Dear humans at Rivian. If your vehicle didn't look like a cartoon, I might consider one. It's not conformity, or even ego. It's the same reason I don't wear a clown outfit in public.
I don't own a lot of things, but they all look nice.
I don't even really understand the complaint. I quite like the way Rivians look.
It's a fairly generic body shape, but the headlamp and grille shape is distinctively "happy" instead of "aggressive" (this is a real thing, and it's intentionally designed for in lamp/grille shapes on cars)
Personally, I don't want "aggressive" near my cars. They kill enough people already, and I'm tired by how common it is for manufacturers to push aggressive body shapes.
I don't like those headlights also. I think it's a case of when founders bring too much of their personality into the product. Otherwise great product and this self drive system at least has a sound start (track objects across video frames)
Google Maps, the lack of CarPlay, and the lack of amber turn signals turned me away from Rivian but otherwise I would love them. I particularly like how their brake pedals feel, although I'm not a fan of the accelerator being so far off the floor.
> Rivian says it will charge $49.99 a month, or $2,500 up front, versus Tesla’s $99 per month for its rival system, which is somewhat misleadingly called Full Self-Driving (Supervised), or FSD. Mercedes, meanwhile, plans to charge $3,950 for a three-year subscription for the forthcoming MB.Drive Assist Pro
If and when FSD systems become a reality and are safer than human drivers, I would expect that regulators will require them on all cars, just as they did reversing cameras, airbags, automated emergency braking, and other once-optional safety features.
For a Tesla, the estimates are around $2K. For a Waymo, the same estimates are ~$25K (down from $125K!!!). There's not a clear timeline for Waymo-style kit at a price consumers can afford and in a form factor they'd accept.
(FWIW, the business story for Waymo has never been about its hardware making its way to consumers. It's always been about whether Waymo continues to run its own taxi service or leases out hardware and operations to other taxi businesses).
Not sure I'd agree that the Tesla estimate is accurate for the truly driverless versions they've started releasing in Austin. Maybe for the standard ones you can buy. There's reporting on the additional telematics packs that have been added to Model Y cars in their Robotaxi fleet, so who knows what that costs.
Tesla is also able to save on components that are no longer needed: steering wheel and steering column, rear window mirror, control to change gears etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper to make those cars than standard ones.
The God's Eye B system of BYD adds under $600 to the BoM.
The 5 millimeter-wave radars and 12 ultrasonic sensors are $100-150. LiDAR is $150-200. The 12 cameras, control unit, and 300 TOPs of computing is $150-200. This computing is comparable to what Tesla puts on their consumer cars, and the sensors suite is much more extensive. (The current robotaxis have about the same computing power as the consumer cars but a lot more RAM).
Right, but God's Eye B isn't anywhere near good enough for unsupervised self-driving. The hardware isn't the issue; the software just isn't in the same league as Tesla FSD.
You were talking about the hardware costs to support self-driving. The God's Eye B compute hardware is similar to the compute hardware in current consumer Tesla cars and the sensor hardware is a superset (more cameras plus LiDAR, radar, and ultrasonics), but adds less than $600 to the BoM, which shouldn't be a major barrier to it being mandated on new cars once the software is up to the task.
Which will pose an interesting problem; we’ll have to pay a subscription to legally be allowed to drive our car on the road. As much as I’m excited for autonomous driving I’m not excited for the legal implications that follow
My 2025 model 3 has driven me over 95% of my last thousand miles. I'm frankly surprised it isn't more, but I'm not the only driver of the car.
It's very obvious to me that FSD is a reality already, usually from parking spot to parking spot. And it at least feels much safer than I am driving, especially since I can get tired, etc
For any doubters: using a 2025 model is a key detail here. It's the latest hardware version of the self driving computer. The older cars on the road are stuck with significantly worse FSD software because the hardware is far too weak.
FSD 14 lite, which is now available for the HW3 (~2019-2023) Teslas, is surprisingly good. I have a HW3 and HW4, and while HW3 isn't as confident and competent as HW4, it's good enough that I don't mind it anymore. My wife was planning on trading in the HW3 for a new Model Y next year, and now she might just wait a few more years.
I have a 2020 M3 on HW3 with v14 lite and it's very good. But even v12 was pretty good. I drove an HW4 as a loaner and did not notice a significant difference. I think the big difference would be on the long-tail of edge conditions, but I'm not sure.
There's a wide range of what people find acceptable. I think v12 was the last I tried on HW3 and it was bad. Inching into oncoming traffic trying to do left turns, extremely sudden and sharp lane changes, lots of interventions required. v14 on HW4 was the first I've seen it actually drive competently. I even got to try it in a couple snow storms and it did great. I did not try v14 lite, it's great they got it working in some capacity but I still wouldn't trust it as FSD because it's probably the equivalent of running a heavily quantized LLM (HW4 doubles the available RAM).
That's absolutely fair. I'm comparing it against v11, where I couldn't go a block before disengaging. And my routes and neighborhoods are relatively easy.
