3 ms·
That is a very strong statement -- what odds would you put on a "literal fantasy"? One in a thousand? One in a billion? I'd back "self-driving, in-traffic, no-
by repsilat 8y ago
That is a very strong statement -- what odds would you put on a "literal fantasy"? One in a thousand? One in a billion?
I'd back "self-driving, in-traffic, no-safety-driver taxi service available to the public in 5 cities in 10 years" at even money any day of the week (so long as it doesn't mean losing half of any money in escrow to inflation...)
- linuxftw 8y agoOn public streets with other traffic and no driver? I put it about 0% chance within 10 years.
- rayiner 8y agoIf we define "city" to include real cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and DC, I'd take the other side of that bet. Two things will make closing the "last 10%" gap extremely difficult if not impossible. 1) Navigation. The D.C. street grid literally changes daily due to closures, detours, and construction. Google Maps does not keep up with these changes in real time. If self-driving tech can't understand when a construction worker is hand signaling drivers through a single lane for both directions of traffic, it won't work at scale. 2) Weather. Apparently, self-driving tech relies on following lane markings, which routinely are invisible during/after snow. I don't think it's a strong statement. I'm taking the other side of the "everyone will be flying in supersonic airliners in 10 years" bet in 1960. There is a huge difference between tech that kinda works, and tech that works reliably enough to serve as a basis for transportation infrastructure.