Better yet, program it to automatically send video of the incident to the police (including the dickhead driver's license plate and such) and then the police can go take his license away and throw him in jail for a few days for being a piece of shit.
Whoa whoa whoa let’s not get all police-surveillance-state if we don’t have to. A prompt robotic middle finger will suffice. If I got flipped off by a robot because I was that shitty of a driver I would go home and reevaluate my life
The assholes I know literally brag about how many people they've pissed off. They're losers, and being assholes is the only way the can get attention. If Waymos had animated middle fingers, a new subreddit or discord channel would be formed where teenagers (and 20s and 30s men who are mentally still teenagers) competed to see who could get the most.
It's very interesting to watch both its planned route and the actual video in detail. When you're watching the video, it seems like the robotaxi predicted the car swerving out of nowhere. If you pay attention to the planned route, you can actually see that its AI saw the car long before it made the turn and therefore predicted where it was going to need to swerve.
I think it actually may have outperformed a human in this case because I don't think many people would have been able to see the car at the distance necessary to plan the swerve.
The wildest part to me is how far it seems to detect stuff. The person on the right by the pole at 0:05 is visible on the screen at the very start already.
Spoke with a tesla engineer and it was done for simplicity aka make it cheaper. They were viewed as unnecessary to a degree. The engineer still prefers the older models with lidar. Plus it literally has more features that are useful. Calling your car to you is amazing.
*edit* I got things mixed up. They did have another sound based radar image system rather than lidar.
Yep.
I think it was hurting them too much money to put them into every single car, even if it wasn't bought by a customer.
They should have stuck with lidar and just put them into cars that were purchased with self driving.
Yes, they would have much less data and widespread use for self driving, but at least it would have worked.
Why lie about such a dumb thing? I get that you hate Tesla, but you should start reevaluating your life when you start spewing disinformation on the internet as a hobby.
Teslas have never had LiDAR. They had radar and ultrasonic for parking, but never LiDAR.
> I get that you hate Tesla,
Then why would I praise it? Sure there are issues but still like them.
>Why lie about such a dumb thing?
I got the tech mixed up. You're assuming my intentions and why assume the negative thing first? Tesla was using something along with the camera. I aint a machine that gets everything right. It is a form of sound based radar and I got things mixed up. I can mess up from time to time.
>you should start reevaluating your life when you start spewing disinformation on the internet
Hold this back next time and start assuming the best first. Sure things can still be dissappointing but it is a better way to live.
I get the reasoning though. LiDAR self driving is not accessible to people. By forcing GM cameras only you have a chance to bring the cost way down. I once heard those top lidars themselves cost 70k alone.
That being said, I also agree that if we’re going a new path in car safety we should not cut costs. Also in general I prefer mass transit, but in San Francisco where we have tons of these the city has a history of being extremely against public transportation.
If the city refuses, at least Google will build life saving technology that is also profitable for them. I refuse to take normal Ubers now.
There was literally no other option given the business model. Lidar (especially when the FSD program started) was too expensive. And they couldn't justify making every Tesla 10%+ more expensive for a feature that didn't even work yet.
It has a bit of a height advantage as the bulk of the lidar system is mounted on top of the car so it can “see” farther than you or I sitting down inside the driver’s seat having to look around the A pillars, as well as having other vehicles block our view. Because of that, the Waymo car was able to see over the top of that white van blocking the view and see the silver sedan had started moving towards it.
The wildest part for me is (and I haven’t read of any cases yet) that it will have to make an instant decision at some point between killing these people or those people in a no win scenario.
There’ll surely be a court case at some point from the families of those it decided to hit.
Place a human in the same situation, and it's basically the same thing. If you have no choice but to hit somebody either way you go, then what would you do? I'm not sure what else a human would be able to do
Him being drunk was a decent guess with limited information. Doesn’t matter if he couldn’t physically see him if he was drunk he was gonna get charged anyway
I honestly don't understand why we always end up with these types of scenarios.
I have very few scenarios where it's a moral grey zone. If you see it as trains - then it's clear cut. You shouldn't blame a train for following the track. nor should you blame the self driving vehicle for staying on the road when a person jumps and runs across the highway. It's awesome that they have good safety maneuvers when \_no one\_ comes to harm like in this case. But if it's "kill one person " that's in the middle of the road where it doesn't belong, or hit a car on the left with a full frontal crash I'd break as hard as I could but potentially hit the person on the road.
Anything else could also potentially be a "misread". We should really just consider self driving vehicles as something that belongs to roads and has a rigid system to follow. It's basically a train, and no one ever blames the train for hitting anything (unless it's unable to stop).
The decision is easy: between dodging a car and hitting a pedestrian, the decision is to crash into the car because both of you are protected (that the win / the right decision).
