>USA>Yes.
what do you even do in this situation?
>>203312955be a scared timmy boy looking at Tyrone cucking your car ride with his massive Big Black Marker
To be fair, driverless taxi companies deserve all the flak they get. I wish the self-driving car meme would die already, they're not self driving, it's some dudes sitting in a gaming chair controlling them.
>>203312955passively remain in the car while contacting a customer service jeet for troubleshooting solutions
>>203313083>they're not self driving, it's some dudes sitting in a gaming chair controlling them.based schizo
>>203313175It's not a schizo conspiracy you fucking moron, they literally couldn't make the cars stop getting into accidents so there's always a dedicated "controller" monitoring the driving (i.e. some dude remote controlling it). If you think fully autonomous self driving is real, you need to watch some youtube videos dude. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sgetWQGYxY
>>203313243>6 years agoDo you have a mental disability perhaps?
>>203313243They literally say it's for edge cases. I bet it's less than 5% of the time.
>>203313291You're absolutely delusional if you think level 5 autonomous cars actually exist and that this isn't a meme marketing trick.
>>203313307>Cruise employees claimed the company's robotaxis required human help "every 2.5 to five miles," https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/07/cruise_confirms_driverless_taxis_need/>>203313291This is from this year. Literally all of the driverless taxi companies use remote control.https://www.iotworldtoday.com/transportation-logistics/new-remote-driving-service-launches-in-the-usFrom last year:https://www.wired.com/story/a-sneaky-shortcut-to-driverless-cars/
>>203313383>According to Vogt and Cruise, the company's robotaxis are only being remotely assisted between two to four percent of the time, and then only "in complex urban environments." Rather than disputing the report, Vogt added that the 2.5-to-5-mile figure refers to how frequently Cruise robotaxis initiate a remote assistance session, but few of those sessions ever reach an actual human.>"These sessions are triggered proactively (i.e when path is obstructed, identifying objects) and 80 percent of the time are resolved autonomously by the AV," a Cruise spokesperson told us.Nice clickbait trash
>>203313439You're buying into the hype. Self driving cars beyond level 2 aren't actually a thing, which is also why you don't see these meme robotaxis on the road in Europe.
>>203313486I don't particularly care. All I'm saying is, I said it's about 5% of the time and it turned out to be the case. That's entirely statistically reasonable.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
>>203313439>and had a support staff so large there were 1.5 workers per Cruise vehicle.What a great improvement this is, and not some dystopian shit where tech companies are simply pulling wool over everyone's eyes.
>>203313531You are just asserting stuff and pretending that some corporate spokesperson are accurate in their self-reporting.
>>203313532Once again, might as well be clickbait. Do they include HR Stacies and middle managers in this? Wouldn't be surprised if they do. They need to stir shit up to get clicks.>>203313558Nah, I'm just being skeptical about the article. I doubt a company that employs more taxi drivers than an actual taxi company would be making any profits. As stupid people are, people who have the money for something like this aren't this stupid.
>>203313605>Once again, might as well be clickbait. I literally posted multiple articles.>I doubt a company that employs more taxi drivers than an actual taxi company would be making any profits.They aren't either, this isn't about making profits but being first to market and growing fast. This is the same business model Uber employs. Amazon didn't make a profit for over a decade and a half either. You are clearly naive or unaware how these tech-based taxi companies work.
>>203313605Also, if it was money to be made in this, then why did Google sell off Venmo?
>>203312955since it's not my car, I can't pull out the AR in self-defense
>>203313666Yes, if it’s multiple articles, they can’t all be clickbait. Surely. They don’t operate on the same principle or anything.
>>203313383Did you even read the articles you linked? They specifically point out that having remote drivers is how that company is different from Waymo and Cruise.
Yeah you call them drunk drivers
>>203313735It's pretty delusional to dismiss WSJ as "clickbait", not to mention that you're clearly moving the goalpost since you started out not even knowing that they have remote operators. You can look up autonomous levels yourself, if you're not being disingenuous. Currently the best car companies (i.e. not Tesla, lol) are at level "2.5", arguably some are claiming to be at level 3. They're very much at the "driver assistance" phase still.It's all smoke and mirrors to get people to put billions into the car industry, but there's a reason why VW had to lay off like 50,000 people earlier this year and that the Cariad part of the VW group was restructured.>>203313745Self-driving cars do not exist. They use some autonomous driving features, but they have an army of low-paid operators to step in at literally any moment because self driving cars can't even fucking make a left turn in an intersection.
>>203313903Just because they have remote control doesn't mean that they aren't self driving 98% of the time. You are retarded.
>>203313903You're retarded
>>203313995>98% of the timeYou really are delusional if you sincerely believe this. You've fallen for the hype. If the self-driving car meme really was true, then why aren't everyone driving around in this?It works flawlessly on highways etc., but they completely break down in city traffic scenarios.
