Comments
shahooster t1_itpspkg wrote
In 2015, I thought the transition would happen starting ~2025. Pretty clearly got that one wrong.
e: 2025 expected
onyxengine t1_itr26d7 wrote
We can do it, hybrid is just difficult to fine tune, and fully automated would be expensive while having lots of public resistance.
No one has enough access to enough roadway to really iron out the bugs, and simple devices that give the ais better information to make decisions would have to become standard accessories on vehicles and miles of highway.
lyacdi t1_itpxuqc wrote
In 2017 i thought it would start happening around 2020. also got that one extremely wrong
5050Clown t1_itpytew wrote
In 2018 or 2019 I spoke with someone who was worked for a company that was demoing self driving cars at a Vegas tech fair and he laughed at the idea that they would replace people in 20 years.
Sanchez_U-SOB t1_itqxp7p wrote
Humans are unpredictable a lot and it's hard to make the machines adapt to that fact.
MrSteakGradeA t1_itpw3t8 wrote
"My guess as to when we would think it is safe for somebody to essentially fall asleep and wake up at their destination?" he mused. "Probably towards the end of next year."
Ekvinoksij t1_itqu75w wrote
He just says whatever he thinks will pump the stock.
He predicts FSD by next year every year.
[deleted] t1_itrqfj8 wrote
[deleted]
mr9025 t1_itpyrem wrote
I would say yes. Pretty shortly before ten years. If say, IBM is able to master this new AI for deep based learning, or make their transition from electricity based chips to light based chips, for just two examples of technology revolutions we’re already on the cusp of among many others, then safer autodriving cars would be much more within grasp imo.
Fritzschmied t1_itpzrnb wrote
Maybe in the us but here in Europe it takes at least 10 years to even make it legal for autonomous to be a thing. Here it isn’t even legal to use the full functionality of a Tesla as it is right now.
Just_Discussion6287 t1_itsbpyd wrote
Replacement is a tricky topic because that means every vehicle would have to be equipped with the technology starting in the next few years to get to the majority by 20 years.
Meanwhile 2-3% of the fleet would get rid of almost every driving job. That's definitely 2033 territory.
There's not nearly as much value to the average person as there is to companies.
smtsmtusername t1_itq5l6t wrote
I expect they never replace drivers to be honest. Maybe except on highways with better technologies for safety purposes. But not in cities except if the technology prioritizes the safety of pedestrians and cyclists that did not chose to use a car and the danger it represents. They shouldn’t have to pay with their lives if someone else decided to use a car.
luniz420 t1_itqqtx5 wrote
Gullible people
KY_4_PREZ t1_itrdwga wrote
Muskrat and his disciples sure do lol
spreadlove5683 t1_itrn7n8 wrote
Metaculus thinks there will be significant replacement in the next decade:
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/11608/self-driving-taxis-available-to-metaculites/
Fritzschmied t1_itrnxup wrote
Maybe in the us but here in Europe where I come from it’s not even allowed to use the full feature set of a Tesla as it is right now. It takes at least a decade to even make it legal possible to do autonomous driving. Sadly our governments are that slow.
pandoras_sphere t1_itsvay7 wrote
Tesla FSD is getting pretty good, and it has two massive blind spots from the lack of forward looking repeater camera. It is also using a computer from 3.5 years ago ((introduced 2019-03)[https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/tesla_(car_company)/fsd_chip])
I think if they make new repeaters with forward looking cameras, and perhaps a new computer behind the glovebox they should be able to pull it off.
The current FSD 3 computer is backwards compatible with FSD 2 wiring (introduced 2016-10).
Maleficent_Box5566 t1_itv9c6u wrote
At this point I wouldn't care if they added a bump to the A pillar and moved those B pillar cameras up there. The perspectives are the limiting factor now. Also the rear camera needs an automatic cleaning method.
pandoras_sphere t1_itvjaax wrote
For the existing fleet, they only have the existing wiring to deal with. Hence, I don't see a new A-Pillar camera being an option.
The changed the front of the repeater from chrome to black. I think this hints at adding a camera someday in the future.