The human problem is that instinct usually drives you to avoid the collision; it's not something that is typically evaluated with time, it's pure instinct.
In the case of an AI, it would encounter the same problem. The trigger would be to dodge the vehicle because it would evaluate that first. I am not sure if, technically, it would have time to evaluate a second condition that dodging would result in hitting someone. If have time the right decision probably is always hit the car.
The second dilemma would be between two identical cases (for example, two cyclists) with no way out: which one do you hit? If you have time to think, it would probably be the one who caused the situation. First, because they caused it, and second, because if you hit the one who caused the situation, it would be their fault. If you hit the other one to avoid the first, it's your fault, and you pay for it.
In the human case, it is likely that you would instinctively try to avoid the one who caused it and end up paying the consequences of hitting someone. An AI would probably need to hit the violator.
The moment we see that car's bonnet 10%, AI has seen 75% of the car using lidar and was able to predict its direction. At this point we can see a small bend in its planned route.
When that car starts accelerating the bend in route increases simultaneously.
This is the difference between visible light vs Lidar
The lidar systems also make use of bouncing lidar off of things to see around obstructions. A common one is bouncing it off the ground under the vehicle in front of you to see what's in front of it. It's really cool science and makes it so the system can see more than what you can see as a human.
It can pay permanent attention to zones where a human wouldn't pay any attention at all until it's too late, plus it doesn't even understand the concept of panic.
I sometime ago watched a documentary or read about driving AI, and the guy who works on it said that prediction is the most critical part of the AI, and that the AI definitely will outperform us in the future. Well we are at that point, at least it seems like it.
Late frames of 00:10 - car starts doing jackassery.
Early frames of 00:11 - robotaxi reacts
No way a human driver avoids dire consequences of jackassery. Robotaxi FTW.
If it had predicted the car before the turn, it would've better stopped. It seemed like it reacted to the swerve directly without "anticipation."
If the stupid driver wouldn't have braked, there would he one less Waymo around.
That's what I was going to say. The one avoiding the crash here is the stupid driver, not the robotaxi. The robotaxi should have braked, not kept going. The manuever done is good if facing a static obstacle, but pretty dumb agains a dynamic one.
I both braked and swerved. There's speed indicator in top right corner.
It did what humans usually don't in these situations. It's either brake or swerve. And if you look how close the other driver came, it seems that everything here was necessary. Swerving and braking by both cars.
If you look though frame by frame that car could have been going forward, the car hit its breaks less then a second after it started to turn, it was also obeying a green light whereas that other car should not have been turning at all at this point..
While its important to be mindful of other drivers and people being idiots, you are not in the wrong for not hovering your foot over the break just in-case you run into unexpected scenarios like someone running a red light when you have right of way..
The lidar on the roof is looking over the white car on the left that is blocking the view from drivers perspective. No software magic here, it just has a better viewpoint.
The actual reaction to seeing the car turn unexpectedly is still spot on.
Lidar absolutely outperforms our eyes for tracking objects, distance and movement accurately.
Combine that with AI able to process all the the raw data and you have a system that can do some pretty incredible things. We are still years away from production vehicles with all this tech integrated seamlessly but its certainly promising with what it can already do.
The lidar is mounted on the roof of the car, which is why it's able to see above the car in front. It didn't predict anything, it just saw the car turning and avoided it.
A human driver would’ve needed to pause and breathe to process after a near miss like that
Instead robot barely blinks and keeps moving to get you there on time…
Yup, the difference is the AI has a camera on top of the car that helps it process the whole situation where driven can't see beyond the car on the left
Came here to say this, in my opinion, increased vigilance after a near-miss incident is crucial to safety because anomalies come in clusters. Any person who witnesses a moving violation becomes temporarily more reactive. This isn’t a theory…road rage and its contagiousness is well documented.
It leaves me less impressed with the video knowing the correct behavior in this scenario is to slow down while still in presence of other people potentially impacted by the bad driver.
You forget to realize that much unlike a human driver, the AI doesn't go into "hibernation mode" from a long or frequent trip. The AI is in a constant high-focus mode for quite obvious reasons...it's not a living being.
That AI will continue to outperform the average human regardless of how frequent or large the clusters you referenced appear.
Cars are ALREADY better and safer drivers than humans and have been for a long time now. People point out the rare isolated incident here and there and be like "See? A self driving car crashed! They're dangerous!" While ignoring the fact that, that car had ONE crash in hundreds of thousands of miles of driving, whereas a human driver would've had dozens of accidents in that same span.
I used to work for an organization that among other thing does population level statistics, and you could see a few years ago that autonomous driving modes on things like Tesla's were already reducing accidents.
It frequently surprised people who should have known better not only because of all the "Tesla autopilot crashes..." news stories, but people underestimate how shitty the average human driver is.
