Wow, that's such an insane clickbait, 99% incorrect headline. I guess those RealTesla people dissing Cleantechnica were correct.

> Wow, that's such an insane clickbait, 99% incorrect headline.

How so, since that's Bloomberg Businessweek quoting Mr. Hotz? https://archive.ph/ZnqFl

Did you read the article you linked?

> “It’s a scam,” says George Hotz, whose company Comma.ai Inc. makes a driver-assistance system similar to Tesla Inc.’s Autopilot. “These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars.”

The companies are a scam, not the technology. By Hotz words.

> Did you read the article you linked?

Yes, that's why I asked. According to the CleanTechnica article, Mr. Hotz is specifically referring to "autonomous cars", not companies, being a scam.

> George Hotz, the serial entrepreneur who founded self-driving startup Comma.ai, has this to say about autonomous cars: "It’s a scam".

Going back to the original source I linked to above, "Even After $100 Billion, Self-Driving Cars Are Going Nowhere", still effectively says "self-driving cars are a scam", and Mr. Hotz's quote is still being used to support that thesis.

So I think you're incorrect, but I also think the article's original author took Mr. Hotz's quote out of its original context, and then the interpretation was mangled further during syndication.

Makes sense

I don't understand you. It's about George Hotz and the words George Hotz uses. How incorrect is it in terms of the George Hotz interview? Disagreeing with him and disagreeing with the article's reporting about what experts such as him are saying seem to be two different things.

It starts as follows: > In a lengthy interview with Bloomberg News, republished by Autoblog, George Hotz, the serial entrepreneur who founded self-driving startup Comma.ai, has this to say about autonomous cars: “It’s a scam. These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars.”

Which is likely accurate reporting of what he said.

Meanwhile, pouring money into something that doesn't work is par for the course in tech. Musk saying "it's almost ready" is a scam. So I disagree with half of George's statement there myself.

Are you being sarcastic, or...?

There's a lot of sarcasm running around here and it can be well-disguised. No, I wasn't. What's the wrong-but-right aspect that you thought might be sarcastic?

This part:

> has this to say about autonomous cars: “It’s a scam. These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars.”

Hotz says that companies have used lots of money, so to me it looks like he is referring to the companies and not the technology.

But reading a bit more, it's all to vague and the writer of the article made it really difficult to understand what's really being said here. It can be interpreted multiple ways.

On the rest, the "bit more", I agree. Direct quotes in the piece are the only things that seem clear, and I was narrowly focused on that.

Although I'm in the skeptic camp for self-driving readiness, all writing should be fair and clear about it. I'm surprised that power-assisted human control of stuff is so far behind, all we have is lane assist and stuff like that. You'd think we'd have haptic pothole anticipation or seats that cringe a little when someone roars up from behind by now.

> “It’s a scam. These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars.”

He's right you know.

I mean companies have also squandered billions of dollars on google ads. yet here were are

Are you suggesting google ads don't work? Because many of those companies would disagree. They got what they paid for.

Better not do anything difficult or interesting because it might fail and be labelled a scam?

no, better not do this difficult and interesting thing because the motivations have always been mostly artificial and the problems that proponents claim it will address are better solved with other more realistic projects.

This entire concept is absurd, authoritarian, and disgusting. We don't want to be forced to wear your tracking beacon to go outside.

If the giant metal box moving around at 100km/h is killing people, then slow the giant metal box down and make it smaller and lighter. We'd get where we're going faster without them if we hadn't dedicated 75% of the land to them in the first place.

You're basically arguing against mass transit

Yes. Grade separated trains are famously unpredictable, space inefficient, and the only way for you to be safe from them is to wear a tracking beacon from the moment you leave your front door.

Good job.

Only problem with transit is the "grade separated" part. It creates segregation. Neighbourhoods find themselves on the "wrong" side of the track

Grade separated means the tracks aren’t splitting anything up, like a subway or an elevated train.

The wrong side of the tracks thing is political and social, not literally because of the tracks.

It's a real thing, trains are dangerous, you will get a fine if you try to cross them at the wrong location

Yes, that's the primary reason we need self-driving cars and human-wearable beacons. Those track crossing fines are destroying our nation!

Living in Switzerland the biggest national concern is all the people constantly dying when people illegally cross train tracks.

Just recently we had to call in the military to protect the train tracks, people just constantly crossing train tracks. Trains constantly driving over hordes of people is really slowing down the economy.

If there only was some kind of technology to would tell people if its safe to cross or not.

I predict Switzerland will collapse in the next 2-3 years if they don’t replace their national rail network with underground tunnels for Tesla cars.

Its a real thing in a very few cases when a train system is really, really, really badly designed. A train system designed to move massive cargo around from mines to big cities.

I live in the country that most people agree has the best trains in the world. Illegal crossing of trains is basically a non issue. It barley ever happens, its almost never discussed, its not in the media much at all.

The amount of issue the country has because of trains is almost 0, with freak accidents where some teenagers swim in the river and then climb onto a railway bridge.

Cars that are being replaced are about 1000x more of a problem for safety. Trains are universally safer and every traveler that moves from a car to a train is a waste improvement in safety.

It actually can be, tracks split the city as much as a river does. They create similar dynamics in terms of both sides of the tracks becoming enclaves with different characteristics, similar to how the parts of a city on opposite banks of a river are often very different.

