6 ms·

There is someone to take over as soon as the car encounters something it cannot handle. It's not self driving. By definition it's not driverless, there is alway

There is someone to take over as soon as the car encounters something it cannot handle. It's not self driving. By definition it's not driverless, there is always a driver assigned who will take care of it if needed. One of the reason they cannot scale beyond small areas.

alphabetting 2y ago
Do you think the remote operators are driving the vehicles? They can only give the car instructions (pull over, go back to depot etc). In no sense are they driving.
ra7 2y ago
Assistance != taking over. It's driverless by definition because... there's no driver in the seat. The car is in control and is responsible for its safety at all times.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Regardless of the definition, I can't buy and own such a "driverless car" because I don't operate a supervision center with people available to "assist" the car. Whatever "assist" means. Nor can any company that's not large enough to operate the infrastructure. I'm sure at least some of the hype is in regards to people owning such "driverless" cars. It's driverless by definition because it does not have a driver, but it's not autonomous by definition, because it requires outside help to function. Cool hair splitting. It's an impressive technical feat for sure. In regards to perceived benefits for society, it's part of the way there, as it reduces the number of humans required to driver from 1 per car to 0.something per car.
  - ra7 2y ago
    These cars are not meant to be owned. They're part of a fleet. They are driverless and specifically L4 autonomous, which is the best autonomy you can get right now. The vehicles that can operate without any help doesn't exist. You'll be waiting for a long time if that's your expectation.
    - lucianbr 2y ago
      No, what you explained is 100% what I expected. Driverless cars for Google. For me, I'll be waiting a loong time.
      - dilyevsky 2y ago
        Doesn’t seem impossible to offer remote assistance as a paid subscription. The real showstoppers are cost and maintenance of the self-driving hardware which is astronomical
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > vehicles that can operate without any help doesn't exist. You'll be waiting for a long time if that's your expectation Eh, I'd say we're a decade out from an L5 vehicle. It'll officially be L4, on road only. But that matches a good fraction of American drivers' capabilities.
  - longdustytrail 2y ago
    Presumably if you own the car you can act as your own “assistant”
  - foota 2y ago
    Since the assist doesn't require real time response (e.g., the failure mode is the car not moving, not you dying unlike a tesla) it seems like a non taxi version could simply set you up as the assist monitor. If you fall asleep or don't respond it's fine, you're just stuck. I don't think Google plans to do this for a variety of reasons, but I don't think there's fundamentally any reason they couldn't.
    - red75prime 2y ago
      > If you fall asleep or don't respond it's fine, you're just stuck. "Just" being stuck on a highway doesn't sound too safe. If you have multiple supervisors watching the fleet it's less of a problem than when it's one fallible supervisor.
dventimi 2y ago
How many someones are there per active vehicle?
voxic11 2y ago
It would go against their operating license for a remote driver to completely take over control of the car. The car is always in ultimate control even when it's getting "assistance" from a remote operator.

alphabetting 2y ago

Do you think the remote operators are driving the vehicles? They can only give the car instructions (pull over, go back to depot etc). In no sense are they driving.

ra7 2y ago

Assistance != taking over. It's driverless by definition because... there's no driver in the seat. The car is in control and is responsible for its safety at all times.

lucianbr 2y ago
Regardless of the definition, I can't buy and own such a "driverless car" because I don't operate a supervision center with people available to "assist" the car. Whatever "assist" means. Nor can any company that's not large enough to operate the infrastructure. I'm sure at least some of the hype is in regards to people owning such "driverless" cars. It's driverless by definition because it does not have a driver, but it's not autonomous by definition, because it requires outside help to function. Cool hair splitting. It's an impressive technical feat for sure. In regards to perceived benefits for society, it's part of the way there, as it reduces the number of humans required to driver from 1 per car to 0.something per car.
- ra7 2y ago
  These cars are not meant to be owned. They're part of a fleet. They are driverless and specifically L4 autonomous, which is the best autonomy you can get right now. The vehicles that can operate without any help doesn't exist. You'll be waiting for a long time if that's your expectation.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    No, what you explained is 100% what I expected. Driverless cars for Google. For me, I'll be waiting a loong time.
    - dilyevsky 2y ago
      Doesn’t seem impossible to offer remote assistance as a paid subscription. The real showstoppers are cost and maintenance of the self-driving hardware which is astronomical
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > vehicles that can operate without any help doesn't exist. You'll be waiting for a long time if that's your expectation Eh, I'd say we're a decade out from an L5 vehicle. It'll officially be L4, on road only. But that matches a good fraction of American drivers' capabilities.
- longdustytrail 2y ago
  Presumably if you own the car you can act as your own “assistant”
- foota 2y ago
  Since the assist doesn't require real time response (e.g., the failure mode is the car not moving, not you dying unlike a tesla) it seems like a non taxi version could simply set you up as the assist monitor. If you fall asleep or don't respond it's fine, you're just stuck. I don't think Google plans to do this for a variety of reasons, but I don't think there's fundamentally any reason they couldn't.
  - red75prime 2y ago
    > If you fall asleep or don't respond it's fine, you're just stuck. "Just" being stuck on a highway doesn't sound too safe. If you have multiple supervisors watching the fleet it's less of a problem than when it's one fallible supervisor.

dventimi 2y ago

How many someones are there per active vehicle?

voxic11 2y ago

It would go against their operating license for a remote driver to completely take over control of the car. The car is always in ultimate control even when it's getting "assistance" from a remote operator.