I'll be interested to see the camera decisions in the cyber truck.
Ifkaluva t1_itqe45h wrote
Didn’t Lyft sell its autonomous driving division? Seems like a smart thing to say to shareholders right after selling the division “that thing we spun off won’t work for at least a decade, we got a good deal”.
DonQuixBalls t1_ituy1hq wrote
Everyone in the industry is confident it will happen in less than ten years. Lyft isn't in the industry. They don't know.
aaahhhhhhfine t1_itqbr28 wrote
People always present this like it's a binary variable. That makes sense for almost nobody... Maybe except Lyft.
We already have self driving cars. My car has "adaptive cruise control" and fancier versions of that do more and more for you on the highway. We're definitely going to see more and more gradual progress of cars taking over certain tasks, from highway driving, to parking, to basic summoning tasks, etc. And that's good. Humans are terrible drivers.
The furthest step out is what a Lyft needs... Like a car that you can deploy anywhere with no human involvement and have it done anything. That's definitely a long way off. But I don't think basic driving will look anything like it does today as we get closer to that point. I would love to see more "self driving only" lanes on highways, or garages designed for autonomous cars, or whatever other cool innovation we'll see. Those things still help a lot along the way.
knox3 t1_itq1ezd wrote
If I am injured in an accident involving multiple self-driving cars, will I have to wait to get paid until megacorporations resolve an epic lawsuit to determine who was at fault?
What is the plan for handling liability for accidents? Because there will still be some accidents.
Silhouette_Edge t1_itqr7mv wrote
Self-driving electric vehicles are the future of cars, but cars aren't the future of transportation.
lughnasadh OP t1_itpnr15 wrote
Submission Statement
I find this interview odd, as it seems to fly in the face of other things we can see happening. We seem to be at an inflection point with autonomous cars. At least two companies, one in China, one in San Francisco, are live testing Level 4 robo-taxis without safety drivers. If this testing is successful, then it's hard not to see this as the start of robo-taxis beginning to eat into the business of human-driven taxis.
I wonder if this interview is a CEO trying to reassure shareholders over a decision he's made? He mentions he sold off Lyft's autonomous tech. Perhaps he's attempting to make the best case for that decision by downplaying that his competitors are making such strides with it?
RobleyTheron t1_itr7pjp wrote
I think there are several factors at play:
First, the $100MM per year Lyft was spending seems like a drop in the bucket to the billions of dollars GM and Waymo are spending every year. Combining with a large automobile manufacturer may have been their best bet to remain competitive.
Although there are two companies testing level 4 technology, we don't know anything about how much time a safety driver is required to take over in a remote operation center. Despite being on the road, for all we know safety drivers are required at least once in the vast majority of trips (thus not saving money or being economical on a large scale).
SF is definitely hard city driving, that doesn't mean it'll adapt well to other locations and climates.
I do think Lyft was likely behind the other companies, but given the slow rate of progress over the last three years, and my own painful development on alternative AI systems, large scale rollout is probably 10 years away.
tms102 t1_itr4vf0 wrote
> Lyft co-founder says autonomous vehicles won’t replace drivers for at least a decade*
*for Lyft.
Amazing that he can confidently plan 10 years out. Meanwhile, cruise, mobileye, waymo, etc. are expanding driverless operations.
HarkonnenSpice t1_itrraxk wrote
When I said it a decade ago everyone insisted I was a moron because these guys disagreed with me.
A decade later and they are all saying it too.
4art4 t1_itqivtt wrote
I think this is what is called "foreshadowing" in the biz.
To be fair, he might be right... Might not. "Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future."
TemetN t1_itqpixb wrote
Waymo exists. Frankly, that rollout is only just really starting in earnest is not really much of a defense of such a comment.
[deleted] t1_itpqzr8 wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_itpslrx wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
Submission Statement
I find this interview odd, as it seems to fly in the face of other things we can see happening. We seem to be at an inflection point with autonomous cars. At least two companies, one in China, one in San Francisco, are live testing Level 4 robo-taxis without safety drivers. If this testing is successful, then it's hard not to see this as the start of robo-taxis beginning to eat into the business of human-driven taxis.