>>203314000Why aren't you currently zooming around in a car that is driving for you then?
>>203314049Bro 5% of cabs trips in San Francisco is already self driving. Waymo has 100k trips per week now. It's already here and it's only gonna get better with more data and improved software.
>>203313291>>203313307coping dudebros
>>203314104>Bro 5% of cabs trips in San Francisco is already self driving. Waymo has 100k trips per week now. 1) Driverless != self driving2) Number of trips is not an indicator of whether they actually are self-driving.>It's already here and it's only gonna get better with more data and improved software.Lmao, sure thing. Just get investors to poor billions into this, it's totally working and not just hype!!
>>203314065Because they require a shit ton of mapping of the specific city's roads to work. If Waymo was really just some dude with an xbox controller like you're suggesting then they would be expanding much more rapidly, not spending 8 years on Phoenix to still not have the entire city available.
>>203314158It's not just one dude with an xbox controller, it's literally multiple people per car.>they would be expanding much more rapidly, Would they? The business model is clearly not scalable, so they are pretty much 100% dependent on investor money. It's currently a subsidiary of Paypal. Previously Google, but Google [the company that maps all the roads] sold them off for some reason. Hmmm, why?
>>203314148What the fuck are you saying? Do you unironically think every Waymo has someone driving the car from some center? Just because they have remote driving in case of some unexpected issue doesn't mean that it isn't self driving as a default.
>>203314237???????Google hasn't sold Waymo? They still own like 80% of them. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
>>203314245It's pretty evident that they have remote operators, since they fucking can't make their cars stop honking at each other. https://archive.is/2024.09.15-125436/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/honking-waymo-robotaxis-viral-livestream-19753202.phpIt's all hype dude, in order to get sweet investment money. Self-driving isn't actually a thing and wont be for decades. If it was a thing, you and I would be zooming around in cars with it enabled.
>>203314321>It's pretty evident that they have remote operators, since they fucking can't make their cars stop honking at each other.did you even read what you posted? If the cars all had remote drivers then they wouldn't make such stupid mistakes
>>203314321Who is denying they have remote controllers? Obviously they will in case something goes wrong. Also if they were just 100% fake and controlled by someone why would they do dumb shit like honk at eachother randomly? Sounds pretty stupid.
>>203314398What the hell aren't you understanding? All of these cars clearly have some degree of self-driving capabilities (I never claimed otherwise), but the fact that you need an army of remote operators to be ready to step in at any moment (with some of the robotaxi companies claiming that they have 1.5 employees per car + needing to step in every 2.5 to 5 mile) CLEARLY demonstrates that calling this "self driving" is a meme.
>>203314431>Who is denying they have remote controllers?Literally the first reply called me a schizo for even claiming that they have remote operators at all.
>>203312885He looks like an even gayer Milo Yiannopoulos
>>203314491No, you were the retard who started this by saying they're not self-driving
>>203314491No he called you a schizo for saying ALL driving is done by some guy in a gamer chair. No one is retarded enough to think they don't monitor the rides and can step in to fix issues
To be fair the Norwegian guy has a pointanybody remembers Amazon's super advanced ai which they used in their shops ? it turned out to be 20k jeet working remotely pretending to be robots
>>203314561Because they aren't "self driving". They're at the driver assistance stage, i.e. autonomous level 2 or 3 (5 is actual self driving). They literally need someone to intervene at every 5 miles or so. If you were driving and needed some guy to intervene every five mile to prevent you from running someone over, you'd lose your fucking driver's license.
>>203312885sf is so bad even timmies are doing this shit
>>203314593So explain to me then, why you think this is progress when you literally need more than one person to operate the car, compared to just having one regular driver per car.
>>203314603Just because they are intervening doesn't make it not the computer driving. It's like saying a student driver isn't actually driving the car because the teacher intervenes sometimes.
>>203314652Wait so if somebody jumps on your car with a knife threatening to break the windshield and kill you the car will just stand still?
>>203314652kek
>>203314670They're marketed and hyped as "driverless taxis" when there clearly are drivers operating them. Just admit that it's tech companies trying to hype up their shit when it's clearly not at the level that normal people expect. Again, if these cars really were driving by themselves 98% of the time, you and I would have this functionality in our own cars and we'd be using it all the time; but we're not. Because it isn't that advanced. It's still at the driver assistance stage. >>203314597This.
>>203314652
>>203314707It's worse than that. Someone can just pour a circle of salt around your car and it will stand still forever.
>>203314657Yeah because no technology has ever improved. Especially software. Also even if they will always need some people to be able to remote control the taxis doesn't mean the can't scale it so that a single person is overseeing multiple cars at once. >>203314729Does your car have 15 cameras, microphones, radar systems, and LIDAR? Mine doesn't.