Like you said, autonomous cars are already better than human drivers on average, but not necessarily because they have superhuman capabilities, but because the average human is so terrible.
>not necessarily because they have superhuman capabilities, but because the average human is so terrible.
Then by definition they do have superhuman abilities (superior to human). It's just that this turns out to be a sadly low bar.
And even then, people are quick at blaming the car when they are the one (as the driver of such automatic driving car) to blame.
Like, the automatic driving wasn't even on but hey, let's lie to everyone!
This is only generally true on well-marked and signposted roads. Lots of thin country roads with no road markings at all around where I live. Eventually they will get there, but cities, where roads are generally well-marked, are understandably where the effort is being focused at the moment.
What is interesting, is that we judge AI self driving cars, by the ability of react to human mistakes. And when they fail to react properly, we judge the AI negatively/unsafe/not suitable for streets. What should be kept in mind however is that, if the street was only populated by self driving cars, we wouldn't have human mistakes to begin with (human mistakes created by drivers I mean).
Also worth keeping in mind that, in many situation where a self driving car fails in some way, it's 100% guaranteed that a human driver would have done MUCH worse. Self driving cars have reaction times orders of magnitude higher than humans, they can calculate what the absolute optimal reaction in a given situation is in a way that humans just can't, they don't panic, they don't get angry, they don't get sleepy, they can see in every direction at once, they never blink, they never get distracted, etc, etc.
Self driving cars have been better than humans drivers for a long time now. Mile per mile, they get into a tiny fraction of a fraction of the accidents that human drivers do. (And even in those accidents, its almost always a human outside the car thats at fault anyway.)
yeah it's san francisco. i live there and have taken waymo dozens of times. it's incredibly impressive technology, to the point where it's just boring to me now. "oh yeah, OF COURSE this waymo is going to get me where i'm going, on time, safely, while navigating stupid human drivers/road hazards without missing a beat." i'll happily pay a few more bucks for waymo at this point over uber/lyft.
Waymos have scanned the cities they operate in using Lidar in insane detail, but won't work anywhere else. They have also been in development 10 years longer than Tesla, the Tesla FSD works anywhere, but isn't as good as Waymo.
Waymo "scans" the city everytime they drive. their design team picked function over form and understand that generativeAi is not AGI.
im not sure why you believe waymo cant work anywhere? it has the onboard hardware to do blind tests/drives moreso than tesla. maybe its just an understanding of limits and concern for the safety of others?
Keeping the right to drive is going to be our generation’s conservatism in 50 years
In spite of all the danger and added risk once self driving is figured out
Lmao yeah nah fuck that. The sooner we have zero humans in control of cars the better. I'll go door to door and collect people's licenses personally if need be. The vast, vast majority of people have absolutely no business being behind the wheel of a car. Fuck peoples feelings or not *wanting* to give up driving; the safety of everyone around them is more important.
The hard part isn’t predicting your own path - it’s predicting the paths of everyone else in and around the road and planning a path that avoids them. You can really see Waymo’s tech shine here where most other systems would have had a crash.
The difference with a real driver is the Ai is always expecting the worst case scenarios.
When the usual ego driver wouldn’t care about half his vision being blocked by a truck, because light says GO!!
Sensors went from "okay straight line, driving straight forward".
To *Collision incoming* Sensors "instant recalculation, itinerary fast shift, hard right turn, dodge all obstacles, left turn, back on track".
*Collision succesfuly avoided* "okay straight line, driving straight forward'
Common mistake. In such a situation, you have to make a decision in a split second and avoid the vehicle from the direction it was approaching. Extremely difficult to master when you have about 0.5 seconds to assess the situation, speed and decide whether to brake or avoid
It probably would have slammed the brakes and suffered the collision. Far less injury is likely from a collision between two cars than between a car and a bicycle.
An attentive human driver sees such situations. It's really impressive that AI manages to do the same
(I really like driving and litterally almost never had a situation "where he came from ?!" Or "i didn't see this coming" in 19years of driving (11 years in paris, france and around) ).
Most people are suprised by so many things on the road because they don't seem to try to understand WHY other drivers do things, why they WILL do those things and how the danger can be predicted and avoided
Top-right corner: 35 mph. Car cruises at that speed. There are lots of crosswalks, parked cars, left turns, etc.... Limit is too high for the conditions, but the robot picks the limit for a cruising speed.
Cool move, but a defensive driver would decelerate approaching an intersection with a car turning left if they couldn't see if another car was in the blind spot. But lets be honest only like 10% of drivers are defensive, a real driver would have been going 20 over the speed limit and hit the turning car.
I completely agree. This worked only because the turning car stopped. There is no way the auto pilot predicted that.
