4 ms·

Assuming Waymo is able to drive safely, it seems like a matter of time until Tesla is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why Waymo should be able to do i

Assuming Waymo is able to drive safely, it seems like a matter of time until Tesla is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why Waymo should be able to do it but Tesla should not given enough time.

rozap 2y ago
This could be outdated info, but don't they have quite a bit of hardware bolted to the car that Tesla doesn't have? Tesla seems to be betting that they can work some software magic with fairly basic hardware, whereas Waymo (I think) has taken an approach that relies on input from quite a few more sensors.
kryptiskt 2y ago
Waymo's cars have an extensive sensor suite that is missing on Teslas, which rely on cameras only.
dmicah 2y ago
For one, Waymo has more sensor modalities in comparison to Tesla, such as Lidar.
Yossarrian22 2y ago
Lack of Lidar may be a factor
fragmede 2y ago
Because of underlying decisions about their respective approaches, it's not certain that Tesla will actually be able to achieve the same as Waymo. Specifically, Waymo does pre-mapping, and uses LIDAR, probably other things, that Tesla won't do, so with those two differences, it's not clear that the computing power is available for Tesla to achieve the same level of self driving as Waymo.
- huntertwo 2y ago
  Seems like quite the blunder - maybe Tesla thinks they can add LIDAR to their own fleet of robo-taxis. Otherwise they bet the future of the company pretty foolishly.
lnsru 2y ago
Hardware stack. While Waymo stuffed their cars with all possible radars and lidars, Tesla sticked to cameras. I didn’t wash my model Y for a while and it is continuously complaining about not working cameras. Looks like that camera based autonomous driving isn’t low hanging fruit.
Veserv 2y ago
That is not how any technology works, let alone literal bleeding edge technology, unless you mean Tesla will just scrap their technology and then just buy it from Waymo. Assuming SpaceX can make reusable rockets, it seems like a matter of time until Blue Origin is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why SpaceX should be able to do it but Blue Origin should not given enough time. Assuming Microsoft can make a desktop operating system, it seems like a matter of time until IBM is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why Microsoft should be able to do it but IBM should not given enough time. See how ridiculous that sounds. Serious technological R&D is not something you can just pick up off the ground with money and time.
- huntertwo 2y ago
  I would be surprised in 20 years if nobody is making rockets similar to Space X. For OS - which is software, more similar to EV - Linux devs are able to make a much better OS than Windows, commercial success on the consumer front be damned. OS is pretty much commoditized but everybody uses Windows for enterprise because of vendor lock in, not because it’s hard to make an OS. Arguably, windows is the worst of the three popular OS’s despite having the largest commercial success. OpenAI was able to make great GPT models and everybody else followed suit pretty quickly. I think bleeding edge tech with larger moats takes longer than bleeding edge tech with smaller moats. The moat for self driving is low enough that there are many companies pursuing it with only VC funding. Compared to self landing rockets, which is being pursued by two companies backed by the richest men on earth.
  - Veserv 2y ago
    The argument you are making here is that somebody else will figure it out. However, the argument you made before depends on that any arbitrary entity will figure it out with time and money. Those are categorically different. If, in the first place, you actually meant that somebody else will figure it out, then it is logically unsound to argue that a arbitrarily chosen entity, Tesla in this case, is a shoe-in to figure it out as well. You need to present actual arguments for why they in particular will be a somebody. If you actually thought the argument you presented initially was logically sound, then you meant everybody and the arguments you have just made are irrelevant as they only argue “there exists”, not “for all” which is what your initial argument rested on. tl;dr You are mixing up “there exists” and “for all”.

rozap 2y ago

This could be outdated info, but don't they have quite a bit of hardware bolted to the car that Tesla doesn't have? Tesla seems to be betting that they can work some software magic with fairly basic hardware, whereas Waymo (I think) has taken an approach that relies on input from quite a few more sensors.

kryptiskt 2y ago

Waymo's cars have an extensive sensor suite that is missing on Teslas, which rely on cameras only.

dmicah 2y ago

For one, Waymo has more sensor modalities in comparison to Tesla, such as Lidar.

Yossarrian22 2y ago

Lack of Lidar may be a factor

fragmede 2y ago

Because of underlying decisions about their respective approaches, it's not certain that Tesla will actually be able to achieve the same as Waymo. Specifically, Waymo does pre-mapping, and uses LIDAR, probably other things, that Tesla won't do, so with those two differences, it's not clear that the computing power is available for Tesla to achieve the same level of self driving as Waymo.

huntertwo 2y ago
Seems like quite the blunder - maybe Tesla thinks they can add LIDAR to their own fleet of robo-taxis. Otherwise they bet the future of the company pretty foolishly.

lnsru 2y ago

Hardware stack. While Waymo stuffed their cars with all possible radars and lidars, Tesla sticked to cameras. I didn’t wash my model Y for a while and it is continuously complaining about not working cameras. Looks like that camera based autonomous driving isn’t low hanging fruit.

Veserv 2y ago

That is not how any technology works, let alone literal bleeding edge technology, unless you mean Tesla will just scrap their technology and then just buy it from Waymo. Assuming SpaceX can make reusable rockets, it seems like a matter of time until Blue Origin is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why SpaceX should be able to do it but Blue Origin should not given enough time. Assuming Microsoft can make a desktop operating system, it seems like a matter of time until IBM is able to achieve the same, no? I can’t see why Microsoft should be able to do it but IBM should not given enough time. See how ridiculous that sounds. Serious technological R&D is not something you can just pick up off the ground with money and time.

huntertwo 2y ago
I would be surprised in 20 years if nobody is making rockets similar to Space X. For OS - which is software, more similar to EV - Linux devs are able to make a much better OS than Windows, commercial success on the consumer front be damned. OS is pretty much commoditized but everybody uses Windows for enterprise because of vendor lock in, not because it’s hard to make an OS. Arguably, windows is the worst of the three popular OS’s despite having the largest commercial success. OpenAI was able to make great GPT models and everybody else followed suit pretty quickly. I think bleeding edge tech with larger moats takes longer than bleeding edge tech with smaller moats. The moat for self driving is low enough that there are many companies pursuing it with only VC funding. Compared to self landing rockets, which is being pursued by two companies backed by the richest men on earth.
- Veserv 2y ago
  The argument you are making here is that somebody else will figure it out. However, the argument you made before depends on that any arbitrary entity will figure it out with time and money. Those are categorically different. If, in the first place, you actually meant that somebody else will figure it out, then it is logically unsound to argue that a arbitrarily chosen entity, Tesla in this case, is a shoe-in to figure it out as well. You need to present actual arguments for why they in particular will be a somebody. If you actually thought the argument you presented initially was logically sound, then you meant everybody and the arguments you have just made are irrelevant as they only argue “there exists”, not “for all” which is what your initial argument rested on. tl;dr You are mixing up “there exists” and “for all”.