You must log in or register to comment.

big_throwaway_piano t1_iuddnv8 wrote

I'm fine with automation just on highways.


Andyb1000 t1_iuej80o wrote

The problem car manufacturers are facing is they are trying to make the self driving systems better than us using the car as the single focal point.

ETO Gruppe in Germany are looking to solve this problem with a series of extremely low cost, durable sensor networks that are highly distributed and redundant.

You only need the car to be good enough for full autonomy on highways as complexities, relative to dense urban environments, are manageable. When you enter a complex urban area then the system will be supported by validated networks.

It’s signage and traffic management designed for computers not derived from sight (which cars are bad at discriminating). Here is a video from the article I linked to explaining the approach.


Poltras t1_iuf3wl3 wrote

I’ve stated here and offline multiple times that the single best thing we could do for self driving would be to improve our signage to also have a wireless communication protocol. Teslas get distracted by the moon thinking it’s a yellow light all the time. There’s too much contextual information necessary and ML isn’t capable of properly knowing if a light is green for your lane and if it’s safe to drive, yet.

Put a wireless beacon on lights that indicate lane setup, light status, directions, etc. It wouldn’t be expensive, and it would save all the self driving developers a lot of efforts.


Martin8412 t1_iuf6f4u wrote

Until someone spoofs that signal and supplies false information killing people


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iuffrph wrote

Which would be a crime. People may do that, but then it's up to the law to find them and hold them accountable, just like any other dangerous or improper violation of traffic or any other laws.

That strikes me as the same as saying because some dumb teens throw boulders off of overpasses and kill people we shouldn't have overpasses.


Phssthp0kThePak t1_iug6zqt wrote

Yeah but it's easier to catch teenagers running down a bridge.


DrCashew t1_iuh0u6g wrote

It would actually be easier to catch someone sending an illegal wireless signal, since it would need a transmitter.


Deranged40 t1_iugdhil wrote

I'm confident that will be exactly as big of a problem as people getting into fatal wrecks due to stolen stop signs.


Martin8412 t1_iuk198u wrote

Not really comparable. Humans have a sense of their surroundings.


Deranged40 t1_iuk2iiu wrote

It is a perfectly comparable scenario. My Honda Civic already has a sense of its surroundings, and it's not "self driving" at all. It knows when I'm swaying out of the lane, it knows when I need to slam on the brakes. And that sense will only improve as we do take the step into full automation.

Cars that are using signals from the street won't ever be only relying on those signals, they'll be relying on visual and audio (sonar/ultrasonic range finding) methods as well.


Andyb1000 t1_iuf89dz wrote

ETO Gruppe are utilising a tamper proof ledger in their system. Each unit will be individually registered upon installation and should negate any issues with malicious actors. If it’s proven to work at scale then it could accelerate the adoption of a global standard for IOT enabled devices.


Plyphon t1_iuf5rgm wrote


The reason that hasn’t happened though is someone needs to pay for it, and no manufacturer will pay for the development of systems all the competition can use, and no government can afford anything like that as it’ll take years to develop and great cost.

A neutral private company could agree to finance the development and install and licence the hardware to manufacturers but that’s a real risky bet.


ChinesePropagandaBot t1_iuhjlx0 wrote

> and no government can afford anything like that as it’ll take years to develop and great cost

Really? The Netherlands already has something like this, although it works with an API, not wireless sensors.


Plyphon t1_iuhju0o wrote

That’s cool - never heard of that - do you know what it’s called or have a link I can read about?


ChinesePropagandaBot t1_iuhp5fy wrote

You can find the real time traffic data for the netherlands here:;O=D

Not entirely sure which one contains the traffic light data, but basically there's different streams for live traffic, traffic lights, bridge openings, informational signs above the road etc. which you can all read from the car, live.


Plyphon t1_iuhpop8 wrote

This is cool. I love this type of open data utopia.

Now we just need all car manufacturers to agree to using this data, and to agree to exchange the data not only with the government but also with other cars on the road.


Black08Mustang t1_iuf5s0j wrote

>Put a wireless beacon on lights that indicate lane setup, light status, directions, etc. It wouldn’t be expensive

If the beacon info is wrong, who is responsible for an accident? This is not inexpensive or straightforward.