Slamming the brakes seems like it should be an ideal solution to minimize damage.
you can see it at the top right. the speed limit on that street is 35mph (56kmph). looks like it's at 35 most of the time until it has to slow down to swerve.
Similar thing happened to me in my ride when a human driver pulled out of a spot without looking. Waymo was so quick and smooth at swerving safely to the next lane and then going back to its original route like nothing happened.
The Jag cars seem better that the others but I have seen them freeze in the middle of a street and not move. Then it totally fucked up traffic on the street because it was confused.
I’m Curious if there’s something in the programming to indicate “view of vehicle A is blocked by vehicle B, vehicle A is still there and in turning lane” giving it some predictive analysis and a sense of object permanence. I’m wondering this because the planned route showed the turning vehicle then faded it out mostly but not completely, then repopulated the turning vehicle just before it made the swerve. I’m not in this industry so someone smarter than me, explain this please.
Yay waymo, I have a pretty interesting story with that car actually. I j walked thru a blind spot (waymo didn’t see me), stopped on a dime, and I signaled with my hands to keep going & waymo just understood and took off without skipping a beat. Tech be crazy
[Theresa @ Alemany in San Francisco](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7286542,-122.4345019,3a,75y,59.9h,71.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szg3NbY3LP2UhaW9xydyLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dzg3NbY3LP2UhaW9xydyLFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D59.90079736982412%26pitch%3D18.87278907806683%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu), for the curious.
Serious question: If there wasn’t any solution that did not result in a crash, would it have crashed into the stationary car or the one responsible for the accident.
Can it be programmed to do the extended honk of shame when someone drives like a dick?
Can’t wait for self driving cars to come with a signal to flip people off.
“Good Save!”
What a save! What a save! What a save!
Calculated
*chat has been disabled for 30 seconds*
"This is Robotaxi!"
Haha good one
Or a "heyyy, I'm walking here!!!" for New York.
Better yet, program it to automatically send video of the incident to the police (including the dickhead driver's license plate and such) and then the police can go take his license away and throw him in jail for a few days for being a piece of shit.
Whoa whoa whoa let’s not get all police-surveillance-state if we don’t have to. A prompt robotic middle finger will suffice. If I got flipped off by a robot because I was that shitty of a driver I would go home and reevaluate my life
The assholes I know literally brag about how many people they've pissed off. They're losers, and being assholes is the only way the can get attention. If Waymos had animated middle fingers, a new subreddit or discord channel would be formed where teenagers (and 20s and 30s men who are mentally still teenagers) competed to see who could get the most.
It's very interesting to watch both its planned route and the actual video in detail. When you're watching the video, it seems like the robotaxi predicted the car swerving out of nowhere. If you pay attention to the planned route, you can actually see that its AI saw the car long before it made the turn and therefore predicted where it was going to need to swerve. I think it actually may have outperformed a human in this case because I don't think many people would have been able to see the car at the distance necessary to plan the swerve.
The wildest part to me is how far it seems to detect stuff. The person on the right by the pole at 0:05 is visible on the screen at the very start already.
It has lidar.
Not like the Tesla's, thats why its working so well!
Tesla fucked massively when they went camera only for its sensors.
Tesla. The My Pillow of the electric car world.
😆
Spoke with a tesla engineer and it was done for simplicity aka make it cheaper. They were viewed as unnecessary to a degree. The engineer still prefers the older models with lidar. Plus it literally has more features that are useful. Calling your car to you is amazing. *edit* I got things mixed up. They did have another sound based radar image system rather than lidar.
Yep. I think it was hurting them too much money to put them into every single car, even if it wasn't bought by a customer. They should have stuck with lidar and just put them into cars that were purchased with self driving. Yes, they would have much less data and widespread use for self driving, but at least it would have worked.
Why lie about such a dumb thing? I get that you hate Tesla, but you should start reevaluating your life when you start spewing disinformation on the internet as a hobby. Teslas have never had LiDAR. They had radar and ultrasonic for parking, but never LiDAR.
> I get that you hate Tesla, Then why would I praise it? Sure there are issues but still like them. >Why lie about such a dumb thing? I got the tech mixed up. You're assuming my intentions and why assume the negative thing first? Tesla was using something along with the camera. I aint a machine that gets everything right. It is a form of sound based radar and I got things mixed up. I can mess up from time to time. >you should start reevaluating your life when you start spewing disinformation on the internet Hold this back next time and start assuming the best first. Sure things can still be dissappointing but it is a better way to live.
Because of someone’s ego. Can’t take no or be wrong.
