Wassym: Rivian isn't prioritizing autonomous driving (Business Insider article)

[doozenberg]

I agree with everyone else here; if it had autonomous driving at the current state of that technology, I wouldn't use it. I still trust my driving far more than anyone's full self-driving software. I'm not going to get killed or kill someone else because I was too lazy to drive myself.

What manual elevator operators used to say.

Sponsored

 

[doozenberg]

Agree. I was surprised that they spent their “precious software development dollars” on developing Halloween themes. Sure it was fun, but seems unnecessary for a company that is losing tens of thousand of dollars on every sale.

The themes get social media and YouTube views and get kids excited, so I think they see it as a good way to advertise. Useful but boring software enhancements - less so

 

[Donald Stanfield]

What manual elevator operators used to say.

Let me know when self driving cars approach the level of reliability that elevators do. Right now the comparison is so far off it’s not even worth making.

 

[doozenberg]

Let me know when self driving cars approach the level of reliability that elevators do. Right now the comparison is so far off it’s not even worth making.

Okay.

https://waymo.com/blog/2024/09/safety-data-hub/

 

[docwhiz]

Okay.

https://waymo.com/blog/2024/09/safety-data-hub/

Oh boy! 73% fewer injury causing crashes!
How many injuries from elevators?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Okay.

https://waymo.com/blog/2024/09/safety-data-hub/

This data is pretty useless because it doesn’t take conditions of the driving into account. Waymo only operates on slow speed city streets in controlled, mapped areas. So comparing the safety of those cars using the metric of miles driven isn’t a fair comparison

Another thing to keep in mind is Waymo doesn’t even operate in adverse weather conditions so it’s just another reason why that data doesn’t say what you think it does.

 

[usofrob]

This data is pretty useless because it doesn’t take conditions of the driving into account. Waymo only operates on slow speed city streets in controlled, mapped areas. So comparing the safety of those cars using the metric of miles driven isn’t a fair comparison

Another thing to keep in mind is Waymo doesn’t even operate in adverse weather conditions so it’s just another reason why that data doesn’t say what you think it does.

I agree it's not a great comparison. But apparently the recent version does allow for some adverse weather:
https://waymo.com/blog/2024/08/meet...n even harsher conditions,fog, rain, and hail.

 

[doozenberg]

Oh boy! 73% fewer injury causing crashes!
How many injuries from elevators?

One thing for Rivian to say they are resource constrained and won’t be pursuing higher level ADAS. Fine.

Another thing to fight against the eventuality that AI driven vehicles will improve road safety as a whole.

Wild to just be okay with “having all vehicles be driven 80+mph by drunk and/or sleep-deprived, distracted people filled with road-rage while trying to eat, put on makeup, text on their cellphone, and interact with passengers at the same time.

People were outraged over the Vietnam War, in which, 20 years of war, the U.S. lost 58,209 dead. Since 1930, we've lost about 30,000-54,000 each and every year to vehicular deaths. Even now that cars are a bit safer and deaths are down a bit, they're still quite high compared to an event where you expect death, and unlike a war, it doesn't end. If we lost 100+ people per day to plane crashes or a few thousand people a month to terrorism, (or to elevators for that matter), it would be a huge deal.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a push to get humans out from behind the wheel.”

(quoted in very old thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10138275)

Took about 50 years for public to overcome their fears and accept automatic elevators. We are probably in the first decade of this same type of denial for self driving cars. The denier dinosaurs needed to die out for acceptance of technology to win. Adapt or die.

 

[COdogman]

One thing for Rivian to say they are resource constrained and won’t be pursuing higher level ADAS. Fine.

Another thing to fight against the eventuality that AI driven vehicles will improve road safety as a whole.

Wild to just be okay with “having all vehicles be driven 80+mph by drunk and/or sleep-deprived, distracted people filled with road-rage while trying to eat, put on makeup, text on their cellphone, and interact with passengers at the same time.

People were outraged over the Vietnam War, in which, 20 years of war, the U.S. lost 58,209 dead. Since 1930, we've lost about 30,000-54,000 each and every year to vehicular deaths. Even now that cars are a bit safer and deaths are down a bit, they're still quite high compared to an event where you expect death, and unlike a war, it doesn't end. If we lost 100+ people per day to plane crashes or a few thousand people a month to terrorism, (or to elevators for that matter), it would be a huge deal.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a push to get humans out from behind the wheel.”