But still, even v12 can handle things like manual traffic signalers, construction zones, etc. The first time my car followed instructions of a cop waving us through a stop sign, I was amazed.
Out of curiosity, do you live in a place that gets heavy snow? I've always felt that FSD would struggle to handle heavy snow fall, roads with snow banks on the sides and difficult driving/braking conditions in the snow and on ice patches.
I think that's a smart point and seems likely to be attempted.
It presents interesting questions, though. Right now, insurance companies are incentivized to fight for their customer in court against the other driver because they don't want to pay out.
But if the FSD provider is also the insurer, they aren't a neutral party if the dispute is between whether FSD is to blame or if the driver is to blame. It could become adversarial, let's say if the data in the car shows the driver wasn't looking at the road at the moment of the crash and therefore wasn't ready to take over for self-driving.
There might be ways around this, but it's a challenge to overcome. I'd want my insurance company to protect me against my FSD provider, too.
(My point is complicated by the fact that liability coverage is separate, admittedly. My insurer might not want to pay out if I was driving drunk, for example.)
I think given how far companies like XPeng are with their systems in China. This is more a question of "when" than "if" with the when part narrowed to a time range of perhaps 2027-2029. Xpeng seems to be planning for 2027. Not in the US of course but the rest of the world is a big place.
I expect that by the mid 2030s this will be widely used across most car markets in both L2 driver assist form and L4 style autonomous taxis active in most large cities on all continents. L4/L5 level driving for privately owned cars might trail that a bit but I think the technical arguments against that are rapidly evaporating as well. The arguments are increasingly about regulation, insurance, liability, etc. I think the Chinese are a bit more pragmatic on this front and more likely to just get this done domestically by the early 2030s and will be deploying this globally by the mid 2030s. The only question real question is whether the US and Europe will do that before or after them and whether that will be with their own tech or somebody else's.
Rivian seems to have all the right tech and strategy.
Hmm, that would mean forcing every car sold to be controllable remotely by a corporation. Sounds like something regulators would indeed do, but also, doesn’t sound too great for consumers, to put it mildly
We're excited to tell you that your pedestrian kids are involuntarily participating in this innovative experiment! They are shaping our future! Their eventual tragic accidental death will provide enough data for the Company to improve their products even further, generating even more value for our shareholders! Thank you for your contribution!
So what does this mean for Timmy (16 years old) learning how to drive? Should that also be banned, lest he runs over some kid? Or does he get a pass because he's a human and not a faceless corporation? Maybe he can repay the favor in 60 years when he gets run over by another teenager learning how to drive?
I do want safer vehicles and I do see a path to get there with this technology.
What I don't want is companies training their technologies with legitimate risk to the public, with a clear pathway to profiting off of this risk and public data, with no benefit to the public _unless_ they happen to succeed, and to some degree, unless you can afford their products. Something feels off about that.
Of course, everyone benefits if vehicles are safer, but it does feel like there is an extractive factor regardless. These companies benefit from public resources, are wholly enabled by public resources, but are trying to create a situation in which the technologies they create are more or less required to be used in order to utilize the public resource. Does that make sense? I suppose it's inferred, but, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe any car manufacturer with a working FSD technology would LOVE to have that technology mandated to be on every new vehicle. Imagine leasing that to every manufacturer who didn't develop it themselves so they could continue to sell in the USA.
On one hand, safer vehicles are a MUST because we allow an absurd number of people to die due to unsafe driving every day. On the other hand, I don't feel right about private companies benefiting so much from roads the public built, while training their technology with some degree of risk imposed on the public, and with no clear desire in these companies to give back. They tend to pay paltry sums in taxes, if any. Rivian was at a net loss of over 4 billion for 2024. I understand they're trying to build something that requires massive capital, but, I also understand that these companies are experts at operating at a loss for prolonged periods of time. Amazon is a stellar example.
This definitely cuts both ways, but I'm not sure exactly where I stand. I need more information to decide, but I'm confident that there is some degree of exploitation of public data and resources here. I'm not trying to imply Tesla, Waymo, or Rivian are the only ones guilty of this either. The tragedy of the commons is a well-known phrase because it's such a typical phenomenon. I'm also not suggesting that there's a simple solution. There can't be because the fragmentation of the polities in which these companies operate and train their technology within.
Civilized countries have the concept of a driving school, where you have to take 20 one hour lessons with an instructor who can override everything as well as theory lessons, followed by an independent state run exam, theory and practice.
First, our current city driving environments were designed for being used by humans, so take into account human strengths and weaknesses.
Second, that kid has spent 16 years in such an environment learning how humans function there. He's got a very good model of how things work.
By the time I was 16 year old Timmy I'd spent a whole lot of time walking next to roads with cars, biking next to or in those roads with cars, and riding in cars on those roads. What was new when I was the driver was mostly learning the physics of cars and driving.
(I suppose nowadays, with the way parents can get in trouble letting kids out of their sight, we might have to worry about a generation of 16 year old Timmys who have not spent any significant time walking next to or biking next to or in roads with cars).