I wonder if this interview is a CEO trying to reassure shareholders over a decision he's made? He mentions he sold off Lyft's autonomous tech. Perhaps he's attempting to make the best case for that decision by downplaying that his competitors are making such strides with it?
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yd35v3/lyft_cofounder_says_autonomous_vehicles_wont/itpnr15/
[deleted] t1_itpt6sz wrote
[removed]
Crafty_Bag_4871 t1_itpxcns wrote
I thought we were like 5 years away. That guess is based on nothing
WeirdStretch t1_itq8fp6 wrote
There is no damn way I’m getting in an autonomous vehicle until every single vehicle is autonomous on a smart road system…
Idiots behind the wheel will always be the weak link
[deleted] t1_itqii4f wrote
[removed]
RogerRabbit1234 t1_itqohzh wrote
Hot Take..way to hang it all out there with that bold prediction.
[deleted] t1_itqpgue wrote
[removed]
Sanchez_U-SOB t1_itqxf0s wrote
I read autonomous vehicles can't anticipate human decisions and timing. That unless all cars are autonomous and working together, they'll need to adapt the systems more.
simonf75 t1_itruhf0 wrote
lmao, I'm 47 years old and fully self-driving cars have been 5 years away for the majority of my life.
CMDRStodgy t1_itu3tsf wrote
I'm roughly the same age and that's just simply not true. Before 2005 self driving was pure science fiction. The most optimistic estimates from anyone in the industry put self driving cars at least 40 years away, in the 2040 to 2050 time frame. There was no path forward. Even if hardware continued to advance to the point it was possible nobody had any idea how to do the software side or what it would look like.
The 2005 Grand Challenge changed everything. There had been major breakthroughs in both image recognition and LIDAR and now there was a path forward. Self driving cars were suddenly not just possible, but it looked like they were only 10 to 20 years away.
cash_dollar_money t1_its13p8 wrote
One thing that is rarely talked about on this subreddit is that autonomous transit is already a thing. Driverless metros have been build and are being built around the world. It seems likely that an expansion of the environments this established technology currently operates in will be the first thing we see.
DeWikenta t1_ittbcrp wrote
I am always amazed as people listen this kind of person as prophets. i mean, the guy is a CEO of a company, with zero background in IA or automation. These declarations are for shareholders and investor and got absolute no point in real life. Let just remember to people thinking a CEO is a smart person, that Steve Jobs tried to cure his cancer with fruit juices.
sanjsrik t1_itppjqv wrote
Says the company that relies on drivers for their service.
Well, we don't have any skin in this game.
pablitorun t1_itpwot4 wrote
They desperately want to convert to a driverless model.
goblinbox t1_itpq40v wrote
Software is very stupid. (You'll know this already if you've ever used any.) Self-driving cars are not happening any time soon. Well, not without wanton destruction and loss of life.
skwint t1_itpsgcq wrote
We already have wanton destruction and loss of life. It's just that we'll accept that from people but not robots.
goblinbox t1_itptejn wrote
And we never should accept it from robots.
tinyhorsesinmytea t1_its2usw wrote
Once the technology gets to the point that it objectively outperforms the vast majority of human drivers, I’ll trust the AI over humans who can be under the influence, sleep deprived, emotional, distracted, etc… but we’re clearly not at that point yet.
skwint t1_itptwzr wrote
Agreed. We shouldn't accept it from people either though.
goblinbox t1_itpue3c wrote
Agreed. I don't even own a car, because fuck car infrastructure. I want more trains, lots more trains. Fast ones. With dining cars. Or maybe drinking cars.
