They gonna get waymo fares
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
131 points (92.3% liked)
Technology
59092 readers
6622 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hi dad!
Can someone explain like I'm five how Waymo has robitaxis without drivers behind the wheel and automated driving such as that offered by Tesla is not yet able to do the same?
Is it just that Waymo has mapped a small area really, really well? What's the difference? Why is Tesla so bad at it but Waymo is able to do it?
Waymo doesn’t give a shit if their cars are ugly and can cover them in dozens upon dozens of cameras and sensors. They’re not selling them to consumers who care about looks, they are renting them to riders who don’t want to die on the short trip. They also only operate in a small region of the country with limited weather conditions and frequently stop service when weather is bad.
Tesla is run by an idiot who insists that a pair of cameras and a single lidar sensor that they keep deciding to disable can somehow magically always work in all weather and lighting conditions and is selling to consumers who don’t want an ugly car and expect to be able to operate their purchase at all times
Different constraints leads to different levels of success
load more comments
(6 replies)
Going off what fishpen0 said, Waymo actually has sensors on it to detect things and can "understand" its surroundings much better than Tesla cars can wish just cameras.
I've ridden in Waymos and they are smooth riding. After the initial "OMG! There's no driver!" You kind of forget about it. You get to your (limited area) destination safely and without much hassle.
I can go more in depth if ya want.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Humans can drive with just vision.
Tesla is doing it the hard way. Their model involves cars just having vision and driving the same as humans do. Humans can do it, why can't computers? Seeing as they have more cameras than 2. In theory they should be better than human drivers. Once it is solved they could instantly drive anywhere humans can.
Waymo has taken an easier route and they have used a lot of detailed mapping with also an assortment of additional sensors. Waymo doing it the easy way has only recently achieved this. Turns out it's really hard. Harder than everyone including the experts expected probably.
But with advances in computing and things like LLM's Tesla is catching up. Who knows how long that will take though? I always thought waymo was doing the right thing so I'm biased.
Edit: this fucking website I swear. I answered the question and got downvoted for it. What more you people want from me?
Human vision also have the brain that does a lot of automation like figuring out distance and looking out for danger with real time reaction speed. Night vision is usually better for most people too. The brain also combines that with sound so it can detect things out of vision. Eyes already have a range of view but the human head can also move around accurately. On top of all this focus is what the human brain is best at. While cameras can see 360°, years of data built in the subconscious taught a human driver what to look out for.
Human vision also have the brain that does a lot of automation like figuring out distance and looking out for danger with real time reaction speed.
To be fair, the reaction time of a self driving vehicle is orders of magnitude greater than that of even the best human driver.
This is what leads to many moral questions about autonomous vehicles; where as human may not have time to react when an accident is about to happen, a self-driving car does. Laws of physics may prevent it from stopping in time, but it may have the ability to choose who to hit; the kid of the grandmom.
The reports of the safety of AVs is overstated when you consider that they are limited within a city limit, they rarely go on the highway, they follow speed limits in cities which is lower than highways, people are more aware of AVs, and during their trial runs they had an actual human in the car to correct them.
On average, AVs are safer especially when you consider some bad drivers do not get better, people drink, people get sleepy, people distract themselves. and young drivers lack experience. But the average driver with it with their full faculties would do better in tests based solely on reactions.
if you look at the accident reports and took out drivers who were on a substance, are younger than 25 or older than 70, was distracted with something like their phones or others in the car, were not following laws, and those who were emotional then the stats would be pretty close.
Overall I do believe AVs are better for world because peak performance of an average driver is rare.
But the average driver with it with their full faculties would do better in tests based solely on reactions.
React faster than a computer would? I cannot imagine how that would be the case.
If it was a simple flag, you would be correct a computer will react faster than any human but when you factor in everything else like constantly analysis of surroundings, decision making, and accounting for physical limitations, then yes. It's the reason why Waymo cars move so slowly.
If a person was standing at a sidewalk, hidden behind an object, far away from a pedestrian way or traffic signal and jumps 2 feet in front of a car going 25 mph, the average driver with their full faculties would do better than Waymo.
Well yeah right now that may still be the case but I was mostly thinking about the "true" self driving cars of the future. It seems obvious to be that they would vastly outperform human drivers on literally everything. Just like a true AGI would.
You apparently haven't seen the video of a fsd tesla going full speed through the fog towards a train crossing with an active train.
The cars display didn't even indicate that it thought something was in front of it, and would have happily driven right into the side of this train if the driver hadn't taken over at the last moment. (Driver was an idiot for using fsd in the fog to begin with) but it shows the cameras can't handle reduced visibility well currently, they saw the fog and just decided it was open road or clear sky.
I don't see how that goes against anything I have said? That just supports what I said if anything.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not only that, but as far as I know, other companies are still relying on human-written code, whereas Tesla has gone with neural nets. If it turns out that manually coding how to handle every possible variation of traffic scenarios is an impossible task, those companies would essentially have to start from scratch, giving Tesla a massive lead for adopting AI so much earlier. Of course, it’s a gamble, things could go the other way too, but considering the leap FSD made from version 1.3 to 1.4, when they switched to neural nets, I’m rather confident they're on the right track.
