korrents

korrents · piece

On self driving, Waymo is playing chess while Tesla plays checkers

Timothy B. Lee · 21 May 2024

Others here said this too

A robotaxi that still needs remote human help loses the cost advantage that motivated it, which pushes out when it can scale.

Their wordsIf Waymo vehicles were constantly asking for remote guidance, Waymo might need to hire so many remote operators that it negates the cost savings that come from not needing a driver.

Also said by Rodney Brooks

Read the piece on understandingai.org ↗

3 korrents from this piece ↓

Timothy B. Lee did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

  1. Our reading

    Tesla has not found a better route to driverless cars; it is simply years behind, working on problems the leader solved long ago.

    Their wordsSo Tesla hasn’t found a different, better way to bring driverless technology to market. Waymo is just so far ahead that it’s dealing with challenges Tesla hasn’t started thinking about.

  2. Our reading

    A huge fleet collecting driving data is not a silver bullet for self-driving, because the data arrives unlabelled.

    Their wordsBut while access to more data is certainly helpful, it’s not a magic bullet. One issue is that the data Tesla collects is unlabeled.

  3. Our reading

    A robotaxi that still needs remote human help loses the cost advantage that motivated it, which pushes out when it can scale.

    Mental modelSecond-order thinking

    Their wordsIf Waymo vehicles were constantly asking for remote guidance, Waymo might need to hire so many remote operators that it negates the cost savings that come from not needing a driver.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.