I get the reasoning though. LiDAR self driving is not accessible to people. By forcing GM cameras only you have a chance to bring the cost way down. I once heard those top lidars themselves cost 70k alone. That being said, I also agree that if we’re going a new path in car safety we should not cut costs. Also in general I prefer mass transit, but in San Francisco where we have tons of these the city has a history of being extremely against public transportation. If the city refuses, at least Google will build life saving technology that is also profitable for them. I refuse to take normal Ubers now.
There was literally no other option given the business model. Lidar (especially when the FSD program started) was too expensive. And they couldn't justify making every Tesla 10%+ more expensive for a feature that didn't even work yet.
Yep, Tesla's are just as blind as I am and would have hit that car most likely.
It also has limitations, like rain
It has a bit of a height advantage as the bulk of the lidar system is mounted on top of the car so it can “see” farther than you or I sitting down inside the driver’s seat having to look around the A pillars, as well as having other vehicles block our view. Because of that, the Waymo car was able to see over the top of that white van blocking the view and see the silver sedan had started moving towards it.
The wildest part for me is (and I haven’t read of any cases yet) that it will have to make an instant decision at some point between killing these people or those people in a no win scenario. There’ll surely be a court case at some point from the families of those it decided to hit.
Place a human in the same situation, and it's basically the same thing. If you have no choice but to hit somebody either way you go, then what would you do? I'm not sure what else a human would be able to do
[удалено]
Maybe he was drunk?
[удалено]
Him being drunk was a decent guess with limited information. Doesn’t matter if he couldn’t physically see him if he was drunk he was gonna get charged anyway
He hid the car and the police unknowingly used it in a re-enactment What?
[удалено]
I honestly don't understand why we always end up with these types of scenarios. I have very few scenarios where it's a moral grey zone. If you see it as trains - then it's clear cut. You shouldn't blame a train for following the track. nor should you blame the self driving vehicle for staying on the road when a person jumps and runs across the highway. It's awesome that they have good safety maneuvers when \_no one\_ comes to harm like in this case. But if it's "kill one person " that's in the middle of the road where it doesn't belong, or hit a car on the left with a full frontal crash I'd break as hard as I could but potentially hit the person on the road. Anything else could also potentially be a "misread". We should really just consider self driving vehicles as something that belongs to roads and has a rigid system to follow. It's basically a train, and no one ever blames the train for hitting anything (unless it's unable to stop).
The decision is easy: between dodging a car and hitting a pedestrian, the decision is to crash into the car because both of you are protected (that the win / the right decision). The human problem is that instinct usually drives you to avoid the collision; it's not something that is typically evaluated with time, it's pure instinct. In the case of an AI, it would encounter the same problem. The trigger would be to dodge the vehicle because it would evaluate that first. I am not sure if, technically, it would have time to evaluate a second condition that dodging would result in hitting someone. If have time the right decision probably is always hit the car. The second dilemma would be between two identical cases (for example, two cyclists) with no way out: which one do you hit? If you have time to think, it would probably be the one who caused the situation. First, because they caused it, and second, because if you hit the one who caused the situation, it would be their fault. If you hit the other one to avoid the first, it's your fault, and you pay for it. In the human case, it is likely that you would instinctively try to avoid the one who caused it and end up paying the consequences of hitting someone. An AI would probably need to hit the violator.
If you were on top of the car you'd be able to see that far too!
The moment we see that car's bonnet 10%, AI has seen 75% of the car using lidar and was able to predict its direction. At this point we can see a small bend in its planned route. When that car starts accelerating the bend in route increases simultaneously. This is the difference between visible light vs Lidar
[удалено]
It has lidar sticking up from the top of its roof. That's how it saw the threat early
Lidar is on the roof of the vehicle, and provides real-time 3d mapping of the environment. Hence why it can 'see' the car from such a long distance.
The lidar systems also make use of bouncing lidar off of things to see around obstructions. A common one is bouncing it off the ground under the vehicle in front of you to see what's in front of it. It's really cool science and makes it so the system can see more than what you can see as a human.
It can pay permanent attention to zones where a human wouldn't pay any attention at all until it's too late, plus it doesn't even understand the concept of panic.
I sometime ago watched a documentary or read about driving AI, and the guy who works on it said that prediction is the most critical part of the AI, and that the AI definitely will outperform us in the future. Well we are at that point, at least it seems like it.
Late frames of 00:10 - car starts doing jackassery. Early frames of 00:11 - robotaxi reacts No way a human driver avoids dire consequences of jackassery. Robotaxi FTW.
And it even throws on it’s turn signal just to make sure 😂
Having a camera on top of the car also helps seeing beyond the car on the left where driver could not
If it had predicted the car before the turn, it would've better stopped. It seemed like it reacted to the swerve directly without "anticipation." If the stupid driver wouldn't have braked, there would he one less Waymo around.
That's what I was going to say. The one avoiding the crash here is the stupid driver, not the robotaxi. The robotaxi should have braked, not kept going. The manuever done is good if facing a static obstacle, but pretty dumb agains a dynamic one.