An undeterministic system is dangerous. A deterministic with flaws can be better, the flaws can be identified understood and corrected. The flaws are more likely to be present in testing.
Machine learning is nearly always going to be undeterministic. If they then use continuous training, the situation only gets worse.
If you use machine learning because you can’t understand how to solve the problem, then you’ll never understand how the system works. You’ll never be able to pass a basic inspection test.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
Welcome to johnnycab!
So it begins...
Good. Every less impatient, wreckless, human, driver on the road, the better.
Be careful with that logic, these are jobs forever lost to robots. They will eventually come for your job or the job of someone you know. Increasingly the question won’t be whether robots can do X better than humans, but whether they should.
Reason number one million capitalism sucks. We should be happy to turn over dangerous or menial jobs to machines but we can't do that because without jobs our society views us as worthless.
That's literally the goal.
I used to do electrical engineering at an architecture firm, and we would say, design a hospital that has 300 identical exam rooms in it.
Guess what happens when someone decides that we need one more outlet in one of those rooms? Or that they need to be on the other wall? Or that a new piece of furniture gets added?
Do you think that all 300 rooms would just update with that new requirement? No. It is someone's job to sit there, click on the outlet on the pallette in the left side of their screen, drag it into the room, rotate it properly, attach it to the right wall, give it a circuit from the panel, and then repeat for 300 rooms. It can take weeks.
I learned how to write software because I realized what a fucking crock of shit waste of time that is. Why are you celebrating and defending menial bullshit that can be automated? A utopian future is literally only possible if we automate away most jobs. I don't think our current system of resource distribution is setup for a utopian future, but it can literally only happen if all the pieces are in place for it, and automating the basic necessities (like building design, and transportation) is one of those necessary pieces. If AI automates software development, that will be awesome because then way more industries (like architecture) will be able to get the software they need to run effectively.
Well it is one thing to automate a repetitive task in your job, and quite another to eliminate entire professions. The latter has serious ramifications and shouldn’t be taken lightly. What you call “menial bullshit” is the entire livelihood and profession of quite a few people, speaking of taxis for one. And the means to make some extra cash for others. Also, a stepping stone for immigrants who may not have the skills or means to get better jobs but are thus able to make a living legally. And sometimes the refuge of white collar workers down on their luck. What are all these people going to do when taxi driving is relegated to robots? Will there be (less menial) alternatives? Will these offer a livable wage? Or will such people end up long-term unemployed? Will the state have enough cash to support them and help them upskill or whatever is needed to survive and prosper?
A technological utopia is a promise from the 1950s. Hasn’t been realized yet. Isn’t on the horizon anytime soon. Careful that in dreaming up utopias we don’t build dystopias.
You can argue for both automation and fair treatment for workers. For example, if gas lamps become electric, you could give the lamplighters some time or new training to find a new job. I'm sure a labor academic would know better how to navigate jobs being obsoleted, but the answer to technologic progress isn't "keep taxi drivers at all costs" it's "protect taxi drivers from corporations"
Well it is one thing to automate a repetitive task in your job, and quite another to eliminate entire professions.
No it is not. That is literally how those jobs are eliminated. 30 years ago CAD came out and helped to automate drafting tasks to the point that a team of 20 drafters turned into 1 or 2 drafters and eventually turned into engineers drafting their own drawings.
What you call “menial bullshit” is the entire livelihood and profession of quite a few people, speaking of taxis for one.
Congratulations, despite you wanting to look at it with rose coloured glasses, that does not change the fact that it is objectively menial bullshit.
What are all these people going to do when taxi driving is relegated to robots?
Find other entry level jobs. If we eliminate *all * entry level jobs through automation, then we will need to implement some form of basic income as there will not be enough useful work for everyone to do. That would be a great problem to have.
Will the state have enough cash to support them and help them upskill or whatever is needed to survive and prosper?
Yes, the state has access to literally all of the profits from automation via taxes and redistribution.
A technological utopia is a promise from the 1950s. Hasn’t been realized yet. Isn’t on the horizon anytime soon. Careful that in dreaming up utopias we don’t build dystopias.
Oh wow, you're saying that if human beings can't create something in 70 years, then that means it's impossible and we'll never create it?
Again, the only way to get to a utopia is to have all of the pieces in place, which necessitates a lot of automation and much more advanced technology than we already have. We're only barely at the point where we can start to practice biology and medicine in a meaningful way, and that's only because computers completely eliminated the former profession of computer.
Be careful that you don't keep yourself stuck in our current dystopia out of fear of change.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Only a matter of time when these robotaxis become a trend and start populating major cities. Eventually roads and infrastructure will get built for these cars for the sake of "convince", thus leaving out any kind of investment for public transportation and walkable roads.
100,000 rides a week. Impressive.
I've used them a few times now and the novelty hasn't worn off yet.
When it does wear off I think I'll move back to alternatives that cost less, unless Waymo gets competitive on price.
Interesting, when I took Waymo, it was cheaper than Uber and Lyft, pre tip.
How much more does it cost to the alternatives?
Uber is quoting me about $15 for a journey that Waymo charged me $19 for.
There's a tip to add for the Uber ride. I'm not sure what the cost for Uber would have been when I took the Waymo.
That’s more than I would have expected at this stage. Huh.
view more: next ›