5 ms·

I read it in quite the opposite direction, the cautionary note here is that if you overpromise and under deliver you might be able to secure early funding but e

I read it in quite the opposite direction, the cautionary note here is that if you overpromise and under deliver you might be able to secure early funding but eventually you precipitate yet another AI winter. The author, as someone in the space, is cautioning for more realism which arguably is lacking in public communications within that field.

ghaff 5y ago
I think his last paragraph makes that very clear and echoes a conversation I was having with someone last week. There are a lot of practical if often boring wins to be had. We're just probably not going to get some of the things like "never need to own/drive a car" that had some people so excited. As the piece articulates, there has been a big deflation of many high expectations from "just around the corner" to "maybe in 40 or 50 years."
- WDCDev 5y ago
  Has there? I can't imagine investors/corporations dumping billions, annually, into an project which won't produce a return for 40-50 years.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >Has there? Yes? That's what the whole article is about. To be clear, it's doubtless brought benefit to assistive driving systems. And we may even see full autonomy under limited conditions (e.g. specific limited access highways in good weather) in a significantly shorter period of time. But door to door robo taxis? Seems highly unlikely. >I can't imagine investors/corporations dumping billions There have been big pullbacks. And I wouldn't be the slightest bit shocked if Google/Alphabet pull the plug on Waymo one of these days--especially if they have to start tightening their belt for some reason.
    - WDCDev 5y ago
      > Yes? That's what the whole article is about. Articles like this have been written for 5 years now, but the money keeps flowing into these projects. Argo, Aurora and Aptiv etc. are all still burning mountains of cash. I am shocked the industry didn't take Uber/Lyft selling off their self-driving divisions as the signal to stop funding these efforts.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Lots of stupid money flowing around these days. I'm genuinely curious how the various self-driving efforts broke down among: - We can do it! - Maybe we can't do it but even partial success makes it worthwhile - What a pipe dream but it would be morally wrong not to separate greedy VCs from their cash I do think it's different from 5 years ago. Yes, some researchers were throwing cold water on the idea then but they were seen as contrarians. And, on boards like this one, you'd have no shortage of people going but Waymo is going to have a taxi service next year! Today, it's closer to being accepted wisdom.
        WDCDev 5y ago
        Ha! I kinda stopped paying attention to most consumer-oriented startups a few years back when some kooky poetry delivery service got a few million in funding. (I am trying to find a link to it). Then there was that "pizza robot" company ... I get that VCs will fund stupid things like that to grow entrepreneurs and build a portfolio of companies that maybe grow enough to get acquired and produce some profit. But funds/corps dumping $250 million+ annually into self-driving seems crazy. The opportunity costs of that alone are outrageous especially when there are ample and ripe opportunities to disrupt "traditional" businesses and business models across all kinds of market verticals. > I do think it's different from 5 years ago. Yes, some researchers were throwing cold water on the idea then but they were seen as contrarians. And, on boards like this one, you'd have no shortage of people going but Waymo is going to have a taxi service next year! Today, it's closer to being accepted wisdom. Yes, and this has always been perplexing. I work at an AI startup which actually uses it to accomplish rather straightforward tasks - and it's really hard to perfect with the minimal tolerances for error that we have to adhere to. When you start to scale the problem up to self driving it becomes evident quickly that it will take a looong time to get the level 5; yet people in this business were still insisting it was around the corner.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    Look at the actual numbers though. I think the biggest writing on the wall that the hype is starting to be weighed in valuation is Waymo. Waymo is arguably the most technologically advanced of all the self-driving efforts. However they were initially valued at 175 billion, Morgan Stanley downgraded it to 105 billion, and their last external funding round valued them at 30 billion. You don't need to be a VC fund to realize that is a hell of a drop (most probably because the initial valuations were hyped by the 'just around the corner' momentum).

ghaff 5y ago

I think his last paragraph makes that very clear and echoes a conversation I was having with someone last week. There are a lot of practical if often boring wins to be had. We're just probably not going to get some of the things like "never need to own/drive a car" that had some people so excited. As the piece articulates, there has been a big deflation of many high expectations from "just around the corner" to "maybe in 40 or 50 years."

WDCDev 5y ago
Has there? I can't imagine investors/corporations dumping billions, annually, into an project which won't produce a return for 40-50 years.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >Has there? Yes? That's what the whole article is about. To be clear, it's doubtless brought benefit to assistive driving systems. And we may even see full autonomy under limited conditions (e.g. specific limited access highways in good weather) in a significantly shorter period of time. But door to door robo taxis? Seems highly unlikely. >I can't imagine investors/corporations dumping billions There have been big pullbacks. And I wouldn't be the slightest bit shocked if Google/Alphabet pull the plug on Waymo one of these days--especially if they have to start tightening their belt for some reason.
  - WDCDev 5y ago
    > Yes? That's what the whole article is about. Articles like this have been written for 5 years now, but the money keeps flowing into these projects. Argo, Aurora and Aptiv etc. are all still burning mountains of cash. I am shocked the industry didn't take Uber/Lyft selling off their self-driving divisions as the signal to stop funding these efforts.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Lots of stupid money flowing around these days. I'm genuinely curious how the various self-driving efforts broke down among: - We can do it! - Maybe we can't do it but even partial success makes it worthwhile - What a pipe dream but it would be morally wrong not to separate greedy VCs from their cash I do think it's different from 5 years ago. Yes, some researchers were throwing cold water on the idea then but they were seen as contrarians. And, on boards like this one, you'd have no shortage of people going but Waymo is going to have a taxi service next year! Today, it's closer to being accepted wisdom.
      - WDCDev 5y ago
        Ha! I kinda stopped paying attention to most consumer-oriented startups a few years back when some kooky poetry delivery service got a few million in funding. (I am trying to find a link to it). Then there was that "pizza robot" company ... I get that VCs will fund stupid things like that to grow entrepreneurs and build a portfolio of companies that maybe grow enough to get acquired and produce some profit. But funds/corps dumping $250 million+ annually into self-driving seems crazy. The opportunity costs of that alone are outrageous especially when there are ample and ripe opportunities to disrupt "traditional" businesses and business models across all kinds of market verticals. > I do think it's different from 5 years ago. Yes, some researchers were throwing cold water on the idea then but they were seen as contrarians. And, on boards like this one, you'd have no shortage of people going but Waymo is going to have a taxi service next year! Today, it's closer to being accepted wisdom. Yes, and this has always been perplexing. I work at an AI startup which actually uses it to accomplish rather straightforward tasks - and it's really hard to perfect with the minimal tolerances for error that we have to adhere to. When you start to scale the problem up to self driving it becomes evident quickly that it will take a looong time to get the level 5; yet people in this business were still insisting it was around the corner.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Look at the actual numbers though. I think the biggest writing on the wall that the hype is starting to be weighed in valuation is Waymo. Waymo is arguably the most technologically advanced of all the self-driving efforts. However they were initially valued at 175 billion, Morgan Stanley downgraded it to 105 billion, and their last external funding round valued them at 30 billion. You don't need to be a VC fund to realize that is a hell of a drop (most probably because the initial valuations were hyped by the 'just around the corner' momentum).