Vincent_LeRoux t1_iufagyz wrote

The operating agency would typically be responsible, same as with the red yellow green light liability. There are established protocols and systems but voluntary adoption is incredibly slow. The latest push only got about 10% of the very modest goal of 2,000 traffic signals broadcasting by 2020.

There are many challenges both technical, funding, and end user adoption. There is no mandate for this either at the traffic signal or for equipment in new vehicles to receive it. For the cities, they need to geographically map their lanes and intersections to the lights. Like here's the 4 lanes and the left arrow is for the left 2 lanes. And keep it up to date with any changes. That isn't hard, but it takes money to hire a survey team and someone to program it each time.


UrbanGhost114 t1_iufg7p2 wrote

My city cant keep up with the issues they have with light sensors now, and you want to add to it, and make me pay for it?


Vincent_LeRoux t1_iufpox2 wrote

Exactly, and that's a major reason it isn't taking off. We can't even keep up with routine maintenance let alone improve the infrastructure that would help support automated driving.


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iuffdzd wrote

That's a question for the law to settle, but it raises the question of whether it's a fair or reasonable standard to assume that self-driving cars will never have accidents.

Human drivers cause a ton of accidents, but we all more or less accept that a certain amount of them is just a reality of having a large number of drivers on the road. The elephant in the room is that self-driving cars will never have an absolutely perfect operational record either.


rcxdude t1_iug0lxd wrote

The single best thing we could do is clearer signs and road markings. As a bonus it also helps human drivers. Making them wireless helps very little because clear signs are some of the easiest things to recognise and for self-driving you need to recognise everything else on the road, or there's little point. So if you can't recognise signs reliably then there's no point trying the rest of the task because you already suck and should get good at that before you try anything else (which should be a hint about where Tesla's at if they still can't do it). What self-driving cars (and humans) struggle with are ambigious signs and road markings, and they both struggle more with dealing with identifying and predicting the behaviour of everything else on and near the road.

(And this is the actual conversation actual self-driving companies are having with governments around the world, but it doesn't tend to result in anything because 'just do what we should be doing anyway but better' tends not to result in sexy headlines or votes)


xtraCt42 t1_iuh71h3 wrote

And that's where V2X-Communication comes into play. There is no amount of sensors that will allow a car to drive fully autonomous. But if it can communicate with other cars and the infrastructure the missing gaps of information can be filled


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iufeucx wrote

I think there's a political dimension as well.

Part of the problem is that self-driving cars are expected to have a perfect operational record for liability purposes, but that's an unrealistically high standard.

Something like legislation that says operational standards at the level of the average human driver are "good enough" (and maybe even indemnifying companies to some extent) could probably help, though it would probably be controversial for understandable reasons. In any event, it's no more than has been done for other industries.


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iufe7aw wrote

Sure, but the problem is a lot of the expected utility of self-driving cars centered on their ability to transport those who don't/can't drive, and highway-only pretty much ends that.


big_throwaway_piano t1_iugjrvo wrote

eh, i only met 1 person who cared about that; i primarily want my life to be easier


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iugkvl1 wrote

So are most people, but that's pretty much my point. A lot of the potential market for FSD vehicles are people for whom the current status quo is not working. Take that away and it's just glorified cruise control.


feor1300 t1_iufv7yq wrote

I don't think location should be the question, it should be the purpose. I'm fine with self-driving buses, taxi cabs, and freight haulers, because they're being operated by a company, someone who can be subject to oversight and inspection.

Basically I don't trust the average private user to maintain a self-driving car to a standard that would keep that vehicle road worthy and operating itself in a safe fashion (I do technical support, I know how little care most people will give to their computers, and I've seen many cars that should by no means be on the road), but I do trust them to find ways to bypass whatever safety interlocks companies try to put on the cars to keep them from being used in unsafe conditions (I also know many people who sit on their seatbelt just so the car will stop dinging at them while they're driving)


newleafkratom OP t1_iudbg5j wrote

“SELF-DRIVING CAR DEVELOPER Argo AI suddenly announced that it was closing its doors this week. Some of its 1,800-odd employees, already reduced by summer layoffs, are to be offered jobs to “work on automated technology with either Ford or Volkswagen,” Catherine Johnsmeyer, an Argo spokesperson, said in a statement. The two auto giants had sunk some $3.6 billion into Argo and owned most of it. Now, they had decided to pull the plug…”


LetsGoHawks t1_iudjfxd wrote

Automakers realize what AI specialists have been saying for 10 years: The way AI works at this time, it's never going to be good enough for fully self driving cars. And even if it were, the computer to run it, and the generator to power that computer, would require a shipping container.


ocktick t1_iudnayl wrote

In all likelihood it just requires changing the infrastructure to support AV. Right now it’s like we’re trying to make a general purpose AI that can act like a human rather than change the roads to be AV compatible.