Yeah you're right. All those media tropes about being on the wrong side of the subway tunnel or rail overpass exist for a reason.

They actually do the opposite. Living in the nation with one of the best train networks in the world where the trains goes threw every single village.

The train stations actually connect everything together.

Its also pretty easy to cross a train, mostly its 1-2 tracks and most of the time there is no train going threw. You know what isn't easy to cross, crazy insane 8 lane strodes or 20 lane highways that are constantly full of fast driving cars.

Also if trains are not gigantic American cargo trains you can have the train cross the road, the road closes for like 2 min and then the train has passed by.

A train system needs to be designed for people, not just a bulldozer driving straight threw a neighborhood and then a train that goes from one side of the country to the other go threw there. The train stops need to happen often with fast electrified trains going stopping often to connected villages and sometimes even multiple stop in villages.

/sarcasm

I don't think V2X beacons are going to help. Human senses are perfectly adequate for detecting pedestrians and cyclists. People fail to notice them for other reasons; I think a particularly significant reason is that most people find driving stressful and do it more than they would like to due to the built environment, leading to inattention.

>"It’s a scam. These companies have squandered tens of billions of dollars."

The quote is so truncated as to be useless. He could be talking about the goal of self-driving cars or he could be talking about the amount of investment that has been taken and how it's been used.

That's taken out of context! He mean that some companies that raised billions of dollars are a scam.

I could see connected vehicles making autonomous driving easier. If more people in the vicinity are informed of the variables feeding an impending disaster, it becomes easier for autonomous vehicles to avoid “human-tier” difficult problems—the information bubble acts as a sort of damper. Maybe?

> Fatal accidents are largely caused by reckless behavior — speeding, drunks, texters, and people who fall asleep at the wheel.

This is just not really true. Every research on this suggest the opposite.

Of course if you blame everything on driver being bad misses the point. The road system AS DESIGNED encourages and intensities bad behavior and speeding.

Its the design of the road system that leads to fatalities. Ok, sure somebody that texts is more likely to be in an accident, but if that car is going 60mph then the chance of a fatality is far higher then if the care is going 20mph.

To ever solve anything, people need to stop blaming 'reckless behavior' when people have to drive on fast moving strodes (8-lane roads) with lots of car merging in form the side.

Ironically the horrible street design in the US also makes the whole self driving thing far harder. When I as a Swiss person look at videos of Tesla driving around the US I am constantly shocked about the horrible condition and absurd roads and highways they have to drive on.

Merging into 8 lane roads with a green belt in the middle, you have to merge in from a stop sign. That's crazy, in my whole country there isn't a single 8 lane road.

If Tesla (and friends) had spend all of its time optimizing for the Netherlands or Finland they would be much better off. Cars simply drive slower, roads built smarter, and the signals and lines are better.

> With V2X technology, a car whose sensors or cameras detect a pothole in the roadway will be able to notify their drivers, giving them time to take evasive maneuvers.

Yeah lets come up with the most complex solution ever, relay on terrible backwards car makers to implement that. Just so we can never slow down cars for any reason.

Making cars slower is what makes things safer, its really not that fucking hard and the best thing is, we can do it with technology we have today.

> How simple would it be to have a system that immobilizes a car unless a licensed driver is at the wheel?

Lets introduce Stalism so we don't have to slow down cars.

> There are so many ways driving can be made safer and it doesn’t require massive investments or hugely expensive options to make safe driving a reality.

Yeah massive complex software systems with complex hardware for every participant implemented by many standards groups is defiantly the way to achieve a cheap solution.

This is why basically nobody dies on the road in Finland. People there all have government issued chip in their brain that explodes if you go over the speed limit.

Its absolutely baffling at what incredibly low level of argument we are having. Like seriously, how about we look at the places that have done a good job at reducing the amount of people dying?

>> Fatal accidents are largely caused by reckless behavior — speeding, drunks, texters, and people who fall asleep at the wheel.

> This is just not really true. Every research on this suggest the opposite.

Can you explain?

In the US in 2020, 30% ( 11,654 ) of fatalities involved alcohol-impaired drivers. 29% of fatalities involved speeding (63% of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes were not alcohol-impaired).

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

What research suggests that fatal accidents are not largely caused by speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, and falling asleep? It seems like just drunk driving or speeding are involved in close to half of all fatalities.

also - you disagree with the proposed solutions in the article (I do too), but I don't understand why you are disagreeing with the stated problem?

If speeding is contributing to fatalities, changing road designs to discourage speeding is a reasonable response. We don't have to claim that fatal accidents are not related to reckless behavior to make changes to discourage reckless behavior.

If a system of infrastructure is designed to make speeding the natural thing do do, its not 'reckless' for people to do so. The same goes for drunk driving, if the infrastructure makes driving the only real possibility then people will do it much larger number.

So the solution to all of this is infrastructure change. However the solution that are often pushed will never be successful, ad campaigns against drunk driving, education about speeding and so on will never be the answer.

What statistics like that also hide is the people that did not die because they were not there. In the US, there is much less walking and biking because the roads are designed as they are. So of course people don't die often walking, simply because nobody is walking in the first place. And not many people walk because its dangerous.

So basically the US has reduced fatal crashes by simply not making it possible to crash into anybody else by the virtue of nobody else being insane enough to use this infrastructure.

This book goes into a lot of that: https://www.confessions.engineer/