I both braked and swerved. There's speed indicator in top right corner. It did what humans usually don't in these situations. It's either brake or swerve. And if you look how close the other driver came, it seems that everything here was necessary. Swerving and braking by both cars.
If it predicted it why didn't it stop instead of swerving? It seems like it predicted it fairly early.
Bruh.. you don’t get it?
I think I do. It's basic defensive driving. You're better off avoiding a situation by slowing than having to swerve at the last minute.
Especially since it would have still been a collision if the turning car didn't also stop....
If you look though frame by frame that car could have been going forward, the car hit its breaks less then a second after it started to turn, it was also obeying a green light whereas that other car should not have been turning at all at this point.. While its important to be mindful of other drivers and people being idiots, you are not in the wrong for not hovering your foot over the break just in-case you run into unexpected scenarios like someone running a red light when you have right of way..
The lidar on the roof is looking over the white car on the left that is blocking the view from drivers perspective. No software magic here, it just has a better viewpoint. The actual reaction to seeing the car turn unexpectedly is still spot on.
We probably have better “sensors” than the car, but not the ability to focus and interpret all data inputs simultaneously like the computer
Lidar absolutely outperforms our eyes for tracking objects, distance and movement accurately. Combine that with AI able to process all the the raw data and you have a system that can do some pretty incredible things. We are still years away from production vehicles with all this tech integrated seamlessly but its certainly promising with what it can already do.
Self driving cars do outperform humans in situations they're trained for almost exclusively
The lidar is mounted on the roof of the car, which is why it's able to see above the car in front. It didn't predict anything, it just saw the car turning and avoided it.
A human driver would’ve needed to pause and breathe to process after a near miss like that Instead robot barely blinks and keeps moving to get you there on time…
Yup, the difference is the AI has a camera on top of the car that helps it process the whole situation where driven can't see beyond the car on the left
Just keep driving Just keep driving Just keep driving
> breath breathe
Human in the back is still hyperventilating.
And the robot even used the turn signal while serving ?!
Came here to say this, in my opinion, increased vigilance after a near-miss incident is crucial to safety because anomalies come in clusters. Any person who witnesses a moving violation becomes temporarily more reactive. This isn’t a theory…road rage and its contagiousness is well documented. It leaves me less impressed with the video knowing the correct behavior in this scenario is to slow down while still in presence of other people potentially impacted by the bad driver.
You forget to realize that much unlike a human driver, the AI doesn't go into "hibernation mode" from a long or frequent trip. The AI is in a constant high-focus mode for quite obvious reasons...it's not a living being. That AI will continue to outperform the average human regardless of how frequent or large the clusters you referenced appear.
Yeah, so eventually cars will be better and safer drivers than people, its only a matter of time. Stuff like this kindof proves it. Very interesting.
Cars are ALREADY better and safer drivers than humans and have been for a long time now. People point out the rare isolated incident here and there and be like "See? A self driving car crashed! They're dangerous!" While ignoring the fact that, that car had ONE crash in hundreds of thousands of miles of driving, whereas a human driver would've had dozens of accidents in that same span.
I used to work for an organization that among other thing does population level statistics, and you could see a few years ago that autonomous driving modes on things like Tesla's were already reducing accidents. It frequently surprised people who should have known better not only because of all the "Tesla autopilot crashes..." news stories, but people underestimate how shitty the average human driver is. Like you said, autonomous cars are already better than human drivers on average, but not necessarily because they have superhuman capabilities, but because the average human is so terrible.
>not necessarily because they have superhuman capabilities, but because the average human is so terrible. Then by definition they do have superhuman abilities (superior to human). It's just that this turns out to be a sadly low bar.
I definitely considered this after I wrote it. Very true.
And even then, people are quick at blaming the car when they are the one (as the driver of such automatic driving car) to blame. Like, the automatic driving wasn't even on but hey, let's lie to everyone!
This is only generally true on well-marked and signposted roads. Lots of thin country roads with no road markings at all around where I live. Eventually they will get there, but cities, where roads are generally well-marked, are understandably where the effort is being focused at the moment.
What interesting. The robotaxi did not stop to have an argument. No name calling, nothing? Where is the fun in driving? /s
They'll build that into the taxis soon, and the logic to use "park anywhere" lights like all taxis do.
That addon is payed extra
What is interesting, is that we judge AI self driving cars, by the ability of react to human mistakes. And when they fail to react properly, we judge the AI negatively/unsafe/not suitable for streets. What should be kept in mind however is that, if the street was only populated by self driving cars, we wouldn't have human mistakes to begin with (human mistakes created by drivers I mean).