(quoted in very old thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10138275)

Took about 50 years for public to overcome their fears and accept automatic elevators. We are probably in the first decade of this same type of denial for self driving cars. The denier dinosaurs needed to die out for acceptance of technology to win. Adapt or die.

It would be hard to pack more straw-man arguments into a single post. Try adding something about lemonade stands and horse-drawn carriages

 

[Donald Stanfield]

One thing for Rivian to say they are resource constrained and won’t be pursuing higher level ADAS. Fine.

Another thing to fight against the eventuality that AI driven vehicles will improve road safety as a whole.

Wild to just be okay with “having all vehicles be driven 80+mph by drunk and/or sleep-deprived, distracted people filled with road-rage while trying to eat, put on makeup, text on their cellphone, and interact with passengers at the same time.

People were outraged over the Vietnam War, in which, 20 years of war, the U.S. lost 58,209 dead. Since 1930, we've lost about 30,000-54,000 each and every year to vehicular deaths. Even now that cars are a bit safer and deaths are down a bit, they're still quite high compared to an event where you expect death, and unlike a war, it doesn't end. If we lost 100+ people per day to plane crashes or a few thousand people a month to terrorism, (or to elevators for that matter), it would be a huge deal.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a push to get humans out from behind the wheel.”

(quoted in very old thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10138275)

Took about 50 years for public to overcome their fears and accept automatic elevators. We are probably in the first decade of this same type of denial for self driving cars. The denier dinosaurs needed to die out for acceptance of technology to win. Adapt or die.

We will ask again, what is the safety percentage of automatic elevators vs the safety percentage of self driving cars? Denier my ass, that technology is NOT ready for use on public roads. Until you get some actual studies showing it compared to humans on ALL roads in ALL conditions you need to accept that fact.

Self driving cars are more dangerous than human driven ones.

 

[usofrob]

It would be hard to pack more straw-man arguments into a single post. Try adding something about lemonade stands and horse-drawn carriages

I think you're right. We should all go back to horse drawn carriages until computers can drive us with greater safety that horses. ;P Although, I guess that's kind of what Waymo is doing, slow speed limited area that the driver needs to be familiar with, aka a horse.

Also, for those that think self driving is like automatic elevators, you should look up the relative simplicity of an elevator's program. The state machine is pretty straightforward. Then compare it to the billions of dollars being spent on self driving to understand this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Maybe self driving a car is similar to automated elevator if the automated elevator is a TARDIS.

 

[doozenberg]

It would be hard to pack more straw-man arguments into a single post. Try adding something about lemonade stands and horse-drawn carriages

Analogy ≠ straw man. Elevator illustration is a historical analogy. Other in quotes post were also about public sentiment and acceptance of deaths, not straw man arguments.

Comparing self driving cars to human drivers is actually the comparison we really want, no?

Btw, just an observation that you seem to like using that term in other threads where you disagree with someone. Try pointing out where the actual fallacy is next time

 

[COdogman]

Analogy ≠ straw man. Elevator illustration is a historical analogy. Other in quotes post were also about public sentiment and acceptance of deaths, not straw man arguments.

Comparing self driving cars to human drivers is actually the comparison we really want, no?

Btw, just an observation that you seem to like using that term in other threads where you disagree with someone. Try pointing out where the actual fallacy is next time

It's appropriate when someone is unable to provide actual evidence to support their position so they start throwing ridiculous comparisons out there instead.

Now you are doing it again by asking me to "prove" that your comparisons to elevators, the Vietnam war, etc. are not accurate instead of you simply following through and proving that autonomous driving is as safe as you claim. Nice try....

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Analogy ≠ straw man. Elevator illustration is a historical analogy. Other in quotes post were also about public sentiment and acceptance of deaths, not straw man arguments.

Comparing self driving cars to human drivers is actually the comparison we really want, no?

Btw, just an observation that you seem to like using that term in other threads where you disagree with someone. Try pointing out where the actual fallacy is next time

Don't compare two things that shouldn't be compared if you don't want people to ask you for evidence of your claims. I can only speculate as to your reason for mentioning automatic elevators. Still, since you did so twice, we can reasonably assume you feel the apprehension towards these elevators somehow translates to skepticism over self-driving vehicles.