Third, that kid will have a pretty good model of predicting future behavior of other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists based on figuring out their intent, which can even let them make some pretty good predictions about them even when they are hidden or masked from the kid's sensors.
Fourth, Timmy has a bunch of knowledge learned from listening to other people, reading, movies, etc., that can be applied while driving. For example suppose they live somewhere where there are many cows, but no deer. If they see a cow near the road at a place with no fence, they will have an appropriate model from experience that tells them cows are generally slow moving. Be cautious when passing, maybe giving it some extra space.
If the see a deer even though they have no experience with them they likely know that deer often bolt rapidly into the road right when a car gets close due to hearing stories from people who live in deer heavy regions or from news, books, or TV/movies, so go slow and be very cautious passing that.
Autonomous cars have a big advantage in reaction time, so if a bad situation starts to unfold they are likely better at saving the day than Timmy (or an experienced human driver) would be, but at least the systems so far deployed so far don't seem to be up to Timmy's understanding of other actors and their intent. They also seem unlikely currently to have that widespread non-driving knowledge that can be called upon to understand novel situation involving things that was not in their driver training.
I see, you'd prefer to continue the prior experiment of humans flying around corners in multi-thousand-pound vehicles, over the speed limit, while sipping coffee and looking at the radio?
The difficulty in getting to an agreement on what "responsible" means, and on how a "failure" should be handled means that said experiment will never occur. Nothing is ever safe enough and no failure is acceptable -- so no test which can fail can be run.
A situation which would be in obvious conflict (negative expected value) with the goal of saving the man hours and lives currently being cost by manual driving.
Current trend nowadays is watching tiktok, though thankfully I've only seen it at red lights, but that might just be because I'm not staring at other drivers when driving around at 40mph.
I was behind someone just the other week that was actively scrolling tiktok/reels while driving on a 3-lane road during rush hour with what appeared to be at least 2 kids in the back.
car company != software company. Building a car gets you approximately 0% closer to knowing how to make an safe software driver. Writing AV software is exceptionally hard. We only have 2 safe functioning drivers presently: humans (debatable) and Waymo. Apple spent $7(?) billion and gave up. Uber and GM have also set billions on fire with nothing to show for it. Tesla might get there, but it could still be 5 years away.
As of August Tesla had 80+ unsupervised taxis in operation with more than 380k miles driven total, and they are required to report incidents to the NHTSA. At the rate at which they are adding miles, if they are not now safer than human drivers, we should know soon.
Rivian has actually split out the software side to a joint venture with Volkswagen Group (the group independent of the car company which the group owns with others like Audi and Porsche). I think the goal is to have a platform other brands can license
This is the move that will win. Once available at that level, it will get adopted into smaller vehicles. There would be a huge market for self-driving golf carts or similar size vehicles in gated and retirement communities.
At first I was skeptical, but reading the article, they do track object across video frames which for me it's the minimum a system like this should do. All previous FSD systems are just Fake self-driving.
"That proprietary AI driver identifies features in images and point clouds, groups them into objects, and tracks them across frames, time-stamped to the millisecond to account for differing frame rates. The AI thus builds confidence over time, acting on object detections that persist across several frames, rather than, say, slamming the brakes due to a camera blip on a single frame."
> The AI thus builds confidence over time, acting on object detections that persist across several frames, rather than, say, slamming the brakes due to a camera blip on a single frame.
Nice in theory but in practice they still need a ton of training data. The bitter lesson is very bitter. Tesla's end to end FSD uses occupancy networks and brake stabbing still hasn't been fully solved.
>they do track object across video frames which for me it's the minimum a system like this should do. All previous FSD systems are just Fake self-driving.
I'm pretty sure Waymo does this. It's hard to imagine not using this information, it's basically 50% of what I do when driving (e.g. that kid that was running on the sidewalk suddenly disappeared from view in an unexpected way; I wonder if he's about to cut across the street, etc).
I took a fully-autonomyous Cybercab to a coffee shop yesterday; it doesn't even have a steering wheel. It was just a short drive, but it handled various complications (a garbage truck, double-parked cars, construction, unpainted speed bumps) with aplomb. The driving felt extremely smooth and human-like (better, in my experience, than Waymo, which can still be a bit jerky).
Those operate in constrained areas of a few cities though - with a control room, that's a long way from telling your car to drive across state unattended.
Yeah that's fair, though my understanding (perhaps wrong!) is Tesla unlike Waymo doesn't need super-detailed maps; it could in theory go across the state right now (but it doesn't have legal authorization).
(In Austin it covers what looks to me like the whole city but not the surrounding smaller towns.)
Do you know how much of the drive and handling those complications was actually fully autonomous vs how much (or what key points) were handled from the remote control room by a human?
I'm not sure how you would tell, but that is a critical question for scaling and true autonomy.
Yeah that's a good point -- I'm not sure, but it definitely felt like there was no remote control going on, just based on smoothness and speed. But for sure the ability exists, so good pts re true autonmy and scaling.