StrudelStrike t1_iue91lz wrote

My favorite semi-autonomous vehicle infrastructure is trains. What’s that? The technology has existed for over a century?


DevCatOTA t1_iuf6vev wrote

Start by creating an elevated tram system that services 80%+ of the population. Envision something like the rail-based individual PeopleMover cars at Disneyland. For those unfamiliar with the PeopleMover, picture a small train car able to hold six people at most. If these were independent of one another, they could be called up using an app on your phone and take you to major shopping or event locations.

This reduces road congestion and frees up real estate. It also reduces the amount of data an FSD system has to deal with. You can now concentrate on using fully autonomous cars that travel the roads servicing the remaining 20% as well as transporting people to and from PeopleMover stations.


ocktick t1_iueh1yz wrote

Sure, if a train could take you everywhere that a car can then it would be amazing. I don’t think AVs are trying to solve the same problem as trains though.


fizzlefist t1_iueo3ra wrote

Well it’s hard to overcome a century of terrible car-centric city planning.


StrudelStrike t1_iuf0m7b wrote

If we’re going to completely rebuild the infrastructure to support AVs on roads, it would be dramatically more effective and ecologically friendly to replace them with trains, bus rapid transit, standard busses, bike paths, etc.


ocktick t1_iuf16my wrote

Bike paths don’t work in climates unsuitable for biking for large parts of the year. And a train will never achieve the granularity of a vehicle. There are too many use cases where a vehicle needs to access an individual address for the solution to be “just do trains.” In terms of environment, AVs would be drastically more efficient since they could be shared. Again comparing it to rail is silly since a train will never deliver your sofa to your doorstep or wait for you to take your Costco haul of groceries inside.


TokenMenses t1_iuehpec wrote

Changing the infrastructure to fit autonomous vehicles is incredibly expensive and becomes a way to shift liability off of the autonomous vehicle manufacturers and on to pedestrians and drivers and cyclists. AVs need to drive on the road just like any other car or stay off of it.


[deleted] t1_iuf5vot wrote

Where are the fucking flying cars I was promised 30 years ago? Seems like those would be easier to automate. And they're flying cars.


FruitbatNT t1_iufbywj wrote

30? More like 70 years ago. Post war was where all the “city of tomorrow” nonsense came from.


jrockwar t1_iueqgie wrote

The problem is that changing the roads to make things easy for AI includes removing drivers from them. If it were feasible to remove all manually driven cars, the problem would be a lot easier... But we can't will drivers out of existence.


D4RTHV3DA t1_iudol0s wrote

Ah yes, the ol "nobody could make a computer like that" excuse. I'll see you in 10-20 years.


KSRandom195 t1_iudk1z0 wrote

We’ll just all drive semis. No big deal right?


NormalHorse t1_iudoy1m wrote

If all cities were pedestrian-centric, the only vehicles we'd need to really worry about being automated would be shipping trucks. So, kinda.


Badfickle t1_iuj7fbg wrote

That's nonsense. Have you seen FSD 10.69? Go watch some recent videos on youtube.


DeafHeretic t1_iue5q3w wrote

  1. Never say never

  2. It isn't the hardware, it is the software. The hardware will continue to improve exponentially, but it is the algorithms that will take time.


TheOtherWhiteCastle t1_iuev2pw wrote

Not too mention there are far too many people that are opposed to the idea of self driving vehicles. Much like with electric cars, it will take decades to get the general public on board with the idea even if the tech is there.


Unicycldev t1_iuexaya wrote

It’s not that it will never work, it’s just that it’s several hardware generations from being production ready. I suspect there is no profitable business case yet. And is you either continue to fund the research, or you wait for someone to do it for you.


hewhowalk t1_iudro3z wrote

Well thats not true. We are very close to actually having self driving cars. Just not for every single situation (SAE Level 5). There are plenty of applications within reach for self driving vehicles like trucking, busses and shuttles. (SAE Level 4).