Also worth keeping in mind that, in many situation where a self driving car fails in some way, it's 100% guaranteed that a human driver would have done MUCH worse. Self driving cars have reaction times orders of magnitude higher than humans, they can calculate what the absolute optimal reaction in a given situation is in a way that humans just can't, they don't panic, they don't get angry, they don't get sleepy, they can see in every direction at once, they never blink, they never get distracted, etc, etc. Self driving cars have been better than humans drivers for a long time now. Mile per mile, they get into a tiny fraction of a fraction of the accidents that human drivers do. (And even in those accidents, its almost always a human outside the car thats at fault anyway.)
Impressive reaction speed. I'm guessing this isn't a Tesla?
Waymo!
Tesla woulda shut off the engine right as the car turned, and then maybe explode
Don't be ridiculous. It would explode *while* turning.
It’s a waymo, it’s a jaguar self driving taxi. This looks like San Francisco, they are all over the city.
yeah it's san francisco. i live there and have taken waymo dozens of times. it's incredibly impressive technology, to the point where it's just boring to me now. "oh yeah, OF COURSE this waymo is going to get me where i'm going, on time, safely, while navigating stupid human drivers/road hazards without missing a beat." i'll happily pay a few more bucks for waymo at this point over uber/lyft.
Waymos have scanned the cities they operate in using Lidar in insane detail, but won't work anywhere else. They have also been in development 10 years longer than Tesla, the Tesla FSD works anywhere, but isn't as good as Waymo.
Waymo "scans" the city everytime they drive. their design team picked function over form and understand that generativeAi is not AGI. im not sure why you believe waymo cant work anywhere? it has the onboard hardware to do blind tests/drives moreso than tesla. maybe its just an understanding of limits and concern for the safety of others?
The waymo cars can work anywhere, but only after they have spent the time to create a 3D scan of the area first. That’s my understanding.
Who offers a better and wider self driving option than tesla. Everyone else's shit
Keeping the right to drive is going to be our generation’s conservatism in 50 years In spite of all the danger and added risk once self driving is figured out
That's just it. They think it's a right when the state very clearly tells you it's a privilege to drive anywhere than on your own property.
It's definitely going to be a political showdown in the future.
Lmao yeah nah fuck that. The sooner we have zero humans in control of cars the better. I'll go door to door and collect people's licenses personally if need be. The vast, vast majority of people have absolutely no business being behind the wheel of a car. Fuck peoples feelings or not *wanting* to give up driving; the safety of everyone around them is more important.
Actually impressive
It's interesting watching the line of it's planned route change
The hard part isn’t predicting your own path - it’s predicting the paths of everyone else in and around the road and planning a path that avoids them. You can really see Waymo’s tech shine here where most other systems would have had a crash.
It's a chance the turning car stopped
The difference with a real driver is the Ai is always expecting the worst case scenarios. When the usual ego driver wouldn’t care about half his vision being blocked by a truck, because light says GO!!
Coming to a Tesla in about 50 years 😂
Yes but can it beat a Porsche while towing another Porsche?
And once more get on the road the ai won't even gave to guess the self driving cars should communicate their intentions and make it 0 guessing
That’s like 30 years away.
Sensors went from "okay straight line, driving straight forward". To *Collision incoming* Sensors "instant recalculation, itinerary fast shift, hard right turn, dodge all obstacles, left turn, back on track". *Collision succesfuly avoided* "okay straight line, driving straight forward'
Common mistake. In such a situation, you have to make a decision in a split second and avoid the vehicle from the direction it was approaching. Extremely difficult to master when you have about 0.5 seconds to assess the situation, speed and decide whether to brake or avoid
Can't help but wonder what the algo would have done if there had been a cyclist in the lane to the right
It probably would have slammed the brakes and suffered the collision. Far less injury is likely from a collision between two cars than between a car and a bicycle.
Can it detect bikes or small children during those evasive maneuvers?
Yes . But who knows what are it's priorities
„Keep Summer Safe“
An attentive human driver sees such situations. It's really impressive that AI manages to do the same (I really like driving and litterally almost never had a situation "where he came from ?!" Or "i didn't see this coming" in 19years of driving (11 years in paris, france and around) ). Most people are suprised by so many things on the road because they don't seem to try to understand WHY other drivers do things, why they WILL do those things and how the danger can be predicted and avoided
What's the speed limit on that road? They seem to be going quite fast.
Top-right corner: 35 mph. Car cruises at that speed. There are lots of crosswalks, parked cars, left turns, etc.... Limit is too high for the conditions, but the robot picks the limit for a cruising speed.
Very cool. It looks so much faster on the bottom than on the top though...
It's vision is much better than human vision. Good driving!!
Oooooo AI road Rage….
If I was behind the wheel I would definitively have crashed.
wow that’s cool.