Yes, your comment on smoothness and speed prompted me to also wonder at what level the remote control could be happening.
The obvious level is the monitor just takes over driving like a remote FPV driver/pilot.
But I wonder if the software can also flag alerts early when it starts to identify ambiguity, and the monitor can see the camera+lidar outputs and make a guidance-level input like [get in the left lane here] or [pause/go], and the direct driver inputs (steering/brake/accelerator) are never interrupted, but they have better "tactical" guidance from the central office?
I see a lot of Self-driving cars hitting people vs. reckless drivers hitting people.
What I want is simple: accountability. If a human hits a human, we throw the book at them in the case of a modality of negligence. If a robot screws up, how do we remedy and discourage?
The shenanigans AI companies have been up to recently (including boasting about criminal behaviour hacking other companies) without repercussions is pretty good proof that it isn't "easy".
The rights holders that got a settlement out of Anthropic spent two years and probably a fortune fighting in court. If that’s “easy”, then sure, this is a solved problem and there’s no point discussing it.
> An example where no one attemped to hold anyone liable isn't a counterexample to what happens when we do.
Yes it is (specifically, a counter example to it being easy, not that it’s possible). The whole world saw HuggingFaces get hacked and the collective legal response was crickets. The same world that’s had its legal system throw the DMCA and unauthorised access to computers legal book at researchers, games preservationists and random people trying to access media that they can’t licence in their region.
It should be 100% liability on the self-driving car. Only by doing that will there be enough incentive for the manufacturers to drive the accident rate down to zero (or in practice a low enough number that the cost to manufacturer of the remaining accidents is negligible). Less than 100% liability provides wiggle room, which car manufacturers will exploit to maximise profits over lives. With 100% liability manufacturers can still make a pile of money, but only if they have a low accident rate.
That small lidar embedded into the front window glass is very sleek looking. Overall I like their design and what they choose to focus on. Their description of what is important for an LDM is is spot on, I love a boring drive without excitement or flare.
> Compared to, say, a large language model that writes news or fiction... an autonomous-driving AI is less subjective and easier to evaluate, so there’s little room for error.
There's less gray area with driving wss the point. Legal or illegal, efficient or inefficient. And whatever gray area remains is generally "good enough" compared to human drivers on the road.
It's easy evaluate if there's no victims. Stats say there's more than 6000 injuries per day and more than 16000 deaths per year on the road.
If you choose between hitting a pedestrian and swerving potentially injuring the driver and totaling the car, what would you like the car to pick? Or any given trolley problem variation, etc
I think this article is underestimating Tesla and very much underestimating how hard Level 4 autonomy is. The long-tail of edge conditions to handle is really long, and Rivian is only at the beginning.
What Rivian is going to release at the end of 2026 is what Tesla had 3 years ago. All that time has gone to dealing with edge conditions: bike lanes, emergency vehicles, construction zones, and all the crazy one-off situations that their fleet has seen.
Tesla's fleet is an order of magnitude larger, so events that Rivian has seen only once, Tesla already has ten examples of. And rare events that Tesla has trained on, Rivian has never yet seen.
I will say this, though: Rivian is the closest competitor to Tesla (not counting Chinese cars). Waymo FSD is obviously more advanced than Tesla, but they will lose out to both Tesla and Rivian when it comes to manufacturing. And the robotaxi game is going to be all about manufacturing.
Because once the software gets to an acceptable level, it becomes table-stakes--it's not a differentiator. After that, the only thing that matters is who deploys the most cars, and the unit economics of each car.
That depends on manufacturing (e.g., low unit costs, and high throughput).
> Waymo FSD is obviously more advanced than Tesla, but they will lose out to both Tesla and Rivian when it comes to manufacturing
The car itself (chassis, bodywork, drivetrain) is a commodity today. If you can turn any car into an autonomous car then the car isn't worth that much in the self-driving game. Tesla's stock is propped by the promise of becoming the first to achieve autonomy not by its ability to build cars, or else VW and Toyota would be worth multiples of Tesla. They aren't because cars are a commodity. Autonomous car brains are the hot deal.
If manufacturing ever became Google's Achilles heel, they can take a majority stake in something like VinFast and manufacture a Google car.
> If manufacturing ever became Google's Achilles heel, they can take a majority stake in something like VinFast and manufacture a Google car.
They won't even have to (partially) buy any manufacturer - they can utilize contract manufacturers like Magna Steyr (which made the Jaguar I-Pace) or Foxconn, or lean on/expand partnerships like the one they have with Toyota.
I said that on the assumption that they want control and guarantees that Google's needs get serviced. Otherwise they can partner with any manufacturer to incorporate the tech, like they do on the software side. But they could be dropped at any time.
They seem to be getting pretty far with only vision, to be fair. Same with openpilot.
Still, I cant help but agree. If you have access to beyond-human sensors and are able to do sensor fusion, then please do it. What's the point otherwise? saving a few hundred bucks per car?