AREssshhhk t1_itqar54 wrote
Keep dreaming
droi86 t1_itpxw72 wrote
As a software developer I find this comment quite offensive, I don't disagree though
Sanchez_U-SOB t1_itqy2jv wrote
It's the fact that we can't make machines adapt to the unpredictableness of human drivers or pedestrians. So unless all cars are autonomous and working in sync, it will be awhile.
angrathias t1_itpz5sp wrote
There is no stupid software, only stupid developers and even more stupid users. The software does as it’s told.
jackpandanicholson t1_itpql9f wrote
Confidently incorrect
MorfiusX t1_itpyhbc wrote
I love how often this is used when someone has nothing to say...
jackpandanicholson t1_itpzv0i wrote
It's somewhat of a test of whether or not saying more is worth my time. If the person responds they are agreeing to a dialogue. If there is no response they do not care to learn so why should I waste my time explaining? Read the responses below if you want.
goblinbox t1_itpsqfm wrote
Self-driving cars are a crap product. They blow up. They brick. They lock people inside. They run over children. They can't understand common items in road environments, and probably never will. They're ugly. They're expensive.
They solve no actual problem; there's no shortage of safer transportation solutions or even qualified drivers. What's the point of a solution without a problem, especially when it's a bad, expensive solution that kills people?
Some people seem rabidly defensive of them anyway, but adoring an idea doesn't make it a good one.
LinasThighsMatter t1_itpudy2 wrote
1 million miles, 8 accidents, all due to human faults… I know which one I’d pick
goblinbox t1_itpvvfv wrote
The fact that humans make mistakes doesn't mean that self-driving cars, which make more mistakes, are the solution.
They're objectively dangerous and, if the goal is, in fact, safer transportation and the protection of human life, they should be abandoned for a better solution.
(I doubt that saving human lives is the goal, though. It's more likely justification for a dangerous, expensive toy you want because you think it's a neat idea.)
angrathias t1_itpz1en wrote
Can you back up these claims of being objectively more dangerous ?
jackpandanicholson t1_itpv50c wrote
- So do regular cars. The first automobiles were expensive and unattractive compared to horse drawn carriages. They understand 99% of common items, its the last 1% that is the problem.
- Are you against automation in other industries? What problem did the steam engine solve or the printing press? We had scribes to write copy books.
- Making something that requires labor not require labor, and ultimately making it safer is a good idea. There's no reason to rabidly defend humans driving. We are bad at it, in the US alone 40,000 people die per year in auto accidents. Just because technology doesn't immediately out perform humans doesn't mean an idea is bad. We were pretty bad at sending rocks to space for quite some time.
goblinbox t1_itpx30v wrote
You believe we can write software that can respond to the world in real time and make good decisions. Or that we can make it train itself.
Well, I don't. It'll take actual AI, which doesn't exist, and probably won't.
Effective robots work in highly constrained environments.
There's no way to build a robot that can drive on real roads in the real world with all the unpredictability that entails.
Software is stupid. Self-driving cars solve no extant problems and introduce new, avoidable ones.
Keep working on AI, sure, but not on public roads.
jackpandanicholson t1_itpxljg wrote
I do believe that, it's already being done. Autonomous cars are already on real roads. I have a PhD in computer science and am an expert in AI, what are your qualifications?
goblinbox t1_itq0z4n wrote
yes, they're already on real roads, and they suck: they run over children, and are confused when there's a street sign in an unexpected location, but you want my qualifications?
we don't have AI capable of safely driving cars on real roads in real world conditions, and probably won't in our lifetimes, if, indeed, ever
it's a fascinating discipline to study, sure, but we don't need self-driving cars, and I don't agree that 'some deaths' are worth training AI on real roads, just so the results can eventually be applied to some other application.
training AI on real streets should be illegal. software is stupid, and nowhere near the human brain in terms of assessing and reacting to unexpected situations, in 3D, at speed, in a rolling potential bomb, surrounded by soft, unprotected human bodies.
sometimes-stupid t1_itq55im wrote
Did you have an incident with a self driving car? Sounds like youve got personal experience that has shaped your view
goblinbox t1_ityeuw3 wrote
I did not, no.
I just have regular, normal compassion for (easily avoidable) human suffering.
[deleted] t1_itq7v16 wrote
[deleted]
Fritzschmied t1_itpo6cb wrote
I mean. Is there anybody that expects that autonomous vehicles replace human drivers in the next decade?