Like the driving data you posted, your comparison could prove your point better. When automatic elevators were introduced, automation, in general, was new, and new things can be scary. What won people over was the extreme level of safety and precision automation brought to the elevator industry. Contrast this with self-driving cars that require either carefully curated scenarios at low speeds like Waymo or have hundreds of videos showing mistakes. Errors that a human would never make.

A huge weakness of any self-driving platform, which AI isn't capable of yet, is judgment. Any adaptive cruise control can't even recognize the need to slow down when traffic way ahead is stopped yet. This basic if A, then B reasoning is still beyond self-driving cars, and as such, they don't even approach the level of human competency at driving and may never get there.

So comparing something almost perfect in its safety record with something worse than a new driver at recognizing and responding to changing traffic conditions is a bad comparison at best. The second reason why your comparison sucks is the apprehensive attitude towards technology that lead to skepticism over automating elevators doesn't apply to my objection to self-driving cars. You never bothered to figure out the reason why I'm opposed to them and instead tried to assert that those who disagree are Luddites.

Most people here are on the cutting edge of vehicle technology adoption, which makes it an odd place to try to bring up your lousy "you're just afraid of technology" argument. I am NOT afraid of self-driving cars, self-driving cars suck. I can do a 5 min google search and come up with pages of video evidence of autonomous vehicles making mistakes in situations a human wouldn't ever. Humans will recognize a deer is an animal to be avoided, but Tesla's FSD just ran one over without even acknowledging its existence. That's something that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

Come up with a better argument or stop trying because this isn't getting it done. Do better.

 

[doozenberg]

Don't compare two things that shouldn't be compared if you don't want people to ask you for evidence of your claims. I can only speculate as to your reason for mentioning automatic elevators. Still, since you did so twice, we can reasonably assume you feel the apprehension towards these elevators somehow translates to skepticism over self-driving vehicles.

Like the driving data you posted, your comparison could prove your point better. When automatic elevators were introduced, automation, in general, was new, and new things can be scary. What won people over was the extreme level of safety and precision automation brought to the elevator industry. Contrast this with self-driving cars that require either carefully curated scenarios at low speeds like Waymo or have hundreds of videos showing mistakes. Errors that a human would never make.

A huge weakness of any self-driving platform, which AI isn't capable of yet, is judgment. Any adaptive cruise control can't even recognize the need to slow down when traffic way ahead is stopped yet. This basic if A, then B reasoning is still beyond self-driving cars, and as such, they don't even approach the level of human competency at driving and may never get there.

So comparing something almost perfect in its safety record with something worse than a new driver at recognizing and responding to changing traffic conditions is a bad comparison at best. The second reason why your comparison sucks is the apprehensive attitude towards technology that lead to skepticism over automating elevators doesn't apply to my objection to self-driving cars. You never bothered to figure out the reason why I'm opposed to them and instead tried to assert that those who disagree are Luddites.

Most people here are on the cutting edge of vehicle technology adoption, which makes it an odd place to try to bring up your lousy "you're just afraid of technology" argument. I am NOT afraid of self-driving cars, self-driving cars suck. I can do a 5 min google search and come up with pages of video evidence of autonomous vehicles making mistakes in situations a human wouldn't ever. Humans will recognize a deer is an animal to be avoided, but Tesla's FSD just ran one over without even acknowledging its existence. That's something that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

Come up with a better argument or stop trying because this isn't getting it done. Do better.

Ok. Here’s some data comparing AV versus humans. None of it is perfect, all have holes in them, and it’ll be a while to see a study on all roads under all conditions, but from an injury and fatality standpoint (which is how I think most would define as dangerous), prelim data seem to point in the right direction.

It is worse in some scenarios, better in others, depending on who you’re comparing it to and under what conditions. Also ADAS tech is fragmented, so hard to really draw accurate comparisons. Data is nuanced and takes time to parse through. Keep in mind it’s older data and new data being rapidly gathered as we speak. Field progressing quickly and will be on the losing end of this argument at some point if we keep saying “self-driving cars suck” when it becomes glaringly obvious which is safer overall. As alluded to earlier, will take a while for public sentiment to come around. It seems you took what I wrote personally, definitely not intended and never called anyone any names, please go back and read what I wrote with regard to the historical analogy, which also isn’t perfect and also never meant to be apples to apples. Again, the real comparison we all want is computer vs human driver. Time will tell. But given trends, I’m willing to bank on AVs eventually proving safer from an injury and fatality standpoint overall.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/178179/UMTRI-2023-18.pdf

Sponsored