I did a self-driving car in GTA V project that streamed on Twitch 24/7. If the car wasn't improving noticeably day by day, people were getting angry and frustrated, as if the car was meant to be perfectly driving within months, surely! There's definitely a major disconnect between the hype and reality of what the challenge of self-driving cars is. The bubble is just simply bursting at the moment, but the dream itself is not dying amongst actual engineers. It's just dying for the people who never understood how absolutely challenging the problem actually is.

ghaff 8y ago
I'm not sure why anyone would say the "dream" is dying. If anything is dying, it's unrealistic hopes that fully autonomous vehicles will be widespread and dirt cheap to be driven around in by the end of this decade. I suspect the hype's been fueled by--in addition to the usual suspects--the growth of young professionals in urban areas who have this vision of never having to own a car and being driven around everywhere. For that to be a reality, self-driving has to happen right now--not incrementally over the coming decades.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  > For that to be a reality... Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. What you describe already exists.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It depends on where you live and your lifestyle. They certainly wouldn't be for me. And there are many situations where I have to drive myself, even if it's a rental car.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Really? For a family of 4 or 5? Does lift even have car seats for children? We still need a minivan, and we pay 300 a month + gas when our car isn't paid for (which it is). We generally use used cars that are a decade old to save money. How is uber cheaper?
    - mmt 8y ago
      > For a family of 4 or 5? Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes). Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.
      - gremlinsinc 8y ago
        I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family <= 2.. That's a huge fallacy of thinking. I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more for rides if they're going to continue using real drivers. The real disruption will be when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan... pay $200/family member/month to Ford, get unlimited self-driving wherever anyone in the family is going. No need for insurance/etc... gas included.
        mmt 8y ago
        > Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single That's an easy one.. for the same reason they assume everyone is a young, urban, technical professional living in a major tech hub. I recall this being a source of criticism (though admittedly not recently) about the problems startups are solving being skewed toward the problems the above people (the same ones doing the solving) tend to have. > (and always will be) I'm not sure that's quite true, at least not in the sense that of individuals. However, they may assume it of the population within a certain location, such as that urban tech hub in which they live, if the individuals who do form >=3 families move away to the suburbs, and are replaced by single individuals. This seems to happen in US cities. > when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan What's their incentive? Car-share already exists for non-self-driving cars, but through third parties. It's quite expensive. > get unlimited self-driving That seems a particularly unattractive option for the provide, as well as being political dynamite.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. Only until the VC dollars dry up.
    - XalvinX 8y ago
      or the drivers form unions, maybe?
  - nradov 8y ago
    Ride hailing services are only cheaper in a few dense urban areas where most trips are short and parking is very expensive. Everywhere else they're still an expensive luxury.
    - nojvek 8y ago
      Yep. I pay an insane amount of money to Lyft for rides to home because I live away from city and we only have one car. Could have gotten a second car but I hate driving in peak hour traffic so I take the bus. Lyft is definitely convenient after hours since my last bus is at 6pm. The convinience comes at a steep price though.
  - jexah 8y ago
    I don't know man, I would pay $500 a week in Uber if I used it to travel to and from work, let alone anywhere else.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    I don't know if it's cheaper in urban USA than here in Western Australia... But I find taking Uber every morning and afternoon works out to be substantially (i.e. prohibitively) more expensive for me than driving the car in to the office.
mschwaig 8y ago
I watched some of the progress updates that you posted on youtube for that project and I was amazed by what you could acheive at home with a powerful GPU and publicly available software. Here's the playlist with all of those videos if anyone else is interested: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQVvvaa0QuDeETZEOy4VdocT7TOjfSA8a https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQVvvaa0QuDeETZEOy4Vd...
Analemma_ 8y ago
> People just expect it to happen much too quickly, there's no patience. > It's just dying for the people who never understood how absolutely challenging the problem actually is. You're laying a lot of blame at the feet of the excited people, but in their defense, much of their excitement is thanks to hucksters (cough Elon cough) who've been insisting that fully autonomous cars are just a year or two away. It's not like these people can be reasonably expected to understand how difficult the problem domain is, especially when they've seen recent AI successes at other problems that were popularly considered impossible (e.g. AlphaGo).
- ghaff 8y ago
  Hucksters in combination with a massive game of Topper. The company that's honest and says they're 20 years away from door-to-door autonomy gets their stock downgraded and negative press because they're so far behind. And, as you say, a lot of people assume the mostly unanticipated advances in deep learning in a short period of time carry over to everything even vaguely related to AI and cognitive science more broadly.