Waymo uses lidar, radar, cameras, mics, and other sensors. They also have extra extraordinary geospatial data. And they have years of operational experience.
They also spend $1 billion a year on R&D. while they are probably at least break even on opex, they are continuing to invest.
There is no shortcut. The reason they have all of those sensors, and the tiny windshield wipers that keep them clean, is that they need them to make it work. They are on version 6 of their hardware. If it were possible to remove some of the sensors and retain the same level of safety, they would.
> The long-tail of edge conditions to handle is really long, and Rivian is only at the beginning.
I still find it insane that the entire established automotive industry saw what Tesla was doing with cameras and incrementally working toward FSD, and still to this day has not even started to collect data (or even install enough instruments to collect the data!) to get onto the same trajectory. Meanwhile the Model Y is the best selling car in the world multiple years in a row.
When autonomy is solved, they could put a bed or office or dining table in the car. But I agree, this halfway autonomy where you have to watch everything is kind of useless.
> When autonomy is solved, they could put a bed or office or dining table in the car.
Have you ever tried reading a book while being driven around? You get car sick really fast, because your vestibular system does not like constantly getting jostled around with mismatching visual inputs. Eating dinner while being driven around is a similar story: anyone around you does something unexpected, and your dinner ends up being spilled all over the car.
Self-driving cars will never have the same smoothness as planes or trains, simply because they have to share the roads with the general public. You might be able to sleep, but your commute isn't going to neatly match up with your sleeping schedule, so that's only really useful for longer road trips.
> this halfway autonomy where you have to watch everything is kind of useless
No, it is actively dangerous. Humans are extremely bad at staying fully-focused and being ready to act in the blink of an eye, while at the same time having literally nothing to do 99.99% of the time. If you don't let your attention wander, it is significantly less exhaustive to drive yourself. Halfway-autonomous cars exist primarily so that car manufacturers can demand extra money without having to accept any of the reliability.
I don’t know, it might just come down to how good a driver you are.
I agree with the proposition that people are horrible at halfway autonomy.
But I am horrible at driving, and I kind of think almost everybody is. I have a car that just does lane keeping and distance keeping cruise control. The number of times it is notified me that I’m sliding off the side of the road is large. Similarly it’s let off the gas a vast number of times when I was creeping up on the car in front of me and I didn’t notice.
Maybe it’s having just one long, largely empty commute for five years. But I suspect it’s that you can drive any modern car without 100% concentration at which point people are prone to getting distracted.
So I’m thinking the comparison should be halfway autonomy vs a modern “dumb” car and I think halfway autonomy is safer overall.
> Have you ever tried reading a book while being driven around? You get car sick really fast, because your vestibular system does not like constantly getting jostled around with mismatching visual inputs.
I don't suffer from this all, and judging by watching people in public transport I'm not alone.
When would I want autonomous driving? For longer trips. Where do those happen? On the motorway where driving is mostly straight and simple.
When on the motorway, my Tesla's lane assist gives me basically all the benefits on the motorway I'd get from full self driving. FSD doesn't let me stop watching traffic or release the wheel, and I'd still have to take over to adjust to traffic conditions.. i.e. the same exact thing I'm doing with lane assist.
I'm not interested until I can literally sit in the back and take a nap.
i thought the same thing but i bought a model y a few months ago and turns out that's exactly what I want. 90% self driving and really the 10% is entirely the last part of a drive because it picks stupid parking spots and doesn't know how to enter my driveway, other than that it's driven perfectly
well, perfectly is a bit much, it doesn't know how to dodge potholes yet and it sometimes misses exits/turns, but it's never done anything i would call dangerous
I used to think that I would only use FSD on long trips, where it's tiring, but now that it is so good, I end up using it on any trip that I nav (restaurants, stores, etc.).
And since I can't look at my phone (or sleep or read) I just sit there and think. It's surprisingly relaxing and I didn't realize how much I would appreciate it.
I concur. Only once you get used to FSD do you realize how the thousands of micro decisions and constant attention demands of driving actually do add friction. Arriving at a destination using FSD completely fresh mentally is really quite something. The longer the drive, the greater the difference.
I think this is something that will probably change especially with younger people (or children). Once self-driving becomes mainstream, a lot of people may not see the point of doing manual driving.
Up until about a decade ago, I insisted on getting cars with a manual transmission as I wanted more control over my car. I definitely don't think that anymore especially with all the advances in transmission technologies...
Rivian’s mission is to clone Tesla. That’s it. So of course they’re going to do this half baked garbage. Even if they add LIDAR, they will never attract the talent or have the resources to do this right. The CEO’s exorbitant pay package basically makes him out to be a grifter and sociopath, just like Musk.
132 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 5.1 ms ] threadI don't own a lot of things, but they all look nice.
Until then, I enjoy the tech story.
It's a fairly generic body shape, but the headlamp and grille shape is distinctively "happy" instead of "aggressive" (this is a real thing, and it's intentionally designed for in lamp/grille shapes on cars)
Personally, I don't want "aggressive" near my cars. They kill enough people already, and I'm tired by how common it is for manufacturers to push aggressive body shapes.
