> "This is one of the hardest problems we have. This is like we are going to Mars," Hitzinger said in a comment. "Maybe it will never happen."
First of all, it seems obvious that we are going to go to Mars, eventually. Maybe not any time soon, but never? Seriously?
But the bigger thing is that there is about 1000 times more economic benefit to self driving cars than of going to Mars, at least in the near term. To think we'd just give up on it seems absurd.
I don't understand the general tenor and sentiment of the comments here. I've taken dozens of self-driving cars rides in SF in the last few months. They were magical, and _they work_.
It blows my mind that the general defeatist tone is "it can't be done", while it's literally happening right now. It took a bajillion dollars and decades of work, but we're past the tipping point now.
Sure, regulation must happen, it's not like a chat bot where screwing up is worst case scenario being canceled for a week. Lives are on the line. But outright "it's impossible and must be stopped" is literally against progress.
Yeah but, if I'm not mistaken, autopilot only works on highways. Self-driving in such an environment may be 'close' to a solved problem, but if we are talking about a service capable of picking people up at their door... yeah, I'm not convinced.
>I think AutoPilot will be a truly remarkable achievement — as in, approaching a watershed human achievement akin to spaceflight.
Just want to point out the irony in this statement. Ok sure, fully autonomous self driving may be a great technological achievement, but it will be an achievement that benefits rent-seeking corporations rather than humanity at large. Sure, the benefits of such a service could allow car-free living at a price cheaper than leasing/owning a car, but this is a benefit that will be reaped by those with means (middle class) while the poor will still be riding the bus or walking. It would also make investment in public transportation even less likely, which would actually result in a net benefit for all.
I'm not altogether convinced that the money and effort spent on self-driving cars has led or will lead to any significant improvements in cost or efficiency either.
Even if it does succeed, it seems to be about convenience anyway.
I think the main point, as this article alludes to, is that we may end up with safe and actually fully autonomous vehicles, but they're bloody annoying to ride in. At that point nobody will be willing to pay that $1000 premium, and you'll never recoup costs.
Personally I think given the prior that we can achieve self-driving tech, there's a ~75% probability people won't want that tech.
We've seen it so many times before, companies spending $$$ on R&D of some cool new thing and people just go "meh." I don't see a compelling argument for why this won't just join the ranks of 3D-TVs, Google Glass and flying cars.
This is overly idealistic. Many people are afraid of technologies they don't understand, and self driving cars will certainly be a technology people don't understand. I can already imagine the scaremongering headlines about self driving cars "assassinating" their passengers or pedestrians. Countering fear and uncertainty may take effort, and effort = money.
Saying you don't want self-driving cars really IS insane. They are already way better at driving than humans in many situations, and they are only going to improve with time.
Even if you don't believe they are good enough now, to say that they are NEVER going to be good enough is ridiculous.
I think his point is that FSD is an inevitability and when it comes it will generally upend the way we think about cars. Manual driving may always be a thing but it would become more of a passion than a way to get to work in the morning. The vast majority of value would come from autonomous transportation and logistics.
It just seems like this whole endeavor is solving the wrong problem. Building a self driving car is like making a faster horse. Individual cars on roads is incredibly inefficient and even EVs have a huge negative impact on health and air quality from tire and brake dust.
Even if self-driving cars were perfect and every manufacturer came out with one tomorrow, it would still be 20 or 30 years before the existing cars on the road were all replaced. To say nothing of the decades of R&D that will be required starting now in order to get us to that point.
I think it's naive to suggest this as an alternative when we could have working mass transit systems using proven equipment within a decade. Why would we wait for what might come when we could have something better today?
The question isn't whether it's possible to constrain the road environment such that self driving cars can work, but whether it's desirable. The article is simply answering in the negative.
The author has a very bizarre pessimistic view of humanity. I imagine the overwhelming majority of people would utilize a service just to get from point A to point B. I would also note that given the technology, self-driving vehicles will be a very controlled environment where users will be fined or banned for foul play. Also, the greater utilization of the car will have them depreciate much more quickly, which would mean that the cars would tend to be newer and designed for heavy use, much like bikes on cities bike share programs.
The “EV” part seems to be carrying the weight there, not the self-driving. Self-driving might even make those problems worse by decreasing the cost of driving.
It’s like saying “self-driving cars and solving the nitrogen fixation problem would be a big win for preventing famine.”
Can't upvote this enough. Taking this thought further -- it's telling that most people in the tech industry don't even consider this as a worthwhile goal. Both company leaders and employees.
If people here can create self-driving cars, delocalizing software work doesn't seem so far fetched. I'm inclined to believe that there is a lack of will and vision rather than a lack of ability.
> "This is one of the hardest problems we have. This is like we are going to Mars," Hitzinger said in a comment. "Maybe it will never happen."
First of all, it seems obvious that we are going to go to Mars, eventually. Maybe not any time soon, but never? Seriously?
But the bigger thing is that there is about 1000 times more economic benefit to self driving cars than of going to Mars, at least in the near term. To think we'd just give up on it seems absurd.
reply