ghaff 8y ago

I'm not sure why anyone would say the "dream" is dying. If anything is dying, it's unrealistic hopes that fully autonomous vehicles will be widespread and dirt cheap to be driven around in by the end of this decade. I suspect the hype's been fueled by--in addition to the usual suspects--the growth of young professionals in urban areas who have this vision of never having to own a car and being driven around everywhere. For that to be a reality, self-driving has to happen right now--not incrementally over the coming decades.

marcosdumay 8y ago
> For that to be a reality... Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. What you describe already exists.
- ghaff 8y ago
  It depends on where you live and your lifestyle. They certainly wouldn't be for me. And there are many situations where I have to drive myself, even if it's a rental car.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  Really? For a family of 4 or 5? Does lift even have car seats for children? We still need a minivan, and we pay 300 a month + gas when our car isn't paid for (which it is). We generally use used cars that are a decade old to save money. How is uber cheaper?
  - mmt 8y ago
    > For a family of 4 or 5? Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes). Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.
    - gremlinsinc 8y ago
      I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family <= 2.. That's a huge fallacy of thinking. I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more for rides if they're going to continue using real drivers. The real disruption will be when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan... pay $200/family member/month to Ford, get unlimited self-driving wherever anyone in the family is going. No need for insurance/etc... gas included.
      - mmt 8y ago
        > Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single That's an easy one.. for the same reason they assume everyone is a young, urban, technical professional living in a major tech hub. I recall this being a source of criticism (though admittedly not recently) about the problems startups are solving being skewed toward the problems the above people (the same ones doing the solving) tend to have. > (and always will be) I'm not sure that's quite true, at least not in the sense that of individuals. However, they may assume it of the population within a certain location, such as that urban tech hub in which they live, if the individuals who do form >=3 families move away to the suburbs, and are replaced by single individuals. This seems to happen in US cities. > when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan What's their incentive? Car-share already exists for non-self-driving cars, but through third parties. It's quite expensive. > get unlimited self-driving That seems a particularly unattractive option for the provide, as well as being political dynamite.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. Only until the VC dollars dry up.
  - XalvinX 8y ago
    or the drivers form unions, maybe?
- nradov 8y ago
  Ride hailing services are only cheaper in a few dense urban areas where most trips are short and parking is very expensive. Everywhere else they're still an expensive luxury.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Yep. I pay an insane amount of money to Lyft for rides to home because I live away from city and we only have one car. Could have gotten a second car but I hate driving in peak hour traffic so I take the bus. Lyft is definitely convenient after hours since my last bus is at 6pm. The convinience comes at a steep price though.
- jexah 8y ago
  I don't know man, I would pay $500 a week in Uber if I used it to travel to and from work, let alone anywhere else.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  I don't know if it's cheaper in urban USA than here in Western Australia... But I find taking Uber every morning and afternoon works out to be substantially (i.e. prohibitively) more expensive for me than driving the car in to the office.

mschwaig 8y ago

I watched some of the progress updates that you posted on youtube for that project and I was amazed by what you could acheive at home with a powerful GPU and publicly available software. Here's the playlist with all of those videos if anyone else is interested: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQVvvaa0QuDeETZEOy4VdocT7TOjfSA8a https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQVvvaa0QuDeETZEOy4Vd...

Analemma_ 8y ago

> People just expect it to happen much too quickly, there's no patience. > It's just dying for the people who never understood how absolutely challenging the problem actually is. You're laying a lot of blame at the feet of the excited people, but in their defense, much of their excitement is thanks to hucksters (cough Elon cough) who've been insisting that fully autonomous cars are just a year or two away. It's not like these people can be reasonably expected to understand how difficult the problem domain is, especially when they've seen recent AI successes at other problems that were popularly considered impossible (e.g. AlphaGo).

ghaff 8y ago
Hucksters in combination with a massive game of Topper. The company that's honest and says they're 20 years away from door-to-door autonomy gets their stock downgraded and negative press because they're so far behind. And, as you say, a lot of people assume the mostly unanticipated advances in deep learning in a short period of time carry over to everything even vaguely related to AI and cognitive science more broadly.