I had a coworker who sold his small lexus, because it made dating weird.
Isn't personal aesthetics about ego? Why someone with no regard for status care about how they look?
If and when FSD systems become a reality and are safer than human drivers, I would expect that regulators will require them on all cars, just as they did reversing cameras, airbags, automated emergency braking, and other once-optional safety features.
That assumes that suppliers are available to affordably add it.
So far Tesla is the only company remotely close to unsupervised self-driving that doesn't add $1000s to the BoM cost of the car.
What makes you think it doesn't? All those cameras, the expensive chips and cooling for them, and redundancy for all the systems don't come free.
(FWIW, the business story for Waymo has never been about its hardware making its way to consumers. It's always been about whether Waymo continues to run its own taxi service or leases out hardware and operations to other taxi businesses).
It's maybe $1.5K of BoM total for the chip, memory, and cameras.
Where are you seeing this? The estimates I've seen all land around $1K.
The 5 millimeter-wave radars and 12 ultrasonic sensors are $100-150. LiDAR is $150-200. The 12 cameras, control unit, and 300 TOPs of computing is $150-200. This computing is comparable to what Tesla puts on their consumer cars, and the sensors suite is much more extensive. (The current robotaxis have about the same computing power as the consumer cars but a lot more RAM).
It's very obvious to me that FSD is a reality already, usually from parking spot to parking spot. And it at least feels much safer than I am driving, especially since I can get tired, etc
But still, even v12 can handle things like manual traffic signalers, construction zones, etc. The first time my car followed instructions of a cop waving us through a stop sign, I was amazed.
Which would then offset these monthly subscriptions by car companies.
It presents interesting questions, though. Right now, insurance companies are incentivized to fight for their customer in court against the other driver because they don't want to pay out.
But if the FSD provider is also the insurer, they aren't a neutral party if the dispute is between whether FSD is to blame or if the driver is to blame. It could become adversarial, let's say if the data in the car shows the driver wasn't looking at the road at the moment of the crash and therefore wasn't ready to take over for self-driving.
There might be ways around this, but it's a challenge to overcome. I'd want my insurance company to protect me against my FSD provider, too.
(My point is complicated by the fact that liability coverage is separate, admittedly. My insurer might not want to pay out if I was driving drunk, for example.)
I expect that by the mid 2030s this will be widely used across most car markets in both L2 driver assist form and L4 style autonomous taxis active in most large cities on all continents. L4/L5 level driving for privately owned cars might trail that a bit but I think the technical arguments against that are rapidly evaporating as well. The arguments are increasingly about regulation, insurance, liability, etc. I think the Chinese are a bit more pragmatic on this front and more likely to just get this done domestically by the early 2030s and will be deploying this globally by the mid 2030s. The only question real question is whether the US and Europe will do that before or after them and whether that will be with their own tech or somebody else's.
Rivian seems to have all the right tech and strategy.
I do want safer vehicles and I do see a path to get there with this technology.
What I don't want is companies training their technologies with legitimate risk to the public, with a clear pathway to profiting off of this risk and public data, with no benefit to the public _unless_ they happen to succeed, and to some degree, unless you can afford their products. Something feels off about that.
Of course, everyone benefits if vehicles are safer, but it does feel like there is an extractive factor regardless. These companies benefit from public resources, are wholly enabled by public resources, but are trying to create a situation in which the technologies they create are more or less required to be used in order to utilize the public resource. Does that make sense? I suppose it's inferred, but, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe any car manufacturer with a working FSD technology would LOVE to have that technology mandated to be on every new vehicle. Imagine leasing that to every manufacturer who didn't develop it themselves so they could continue to sell in the USA.
On one hand, safer vehicles are a MUST because we allow an absurd number of people to die due to unsafe driving every day. On the other hand, I don't feel right about private companies benefiting so much from roads the public built, while training their technology with some degree of risk imposed on the public, and with no clear desire in these companies to give back. They tend to pay paltry sums in taxes, if any. Rivian was at a net loss of over 4 billion for 2024. I understand they're trying to build something that requires massive capital, but, I also understand that these companies are experts at operating at a loss for prolonged periods of time. Amazon is a stellar example.
This definitely cuts both ways, but I'm not sure exactly where I stand. I need more information to decide, but I'm confident that there is some degree of exploitation of public data and resources here. I'm not trying to imply Tesla, Waymo, or Rivian are the only ones guilty of this either. The tragedy of the commons is a well-known phrase because it's such a typical phenomenon. I'm also not suggesting that there's a simple solution. There can't be because the fragmentation of the polities in which these companies operate and train their technology within.
First, our current city driving environments were designed for being used by humans, so take into account human strengths and weaknesses.
Second, that kid has spent 16 years in such an environment learning how humans function there. He's got a very good model of how things work.
By the time I was 16 year old Timmy I'd spent a whole lot of time walking next to roads with cars, biking next to or in those roads with cars, and riding in cars on those roads. What was new when I was the driver was mostly learning the physics of cars and driving.
