5 ms·

> It's also not entirely accurate to describe Waymo cars as "fully driverless" as they have a team of human employees remotely monitoring the fleet and can remo

by ra7 3y ago

> It's also not entirely accurate to describe Waymo cars as "fully driverless" as they have a team of human employees remotely monitoring the fleet and can remotely operate any vehicle. This is absolutely not true. Waymo remote agents cannot operate a vehicle. All they can do is answer questions from the vehicle or plot a path to go around if it gets stuck. They cannot make any safety critical interventions. Waymo has talked about this many times. It’s fully driverless because the vehicle is responsible for attaining minimal risk condition all on its own. This is how other L4 companies like Cruise works too. Zoox has a good explanation on how their teleguidance works: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NKQHuutVx78 https://youtube.com/watch?v=NKQHuutVx78

simondotau 3y ago
“Plot a path to go” is controlling the vehicle remotely.
- ra7 3y ago
  Nope, that’s misleading. Still no “control” over the vehicle because the vehicle is executing the move or it can ignore the instructions. It’s assisting the vehicle. They don’t have the ability to joystick the car.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Your point is that the Waymo operator isn't really in control because the vehicle can ignore instructions; the on-board computer won't allow the remote operator's instructions to result in a collision. If I attempt to drive my own car into a brick wall, the on-board computer will defy my instructions as best it can too. By your definition, I'm not in control of my car just like Waymo operators aren't. Fact is, a Waymo operator can take enough control of the vehicle to be considered in control of it. It doesn't matter if control comes in the form of a steering wheel or a joystick or drawing vectors on a map. Control is control, whether it's direct, indirect, or funnelled through a governor. Waymo operators can intervene and direct the car as needed.
    - ra7 3y ago
      > If I attempt to drive my own car into a brick wall, the on-board computer will defy my instructions as best it can too. By your definition, I'm not in control of my car just like Waymo operators aren't. Terrible analogy. You are sitting in the driver's seat with your hands on the wheel. If your car is about to hit someone, you can prevent it because you are the driver. This is what FSD is — ultimately driver is in control. No such luxury for Waymo/Cruise as their remote operators cannot do any safety critical interventions like preventing crashes. All they can do is non-safety critical interventions by way of passing indirect commands. A Waymo is in control of itself at all times and is fully responsible for its own safety. You can play with words like "control" all you want, but this is the definition of SAE Level 4 autonomy. If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading because drivers are preventing mistakes and thereby hiding its real safety outcome.
      - simondotau 3y ago
        > Terrible analogy. I agree, it's a terrible analogy if I was attempting to make the argument you thought I was trying to make, per your explanation for why it's a terrible analogy. My point is that it's invalid to say that Waymo operators don't have "control" of the vehicle because it can refuse to perform some tasks. Because my car can refuse to perform some tasks too. The deeper point is that the difference between "in control" and "not in control" isn't binary. It's all points along a continuum. If a Waymo operator controls a vehicle remotely, it's not the same level of control as a human holding the steering wheel. But it's still control in the larger sense. If the operator wants the car to stop, it will stop. Period. If they want the car to perform some action that isn't stupid or dangerous (such as colliding with a pedestrian) it will perform that action. > If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading I agree. Which is why I didn't. In most situations FSD beta can handle the "full" task of driving. By "full", they mean it's not intended to be limited to a strict subset of task, e.g. only on highways. It can "fully self drive" the car competently at least ~99.9% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that it can routinely drive most roads reliably. Drives shown on YouTube are mostly owners intentionally looking for roads which flummox it, as that's how they show improvements as software updates are released. The challenges which preclude FSD from being a system capable of autonomy — the 0.1% of remaining error — isn't errors in spatial awareness or control surface failure. It's stuff like path planning and road sign interpretation, neither of which involve sensors that Tesla vehicles lack.

by ra7 3y ago

simondotau 3y ago

“Plot a path to go” is controlling the vehicle remotely.

ra7 3y ago
Nope, that’s misleading. Still no “control” over the vehicle because the vehicle is executing the move or it can ignore the instructions. It’s assisting the vehicle. They don’t have the ability to joystick the car.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Your point is that the Waymo operator isn't really in control because the vehicle can ignore instructions; the on-board computer won't allow the remote operator's instructions to result in a collision. If I attempt to drive my own car into a brick wall, the on-board computer will defy my instructions as best it can too. By your definition, I'm not in control of my car just like Waymo operators aren't. Fact is, a Waymo operator can take enough control of the vehicle to be considered in control of it. It doesn't matter if control comes in the form of a steering wheel or a joystick or drawing vectors on a map. Control is control, whether it's direct, indirect, or funnelled through a governor. Waymo operators can intervene and direct the car as needed.
  - ra7 3y ago
    > If I attempt to drive my own car into a brick wall, the on-board computer will defy my instructions as best it can too. By your definition, I'm not in control of my car just like Waymo operators aren't. Terrible analogy. You are sitting in the driver's seat with your hands on the wheel. If your car is about to hit someone, you can prevent it because you are the driver. This is what FSD is — ultimately driver is in control. No such luxury for Waymo/Cruise as their remote operators cannot do any safety critical interventions like preventing crashes. All they can do is non-safety critical interventions by way of passing indirect commands. A Waymo is in control of itself at all times and is fully responsible for its own safety. You can play with words like "control" all you want, but this is the definition of SAE Level 4 autonomy. If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading because drivers are preventing mistakes and thereby hiding its real safety outcome.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      > Terrible analogy. I agree, it's a terrible analogy if I was attempting to make the argument you thought I was trying to make, per your explanation for why it's a terrible analogy. My point is that it's invalid to say that Waymo operators don't have "control" of the vehicle because it can refuse to perform some tasks. Because my car can refuse to perform some tasks too. The deeper point is that the difference between "in control" and "not in control" isn't binary. It's all points along a continuum. If a Waymo operator controls a vehicle remotely, it's not the same level of control as a human holding the steering wheel. But it's still control in the larger sense. If the operator wants the car to stop, it will stop. Period. If they want the car to perform some action that isn't stupid or dangerous (such as colliding with a pedestrian) it will perform that action. > If anything, calling FSD "autonomous" is highly misleading I agree. Which is why I didn't. In most situations FSD beta can handle the "full" task of driving. By "full", they mean it's not intended to be limited to a strict subset of task, e.g. only on highways. It can "fully self drive" the car competently at least ~99.9% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that it can routinely drive most roads reliably. Drives shown on YouTube are mostly owners intentionally looking for roads which flummox it, as that's how they show improvements as software updates are released. The challenges which preclude FSD from being a system capable of autonomy — the 0.1% of remaining error — isn't errors in spatial awareness or control surface failure. It's stuff like path planning and road sign interpretation, neither of which involve sensors that Tesla vehicles lack.