4 ms·
The limited self-driving cars, with a remote human operator? no, I never have.
by vFunct 1y ago
The limited self-driving cars, with a remote human operator? no, I never have.
- bix6 1y agoThis is a rather dismissive response considering the progress they’ve made over the past few years. The other commenter is correct that they use highly detailed maps but you are incorrect as they do not have a remote human operator. I find them more enjoyable than Uber. They’ve already surpassed Lyft in SF ridership and soon they will take the crown from Uber.
- lemming 1y agoyou are incorrect as they do not have a remote human operator Yes, they do, the term to search is “remote assistance operator”. e.g. https://philkoopman.substack.com/p/all-robotaxis-have-remote-drivers https://philkoopman.substack.com/p/all-robotaxis-have-remote...
- bix6 1y agoThat’s phone a friend not someone remotely driving the car
- vFunct 1y agoThey literally drive the car.
- bix6 1y agoFrom what I’ve read they give it context to troubleshoot. They aren’t piloting it.
- lemming 1y agoThat’s irrelevant though. If the system requires human intervention, then it’s not fully autonomous by definition. See https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2025-january-01/ https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2025-january-... for example: The companies do not advertise this feature out loud too much, but they do acknowledge it, and the reports are that it happens somewhere between every one to two miles traveled. That’s… not very autonomous.
- bix6 1y agoIt’s not irrelevant because those are fundamentally different modes of operating / troubleshooting. You say they have someone drive it. I say they don’t. We aren’t arguing about pure autonomy, we are arguing about the method by which humans resolve the problems. Furthermore 2 miles of autonomous driving is… autonomous. And over time that will become 3 then 4 then 5. Perhaps it never reaches infinite autonomy but an hour of autonomous driving is more than enough to get most people most places in a city and I’d bet you money that we’ll reach that point within a decade.
- lemming 1y agoYou say they have someone drive it. I didn't say that. But they're not fully autonomous. We aren’t arguing about pure autonomy, we are arguing about the method by which humans resolve the problems. This whole subthread started with the assertion: Just like we will never have fully self-driving cars... So we did start out by discussing whether current Waymo is fully autonomous or not. It then devolved into nit-picking, but that was where the conversation started. FWIW I agree that Waymo is an amazing achievement that will only get better. I don't know (or care, frankly) if they will ever be fully autonomous. If I could, I'd buy one of those cars right now, and pay a subscription to cover the cost of the need for someone to help the car out when it needs it. But it's incorrect to say that they don't need human operators, when they clearly currently do.
- Philpax 1y agoThis rather underplays the experience of riding a Waymo. Where it works, it works: you get in and it takes you to the place, no human intervention required at any point. By analogy, the first hands-off coding agents may be like that: they may not work for everything, but where they do, they could work without human intervention.
- agos 1y ago"where it works, it works" by that metric we already have agents which don't need any guidance to program
- Philpax 1y agoI'd say they're closer to 2010s self-driving cars; they still need frequent human intervention, even when on the happy path, to make sure they don't make a mess of things.