3 ms·

Once software capable of driving at a superhuman level (say 10x the average) exists, the regulatory side will be trivial. What regulator wouldn't want to save 3

Once software capable of driving at a superhuman level (say 10x the average) exists, the regulatory side will be trivial. What regulator wouldn't want to save 30,000 lives? Sadly, that software is still a ways away. Don't fall for the trap believing that self driving is at all a regulatory problem. It is only a software one.

rubicon33 5y ago
Interesting. I was under the impression that self driving cars are not THAT far away from being a thing. Sounds like it's further than I am thinking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
The disconnect seems to be your mental model of self-driving cars might be biased by your current focus. The way I feel most people see it, self-driving cars means three things: 1. As a developer, the hardware and software to accomplish it. 2. As a rider, the improved UX (i.e. safe, comfortable, and fast). 3. As a current-driver, taking over the liability. Based on the Comma 3 launch event, it seems clear that you and Comma.ai are hyper-focused on 1 and 2, but have no plan for 3 anytime soon. I think this is the big disconnect: Cruise and Waymo are focused on 1, 3, and 2 (in that order). DMV approval is entirely in the bucket of 'transferring liability', and this announcement is progress on that front. The chicken and egg problem of 'publicly facing data driven technical viability to then get transfer of liability' and 'transfer of liability to then get data at scale' is a fundamental problem of self-driving. Comma.ai and Tesla are tackling this problem with 100% 'publicly facing data driven technical viability' and 0% 'transfer of liability'. Then one day Comma.ai and Tesla may also try to tackle the 'transfer of liability'. However, why limit the competition? Cruise and Waymo want to start with 'transfer of liability'. Its useful work that needs to eventually be done. Might as well have some companies start early. Hopefully even if Cruise and/or Waymo mess up, the DMV will use those learnings to improve their validation strategies for future players looking to transfer liability (i.e. Comma.ai and Tesla when they choose to be ready).

rubicon33 5y ago

Interesting. I was under the impression that self driving cars are not THAT far away from being a thing. Sounds like it's further than I am thinking.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

The disconnect seems to be your mental model of self-driving cars might be biased by your current focus. The way I feel most people see it, self-driving cars means three things: 1. As a developer, the hardware and software to accomplish it. 2. As a rider, the improved UX (i.e. safe, comfortable, and fast). 3. As a current-driver, taking over the liability. Based on the Comma 3 launch event, it seems clear that you and Comma.ai are hyper-focused on 1 and 2, but have no plan for 3 anytime soon. I think this is the big disconnect: Cruise and Waymo are focused on 1, 3, and 2 (in that order). DMV approval is entirely in the bucket of 'transferring liability', and this announcement is progress on that front. The chicken and egg problem of 'publicly facing data driven technical viability to then get transfer of liability' and 'transfer of liability to then get data at scale' is a fundamental problem of self-driving. Comma.ai and Tesla are tackling this problem with 100% 'publicly facing data driven technical viability' and 0% 'transfer of liability'. Then one day Comma.ai and Tesla may also try to tackle the 'transfer of liability'. However, why limit the competition? Cruise and Waymo want to start with 'transfer of liability'. Its useful work that needs to eventually be done. Might as well have some companies start early. Hopefully even if Cruise and/or Waymo mess up, the DMV will use those learnings to improve their validation strategies for future players looking to transfer liability (i.e. Comma.ai and Tesla when they choose to be ready).