Rethinking “driverless cars”
We recorded 9 claims from this post. 9 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (9)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“This is not true autonomy, but semi-autonomy. It might (I doubt it) save money, but it has literally nothing to do with AGI.”
Our reading: Remotely-assisted driving is semi-autonomy, not true autonomy; it might save money, though the author doubts it; and it has literally nothing to do with AGI.
No horizon
Qualifier: might save money (I doubt it)
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Waymo is probably better, but how much better is anybody’s guess.”
Our reading: Waymo is probably better, but how much better is anybody's guess.
No horizon
Qualifier: probably
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Quite possible nobody will turn a profit in remote driving anytime soon; quite possibly everybody is spending quite heavily on remote assist centers, in hopes of achieving true autonomy.”
Our reading: It is quite possible no company will profit from remote-assisted driving anytime soon.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Remote driving itself is unlikely to work well enough as an endgame on public roads, because data communications just aren’t stable enough.”
Our reading: Remote driving is unlikely to work well enough as a long-term solution on public roads because data communications are not stable enough.
No horizon
Qualifier: on public roads
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“The whole self-driving cars industry is this likely to be viewed in a few years as an epic fail, crushed by outliers and AI that could not reason adequately.”
Our reading: Within a few years the self-driving car industry will likely be seen as an epic failure, defeated by outliers and AI's inadequate reasoning.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Driver-assist (a la Tesla) with humans in the loop may well stay, occasionally causing fatal accidents, given its lack of reliability”
Our reading: Driver-assist systems like Tesla's may persist while occasionally causing fatal accidents due to unreliability.
No horizon
Qualifier: humans in the loop
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“We may see similar disappointments in safety-critical applications of LLMs (eg medicine), years of promise, but humans still for a very long time required in the loop, true autonomy difficult to achieve.”
Our reading: LLMs in safety-critical domains like medicine may disappoint, requiring humans in the loop for a very long time.
No horizon
Qualifier: safety-critical applications such as medicine
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If true self-driving is this hard, despite the amount of data that has been collected and amount of money invested ($100B+), any dreams of AGI happening soon are likely wildly unrealistic.”
Our reading: If true self-driving is this hard despite the data collected and $100B+ invested, any dreams of AGI happening soon are likely wildly unrealistic.
No horizon
Only if: if true self-driving is this hard, despite the data collected and $100B+ invested
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“No fantasy about AGI thus far has survived contact with the real world.”
Our reading: No AGI fantasy so far has held up against the real world.
No horizon
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: It appears that most or all self-driving work at present is much closer to driver-assist or remotely-assisted driving, and that all published numbers are really about those two, with no disclosure of how much remote centers contribute to the results.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: If all the self-driving efforts are leaning heavily (e.g., hourly) on call centers, true self-driving is a long way away, and anyone who thinks true Level 5 self-driving is close has probably been deceived.