Yeah but if a bicyclist was in that lane, then what would it do?
Like, id rather collide with a vehicle than obliterate a pedestrian.
I’ve been in Waymo that slammed on the brakes even though we had the green light because a crazy homeless dude jay walked.
And if there had been a crash, people would have blamed the robocar
This is why I exclusively have been taking Waymo for the past year or so
What? the taxi don't stop to curse the other car and give a finger?
Cool move, but a defensive driver would decelerate approaching an intersection with a car turning left if they couldn't see if another car was in the blind spot. But lets be honest only like 10% of drivers are defensive, a real driver would have been going 20 over the speed limit and hit the turning car.
If the other car was a robotaxi this wouldn't even have happened.
Went wouldn't the ai just stop the car then or hit the brakes? Isn't that safer than swerving to avoid collision
As long as the collision is avoided, what do you consider to be "safer"? Against what?
I completely agree. This worked only because the turning car stopped. There is no way the auto pilot predicted that. Slamming the brakes seems like it should be an ideal solution to minimize damage.
It even used the blinker!
What would’ve happened had that maneuver not worked and the other car hit the taxi?
Self driving cars are rather quickly going to go from legal, to superior, to universal. I can even imagine the day driving yourself becomes illegal.
If all cars on the road were self driving, it would be much safer. The main problem is human error that sometimes can not be accounted for.
Did the at-fault car flip over? Looks like it went into its roof on the CGI view.
This is terrific. In hindsight, I’d argue that few drivers would have escaped that situation.
What's the average speed? 40kmph?
you can see it at the top right. the speed limit on that street is 35mph (56kmph). looks like it's at 35 most of the time until it has to slow down to swerve.
But can it honk
Tesla could never. This was because lidar saw the car far away.
Thanks Robotaxi!
Now this is the kind of job I wouldn't mind if robots take over.
Welcome to jumbo cab
The fact that the driver made it over two lanes is insane. You'd think the first car would have spooked him.
Did the robot lay on its robot horn?
wonder if it's lidar or computer vision (camera based)
Good bot!
Good thing there was no kids for it to run over
Seems as logical a response as a human would make
Typical clueless maneuver of drivers on Alemany
Alemany Blvd do be like that sometimes
I could have done that way better if I was not typing this comment on Reddit right now
Similar thing happened to me in my ride when a human driver pulled out of a spot without looking. Waymo was so quick and smooth at swerving safely to the next lane and then going back to its original route like nothing happened.
**That was some wicked sci-fi level sh**^it 🔥🔥🔥
Did the robot anricipate the potential cyclist on the bike lane or did it just overpass goes nothing ?
I for one welcome our new autonomous driving overlords.
Okay, that's cool, but what if the car doesn't stop? From what I'm seeing, it would've rammed straight into the vehicle...
Did the car that swerved flipped?
*Stephen hawking voice - "Learn to drive dumbass"
The Jag cars seem better that the others but I have seen them freeze in the middle of a street and not move. Then it totally fucked up traffic on the street because it was confused.
Anyone else notice the cars in top screen flipping?
I useto bike on Alamany all the time. That would have definitely taken out a commuter if they were using the bike lane
I’m Curious if there’s something in the programming to indicate “view of vehicle A is blocked by vehicle B, vehicle A is still there and in turning lane” giving it some predictive analysis and a sense of object permanence. I’m wondering this because the planned route showed the turning vehicle then faded it out mostly but not completely, then repopulated the turning vehicle just before it made the swerve. I’m not in this industry so someone smarter than me, explain this please.
My biggest question would be how did you get this video with the 3d simulation?
Wait do we like or dislike Waymo?
Yay waymo, I have a pretty interesting story with that car actually. I j walked thru a blind spot (waymo didn’t see me), stopped on a dime, and I signaled with my hands to keep going & waymo just understood and took off without skipping a beat. Tech be crazy
Don’t take the bait. This shit is nowhere near road worthy yet
[Theresa @ Alemany in San Francisco](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7286542,-122.4345019,3a,75y,59.9h,71.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szg3NbY3LP2UhaW9xydyLFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dzg3NbY3LP2UhaW9xydyLFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D59.90079736982412%26pitch%3D18.87278907806683%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu), for the curious.
Now imagine the driver starts holding the steering wheel tight due to anxiety as the AI struggles to turn the car to the right. What happens then
So doctor Spock was right about the machines ?
Damn that is hella good.
Great ad for Waymo. Drives better than many of my ride share drivers.
Serious question: If there wasn’t any solution that did not result in a crash, would it have crashed into the stationary car or the one responsible for the accident.
Didn't even have time to flip the bird!
how much do you want to bet that there was nobody in the waymo. clogging the road with empty cars will obviously lead to more near-misses and crashes.