Legitimate_Plum9 t1_iuee2kh wrote

Self driving has been used in trucking for two decades now. There is no comparison between what’s needed to drive on a highway vs an area with pedestrians.


hewhowalk t1_iueeoao wrote

No, it has not been used "for decades in trucking". It has used in mines and other super confined areas for decades. That is not comparable with the wave of trucking applications we are about to see in the coming years.


Legitimate_Plum9 t1_iueh2qj wrote

Yes, it has I don’t know why you’re arguing with me. They still require a driver for safety but many routes are more than 90% autonomous and have been for years in some form.


hewhowalk t1_iuf3r6z wrote

ADAS is not autonomous. Not sure what else you are refering to


hicow t1_iugesn6 wrote

This is not even close to true. Feel free to cite whatever you have to support what you're saying, though.


LetsGoHawks t1_iufq2j1 wrote

Please post a link to this amazing tech that has been self driving trucks on highways for decades.

Tesla announced the first commercially available self driving tech in October 2014, 8 years ago.


Badfickle t1_iuj7v65 wrote

Self driving that deals with pedestrians is here now.


Icy_Holiday_1089 t1_iudk2ef wrote

Self driving is kinda the new 3D / VR. Destined to disappear and then reappear with new fanfare every 10-15 years.


tinyhorsesinmytea t1_iuf4b48 wrote

I don’t think VR is going to disappear this time. There’s an ever growing base of enthusiasts out there and Quest 2 crushed the sales of the first Quest. I’m guessing the new PlayStation headset will do quite well too since that appear to have some good games planned. Hell, porn alone should keep VR around in some capacity.


UrbanGhost114 t1_iufgx6l wrote

Sometimes is being in the right place at the right time, or sometimes (VR in particular) VR just wasn't really ready the first couple of times they tried, now the tech is here at considerably more affordable and accessible prices (Headset + Machine), and availability.


leto78 t1_iudw7cu wrote

The problem is not the technology but rather a fundamentally flawed business strategy. Fortunately, there is a linear technological development roadmap between ADAS and full self driving. The correct approach would have been to bet on incremental improvements until FSD was achieved. Trying to leapfrog to FSD was too much of a gap and people underestimated the complexity of the problem, the maturity of the technology, and effort required to achieve the goals.

New technologies like solid state LIDAR systems, better Image Recognition systems, multispectral cameras, and other technologies are getting more mature and cheaper so that they will be easily integrated into a vehicle in an affordable manner. All these technologies will make ADAS systems better and better, up to a point that they will have full awareness of the environment, and be able to achieve FSD. On the IA front, there is still a lot of work to be done, especially in terms of sensor fusion, namely being able to integrate data from cameras, using multiple frequency bands, with LIDAR point maps, and ultrasonic sensors.


mclark9 t1_iue1205 wrote

I disagree, there is not an ‘incremental improvements’ path from ADAS to FSD. From an engineering standpoint, they are two totally different problems.


leto78 t1_iue93vy wrote

Personally, I don't think that they are completely different systems. From from ICE to BEV is definitely going from system to another completely different system, and hybrid systems are not really a transition path from a technological development. You cannot make ever greater improvements to ICE vehicles and get to BEV vehicles. You need a radical departure from one to the other.

As for ADAS and FSD, they rely on the same hardware, same technology, and same focus. The adaptive cruise control with lane keeping system is one narrow scope of the overall FSD. Of course, there is a huge technological leap that is required to reach FSD, but a progressive development is a direct path to FSD.


mclark9 t1_iuebrjz wrote

Agree that there are technology overlaps, like sensing systems. But the difficult engineering problems like, mapping, decision making, stop and go interactions with other vehicles, etc. are not going to be solved by iterating ADAS technologies because they are not ADAS problems. Time will tell which of us is correct, I guess, because many of the ARGO people will be going to Ford to work on ADAS technologies.


UrbanGhost114 t1_iufi6g8 wrote

The leap is really getting all that information from the various ADAS programs, and compiling them to make a correct decision with the AI (which doesn't even exist yet).