(I suppose nowadays, with the way parents can get in trouble letting kids out of their sight, we might have to worry about a generation of 16 year old Timmys who have not spent any significant time walking next to or biking next to or in roads with cars).
Third, that kid will have a pretty good model of predicting future behavior of other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists based on figuring out their intent, which can even let them make some pretty good predictions about them even when they are hidden or masked from the kid's sensors.
Fourth, Timmy has a bunch of knowledge learned from listening to other people, reading, movies, etc., that can be applied while driving. For example suppose they live somewhere where there are many cows, but no deer. If they see a cow near the road at a place with no fence, they will have an appropriate model from experience that tells them cows are generally slow moving. Be cautious when passing, maybe giving it some extra space.
If the see a deer even though they have no experience with them they likely know that deer often bolt rapidly into the road right when a car gets close due to hearing stories from people who live in deer heavy regions or from news, books, or TV/movies, so go slow and be very cautious passing that.
Autonomous cars have a big advantage in reaction time, so if a bad situation starts to unfold they are likely better at saving the day than Timmy (or an experienced human driver) would be, but at least the systems so far deployed so far don't seem to be up to Timmy's understanding of other actors and their intent. They also seem unlikely currently to have that widespread non-driving knowledge that can be called upon to understand novel situation involving things that was not in their driver training.
We never blame kids playing on publicly-subsidized subway infrastructure.
How dare you call my kids pedestrian. They're better than that.
A situation which would be in obvious conflict (negative expected value) with the goal of saving the man hours and lives currently being cost by manual driving.
Current trend nowadays is watching tiktok, though thankfully I've only seen it at red lights, but that might just be because I'm not staring at other drivers when driving around at 40mph.
"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As of August Tesla had 80+ unsupervised taxis in operation with more than 380k miles driven total, and they are required to report incidents to the NHTSA. At the rate at which they are adding miles, if they are not now safer than human drivers, we should know soon.
At first I was skeptical, but reading the article, they do track object across video frames which for me it's the minimum a system like this should do. All previous FSD systems are just Fake self-driving.
"That proprietary AI driver identifies features in images and point clouds, groups them into objects, and tracks them across frames, time-stamped to the millisecond to account for differing frame rates. The AI thus builds confidence over time, acting on object detections that persist across several frames, rather than, say, slamming the brakes due to a camera blip on a single frame."
Ironically, I'm sure most humans have done the eyeball equivalent a handful of times, despite our knowledge of object permeance.
Nice in theory but in practice they still need a ton of training data. The bitter lesson is very bitter. Tesla's end to end FSD uses occupancy networks and brake stabbing still hasn't been fully solved.
I'm pretty sure Waymo does this. It's hard to imagine not using this information, it's basically 50% of what I do when driving (e.g. that kid that was running on the sidewalk suddenly disappeared from view in an unexpected way; I wonder if he's about to cut across the street, etc).
Oups a ball crossed the street 15m ahead. Let's slowdown to a crawl and watch for the kid is what a human would do.
I suppose they may have special cased the ball case.
I took a fully-autonomyous Cybercab to a coffee shop yesterday; it doesn't even have a steering wheel. It was just a short drive, but it handled various complications (a garbage truck, double-parked cars, construction, unpainted speed bumps) with aplomb. The driving felt extremely smooth and human-like (better, in my experience, than Waymo, which can still be a bit jerky).
Those operate in constrained areas of a few cities though - with a control room, that's a long way from telling your car to drive across state unattended.
(In Austin it covers what looks to me like the whole city but not the surrounding smaller towns.)
I'm not sure how you would tell, but that is a critical question for scaling and true autonomy.
People underestimate how adaptable and efficient humans are.
The obvious level is the monitor just takes over driving like a remote FPV driver/pilot.
But I wonder if the software can also flag alerts early when it starts to identify ambiguity, and the monitor can see the camera+lidar outputs and make a guidance-level input like [get in the left lane here] or [pause/go], and the direct driver inputs (steering/brake/accelerator) are never interrupted, but they have better "tactical" guidance from the central office?
What I want is simple: accountability. If a human hits a human, we throw the book at them in the case of a modality of negligence. If a robot screws up, how do we remedy and discourage?
Anthropic has paid out an awful lot of money settling piracy suits.
An example where no one attemped to hold anyone liable isn't a counterexample to what happens when we do.
The rights holders that got a settlement out of Anthropic spent two years and probably a fortune fighting in court. If that’s “easy”, then sure, this is a solved problem and there’s no point discussing it.
> An example where no one attemped to hold anyone liable isn't a counterexample to what happens when we do.
Yes it is (specifically, a counter example to it being easy, not that it’s possible). The whole world saw HuggingFaces get hacked and the collective legal response was crickets. The same world that’s had its legal system throw the DMCA and unauthorised access to computers legal book at researchers, games preservationists and random people trying to access media that they can’t licence in their region.