Right now, no system can make enough correct decisions with the information for anyone to feel like this is anywhere close to being ready for FSD at any stage, at least publicly (No idea what DARPA looks like with this kind of stuff).


fibonacci16180 t1_iue7otj wrote

ADAS levels 2 to 5 require exponential levels of investment, not linear in any way. Even the L2+ systems are pretty disappointing. GM had to scan the entire highway network to get their system to work, and Tesla’s and Comma.AI don’t work that well at all. Mercedes has a L3 system for the easiest use case (stop and go traffic on the highway). Waymo’s L4 seems like it works, but the fact that it’s in a controlled environment and they haven’t scaled the service after years of operation is pretty telling about the state of the technology. We’ve been “18 months away” from the promised land for a decade. As it turns out, AI is way harder than anyone thought.


keijikage t1_iufgi49 wrote

Thoughts on the mobile eye solution? They seemed pretty good, barring the hardware costs.

I actually run openpilot, and I think it's fantastic as an adas for the cost


twowayhash t1_iugnenv wrote

Was one of the devs using Mobileye tech for a self driving car company. Never got it to work well. Traffic light detector was a 50:50 game. This was 4 years ago, not sure how good they are now!


CarsVsHumans t1_iugb8yy wrote

What do you mean they haven't scaled? It looks to me like they are scaling exponentially. As is Cruise. Just come to SF and see how many AVs there are. The problem is we're still at the bottom of the S-curve, where you need to double several times over before it's noticeable at a macro level.


fibonacci16180 t1_iugoino wrote

They’re testing. Rides are only open to the public in Phoenix, which has been the case since 2017. If the model was easily scalable, every city in the world would have it by now.


defcon_penguin t1_iudz6l4 wrote

I assume that they are also doing that. Their cars have assisted driving systems, and they are going to continuously improve on them. I however doubt that with iterative improvement on those systems you are going to reach full self driving. Full self driving means that you are never going to need a steering wheel in the car, and the car can take you everywhere you could drive. That requires human level intelligence. You don't get there just by training your neural networks just a bit more


Infamous_Yogurt2858 t1_iufgz2a wrote

Depends on how you mean. The problem isn't self-driving ability per se, but the standard of proficiency. The technology is already there to produce an FSD car, just not one capable of maintaining anything near the level of safety standard we'd require. It's entirely possible at some point, somewhere FSD cars will simply be declared "good enough" even if there are still a lot of bugs. (not saying that would necessarily be a good thing, but it's something I could see happening).


DBDude t1_iuidqxr wrote

The question is when FSD is safer than humans. The problem is we as humans will ignore millions of accidents avoided by FSD that always has instant reaction times and doesn't get distracted, and we'll be scared of it because of rare edge cases where a human may have been able to do better.


DeafHeretic t1_iue5ie2 wrote

>Trying to leapfrog to FSD was too much of a gap and people underestimated the complexity of the problem, the maturity of the technology, and effort required to achieve the goals.

It is a hard problem, one that as you infer, will take time and a lot of effort.

One of the harder problems I see, is driving on the kind of roads and in the kind of conditions that I have to deal with; a gravel road that is muddy or icy or covered in snow, with no easily discernable edges - especially during the night or when covered with snow - especially when covered with snow (often unplowed). Add in ruts in the snow after multiple vehicles have driven any snow covered road, and you have conditions that are hard for humans to drive thru, much less an AI.

I have 50+ years of driving experience and it isn't easy for me to navigate the roads to my house on a remote mountain. In another 10-15 years I will probably want/need a self-driving car, so I hope there is significant progress made, but while there has been significant progress made from 20 years ago, I think the developers are now hitting the hard problems and it will take more time than I have left.


jrockwar t1_iueq24p wrote

That is the difference between L4 and L5. L4 is full self driving, unsupervised, on controlled environments. L5 is fully unsupervised, anywhere, anytime.

As someone working on this sector: I think we're about 50-100 years away from L5, if it ever happens. Getting an AI to work "anywhere, anytime" is almost an utopia.


rcxdude t1_iug1bhg wrote

TBH, a lot of humans aren't at L5 by that standard.


iheartjetman t1_iuewl2m wrote

Would it be easier if autonomous cars ran on train tracks (or something similar) instead of roads?


lItsAutomaticl t1_iuexz3c wrote

If manufacturers could agree on a standard, they could start installing radio transmitters or some other sensor on roads that would keep vehicles in their lane.


crtjer t1_iudig8a wrote

I mean the true benefits only occur when all cars are autonomous


garbans t1_iuel1mh wrote

And interconnected between them, hopefully we don't have another ios/android situation, they have learnt their lessons.. right?


kyler000 t1_iufzqao wrote

Easy fix. Governments could mandate an industry standard communication protocol. We're seeing something similar with USB-C.


hicow t1_iugf0sg wrote

Not just that, though - are non-autonomous cars going to be outlawed? Even if a full L5-capable car were released tomorrow, it would be decades before they were common and inexpensive enough to replace non-autonomous vehicles for a huge chunk of the population


prfsr_moriarty t1_iuexbyr wrote

And at that point pedestrians in cities will know that autonomous cars will stop to avoid hitting them, and jaywalking will grind traffic to a halt.


crtjer t1_iuf518z wrote

I think the benefits were more so for morning or evening commuter traffic. I think cities will continue to evolve to put pedestrian and biker ways over individual cars, even then I don't think it would cause traffic to purely halt because of jaywalking, especially with one person. If you had 100 jaywalkers then sure.


kyflyboy t1_iudixym wrote

A near insolvable problem.


Elegant_Revolution27 t1_iufckmg wrote

Why not put in a maglev system you drive on and it takes you cross country for a few dollars, run it on renewables. Then with less traffic on highways you don’t need to have high dollar systems for people not to drive their cars so they can sleep or be on their phones. This system can charge your car, give you wifi and can let you stop to eat or pee. It also could be set up to move trailers by themselves to destination and driver would pick it up and deliver it, at huge cost savings. This is not the stupid tube by Musk but ground level mover. Speed would be in 250 to 300 kl range.


Denslayer t1_iue09m5 wrote

/fuckcars build more trains.


bamfalamfa t1_iues5jx wrote

the only country capable of doing fully self driving is china because they have the centralized authority to literally rip their roads apart and build a road network that also supports self driving vehicles


hypercomms2001 t1_iuezy7y wrote

It is interesting that VW has abandon developing this technology, as it has been pursuing self driving vehicles as far back as the mid 1980s….


hicow t1_iugg9r9 wrote

They haven't abandoned it - they're working with Bosch, one of their primary suppliers.


domino2064 t1_iug6e4n wrote

>It is interesting that VW has abandon developing this technology, as it has been pursuing self driving vehicles as far back as the mid 1980s….

That tells me they've hit too many issues and determined it isn't safely feasible in all contexts and situations.


unpopular_upvote t1_iugaobn wrote

Remember when VW invested money on cheating on emissions tests? Good times.


blkbny t1_iueew3g wrote

They issue they keep having is that each company tries to create their own unique solution to self driving instead of working together to create standards and compatibility so the vehicles and infrastructure can all work on the road harmoniously. (e.g. a self driving car shouldn't fully rely on detecting a red light via vision sensors, instead the the traffic light should tell the vehicle it's current state via radio)


drmariopepper t1_iuev866 wrote

The only way self driving will work in the short term is if all vehicles are mandated to upgrade, and the infrastructure is updated with in-road guidance sensors. So in other words, it’s not going to happen in the short term. We’re probably 50+ years away, but that won’t stop Tesla from selling “self driving” tech that doesn’t work and isn’t safe!


Busy-Weather-9048 t1_iufaiiz wrote

Ford tech.

Our self driving system relies on the vehicle “seeing” the road markings through a forward facing camera. (Paint lines) Even just dirty or snow/salt covered roads cause the system to hibernate until it can see again. Even simply worn faded paint, like basically every road here has in Illinois, is also a no. Many customers complain how the system rarely works as advertised. This would require states to invest in maintaining their roadways.

(Pause for laughter)

No! Seriously, like actually using your tax dollars to better your….you, in the back, stop laughing.