I can't find evidence of it working in the US. Gets hard to pay fall guys when all company assets have been seized in court judgements.
That's brave. What about all the edge cases?
- Driving through an empty prairie
- Driving slowly through a crowded square, giving people enough time to jump out of the way
If you choose between hitting a pedestrian and swerving potentially injuring the driver and totaling the car, what would you like the car to pick? Or any given trolley problem variation, etc
What Rivian is going to release at the end of 2026 is what Tesla had 3 years ago. All that time has gone to dealing with edge conditions: bike lanes, emergency vehicles, construction zones, and all the crazy one-off situations that their fleet has seen.
Tesla's fleet is an order of magnitude larger, so events that Rivian has seen only once, Tesla already has ten examples of. And rare events that Tesla has trained on, Rivian has never yet seen.
I will say this, though: Rivian is the closest competitor to Tesla (not counting Chinese cars). Waymo FSD is obviously more advanced than Tesla, but they will lose out to both Tesla and Rivian when it comes to manufacturing. And the robotaxi game is going to be all about manufacturing.
That depends on manufacturing (e.g., low unit costs, and high throughput).
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Google is one Trump bribe away from being tariff exempt for these.
The car itself (chassis, bodywork, drivetrain) is a commodity today. If you can turn any car into an autonomous car then the car isn't worth that much in the self-driving game. Tesla's stock is propped by the promise of becoming the first to achieve autonomy not by its ability to build cars, or else VW and Toyota would be worth multiples of Tesla. They aren't because cars are a commodity. Autonomous car brains are the hot deal.
If manufacturing ever became Google's Achilles heel, they can take a majority stake in something like VinFast and manufacture a Google car.
They won't even have to (partially) buy any manufacturer - they can utilize contract manufacturers like Magna Steyr (which made the Jaguar I-Pace) or Foxconn, or lean on/expand partnerships like the one they have with Toyota.
They also spend $1 billion a year on R&D. while they are probably at least break even on opex, they are continuing to invest.
There is no shortcut. The reason they have all of those sensors, and the tiny windshield wipers that keep them clean, is that they need them to make it work. They are on version 6 of their hardware. If it were possible to remove some of the sensors and retain the same level of safety, they would.
I still find it insane that the entire established automotive industry saw what Tesla was doing with cameras and incrementally working toward FSD, and still to this day has not even started to collect data (or even install enough instruments to collect the data!) to get onto the same trajectory. Meanwhile the Model Y is the best selling car in the world multiple years in a row.
I'd rather these guys just focus on building a Euro spec model of the R3 and getting it over here.
Have you ever tried reading a book while being driven around? You get car sick really fast, because your vestibular system does not like constantly getting jostled around with mismatching visual inputs. Eating dinner while being driven around is a similar story: anyone around you does something unexpected, and your dinner ends up being spilled all over the car.
Self-driving cars will never have the same smoothness as planes or trains, simply because they have to share the roads with the general public. You might be able to sleep, but your commute isn't going to neatly match up with your sleeping schedule, so that's only really useful for longer road trips.
> this halfway autonomy where you have to watch everything is kind of useless
No, it is actively dangerous. Humans are extremely bad at staying fully-focused and being ready to act in the blink of an eye, while at the same time having literally nothing to do 99.99% of the time. If you don't let your attention wander, it is significantly less exhaustive to drive yourself. Halfway-autonomous cars exist primarily so that car manufacturers can demand extra money without having to accept any of the reliability.
I agree with the proposition that people are horrible at halfway autonomy.
But I am horrible at driving, and I kind of think almost everybody is. I have a car that just does lane keeping and distance keeping cruise control. The number of times it is notified me that I’m sliding off the side of the road is large. Similarly it’s let off the gas a vast number of times when I was creeping up on the car in front of me and I didn’t notice.
Maybe it’s having just one long, largely empty commute for five years. But I suspect it’s that you can drive any modern car without 100% concentration at which point people are prone to getting distracted.
So I’m thinking the comparison should be halfway autonomy vs a modern “dumb” car and I think halfway autonomy is safer overall.
I don't suffer from this all, and judging by watching people in public transport I'm not alone.
When would I want autonomous driving? For longer trips. Where do those happen? On the motorway where driving is mostly straight and simple.
When on the motorway, my Tesla's lane assist gives me basically all the benefits on the motorway I'd get from full self driving. FSD doesn't let me stop watching traffic or release the wheel, and I'd still have to take over to adjust to traffic conditions.. i.e. the same exact thing I'm doing with lane assist.
I'm not interested until I can literally sit in the back and take a nap.
well, perfectly is a bit much, it doesn't know how to dodge potholes yet and it sometimes misses exits/turns, but it's never done anything i would call dangerous
And since I can't look at my phone (or sleep or read) I just sit there and think. It's surprisingly relaxing and I didn't realize how much I would appreciate it.
Up until about a decade ago, I insisted on getting cars with a manual transmission as I wanted more control over my car. I definitely don't think that anymore especially with all the advances in transmission technologies...