So, there you have the future folks. That’s the real problem with self driving cars. “Thanks JB!” (IL gov ad)


_PM_ME_YOUR_SYNTAX_ t1_iugf7le wrote

Great! Now bring us the true self driving vehicles - public transportation


timelyparadox t1_iugv99s wrote

As muchs as I would love self driving cars (trains/buses are a good alternative) the uphill legal battle for accountability is just too big even if we ignore the technical problems. We nees it to be 100% accurate if we do not want to deal with accidents and responsibility and it will never be that


Ok_Marionberry_9932 t1_iue2v74 wrote

Passing on the buck to let others do it. That sounds about right for these two. No ethics in the first place,


littleMAS t1_iuegpy4 wrote

One huge hurdle to self-driving autos is the fact that many drivers will not tolerate them. Frankly, many drivers do not tolerate other drivers but usually have to put up with them because they have as much right to the road. The reasons for this animosity are legion, and that only confounds the issue. I guess it is the devil you know verses the devil you do not know.


PastTense1 t1_iuev0rz wrote

A huge amount of the technology in a car is provided by suppliers, not by the car manufacturer. This is simply a decision where Ford and VW have decided to acquire self-driving technology from suppliers rather than doing it themselves.


jphamlore t1_iuevopu wrote

The correct approach was the original vision that had been considered the future before the delusion of autonomous self-driving only in the past 5 years: Every vehicle is connected to the cellular network.


BossDoesntKnow t1_iuesi0k wrote

This is where you have to ask: are they trying to solve the wrong problem?

With flying cars coming up quick, how much of the "self driving" problems will actually need solving?

Suddenly the idea of problems gets lower and the risks (e.g.pedestrians) go much lower


hicow t1_iugfgvk wrote

> With flying cars coming up quick

Flying cars are not "coming up quick", for a whole host of reasons.


medraxus t1_iuews62 wrote

They just cleared the path for Musk to create one of the most valuable companies in history


hypercomms2001 t1_iuf0oxi wrote

There is a sucker born every minute…


medraxus t1_iuf70xh wrote

Yea, all that guy has to do is pump out videos about Musk and you suckers eat it up


hypercomms2001 t1_iufckga wrote

Touched a sore point.... eh? Your "God" promised Full Self Driving in 2017... and here we are in 2022 and fuck all!! As you seem to like Thunderfoot... here is more... because he has a way of using the Bullshit spin of Musk against himself....




hicow t1_iugfdrk wrote

Didn't he first promise it was two years away in 2015? and 2017, 2019, 2021...

Meanwhile, new Teslas only have optical cameras, not even radar any longer. They've taken a whole lot of people's money promising the FSD they've paid for is right around the corner. They're not even leading the pack in automation anymore. They're still dicking around with L2 automation while Mercedes is getting ready to release L3-capable cars.


manbearpyg t1_iuexeb0 wrote

The only company that truly understands A) the paradigm shift that autonomous driving will be and B) the technology required to achieve it is Tesla. Tesla is also the only company 100% committed to achieving it. Every other company sees it as a pet project. Good luck achieving an extremely difficult goal when you don't see it as imperative to your future.


sunflower_jim t1_iuhe2z9 wrote

They are also years ahead of everyone else. I said years ago the other auto makers would throw stupid amounts of money trying to buy there way into this but you can’t buy years of AI research. It must be developed over time. Tesla has years in the trenches that VW cannot just buy and catch up over night. Maybe they don’t achieve it but if any company does it will be tesla.


manbearpyg t1_iuigffz wrote

Exactly. The Musk Derangement Syndrome in this sub is palpable!


hypercomms2001 t1_iuf0h9a wrote

Bullshit! Those who believe anything coming out of Elon Musk’s are fools to believe him and his lies…..


manbearpyg t1_iufudw6 wrote

Ooh the infamously debunked thunderf00t video. You're such a sleuth! Can't wait to see how this ages in a couple months! 😘


Think_Junket_5891 t1_iug0c1l wrote

Name one place with public roads that Tesla is legally driving without a driver


hicow t1_iugg78w wrote

Tesla has been promising it's "two years away" for 7 years. Despite Musk confidently stating FSD-equipped Teslas have all the hardware required, they don't even know what's required, being there are no L5-capable vehicles on the roads. Teslas have also move to optical cameras only, which are likely the cause of the phantom braking issues that now have them under investigation by the feds. Keep in mind that's separate from the investigation as to why Teslas have a bad habit of plowing into parked emergency vehicles.

Teslas are still only capable of L2 automation, which is not a lot of progress over 7 years.