>>203314783>Yeah because no technology has ever improved. Especially software. Also even if they will always need some people to be able to remote control the taxis doesn't mean the can't scale it so that a single person is overseeing multiple cars at once.It's vaporware at the moment. It's literally just hype. You're being sold something that does not yet exist (and probably wont for at least a decade) and everyone is getting fooled into thinking that it's more advanced than it really is. This is an "emperor's new clothes" situation.>Does your car have 15 cameras, microphones,Yes, 16 actually and ultrasound.>radar systems, and LIDAR? No, because Musk cheaped out. Has "autopilot" but isn't actually self driving.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnG_Gbxf_w
>>203312885No, I can't imagine the pile of paperwork required by glorious EU to allow them in the street.Also based vandals resisting the evil technology.
>>203314864>You're being sold something that does not yet exist (and probably wont for at least a decade) and everyone is getting fooled into thinking that it's more advanced than it really is.It already exists today and in a decade non-self driving taxis will be a novelty. You can go and take a self driving Waymo today in multiple cities.
>>203314963I'd rather drive myself than being driven by a Pajeet with an xbox controller. Keep falling for the marketing memes, Sven.
but how are blacks supposed to steal them now?
>>203314979Good for you. I will be sleeping during my commute. Driving sucks ass.
>>203314992It's actually easier and a major reason why staffless shops in the US shut downBlack people will destroy the evil capitalists replacing humans with machines
>>203315044Blacks really are the unsung cyberpunk heroes, lol.
>>203312885yepthis one goes straight into my humilliation ritual folder
>>203315074They are based really and destroy the very same companies trying to appeal for them like they did during 2020 riots
>>203314748ahaha we have a bright future ahead of us
I pity robots they are just like autists in these situations
>>203315026That would be nice. But desu you can sleep or read or watch a movie today instead of driving --- on the bus.
I don't understand this Norwegian schizo's anger. If we could have a robot doing 90% of the work of a fast food worker, then we could make 10x the food with the same amount of workers.I have no idea how much of these driverless services are driverless, but I don't understand why he's mad that something is becoming more efficient.>>203315230A bus has a set schedule and route, with other people on it. Don't be retarded.
>>203312993This guy is rightHe deserves it for being a fragile white who voted for this shit.Actual human beings would never find themselves in this scenario so I don't even need to consider what I would do as I am a human being and would never find myself in such a situation.Reminder that angloids are not human.
>>203315044The only way to do that model would be a giant vending machine storeIf I ever did a techbro vaporware scam it’d be that. Order all groceries on your phone, they’re autonomously packaged by conveyor belts and deposited out of a windowless warehouse when you come to pick it up. Use machine learning to select produce that meets the customer’s preferred quality standards.
>>203313605>the california tech startup company can't be dumb as they clearly can afford to hire extra staff!
still yet to see an explanation for thisis this a taxi or does he own the car?>>203314748its a ghost car
>>203316586>something is becoming more efficient.How is it more efficient to employ more people to do the same task? These companies literally need more than one person to operate a single car, instead of just one driver.>A bus has a set schedule and route, with other people on it. Don't be retarded.https://reinventbus.substack.com/p/silicon-valley-reinvented-the-cityhttps://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/09/when-silicon-valley-accidentally-reinvents-the-city-bus/https://twitter.com/ReinventTheBus
>>203317545It's a robotaxi.
>>203314979>>203314864>>203317561>>203317565>>203317565>t. seething luddite
>>203317732Jumping on every hype that the tech startups tell you too is just embarrassing, particularly when expectations vs reality is so disconnected.
>>203317561>These companies literally need more than one person to operate a single car, instead of just one driver.A:10 drivers, 10 carsB:1 supervisor for 10 carsI'm pretty sure B would require less people. The major disadvantage of robotaxis right now is that uber wagies are extremely cheap gig employees, and all those sensors and training are pretty expensive. It's not commercially viable for most places. Yet.
>>203317810Read the articles posted earlier ITT, employees at robotaxi companies like Cruise literally say that there are 1.5 operators per car and that they need to intervene every 2.5 to 5 miles. Does this sound like efficient, self driving to you?
>>203317844No, but the idea is to reduce interventions until it makes commercial sense, cars have to be exposed and trained in real world conditions for this to ever happen.
>>203317810that's not possibleyou need at the very least one operator or whatever you want to call it per vehicleyou can't have one person handling multiple vehicles because even if they don't need assistance most of the time, if two or more need assistance at the same time then you're fucked
>>203317956The problem is that these things are being pitched as "self driving" already, to lure in investment money, selling the idea as a profitable robotaxi gig etc., when reality is that it's just a glorified data mining operation. And most people get fooled by it. It's the same when Amazon or I don't remember which company it was, opened a warehouse without a checkout counter and claimed to use cameras and AI to calculate prices, when in reality they just used a bunch of people from Bangladesh and India to manually watch video feeds and calculate by hand.https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/amazon-s-just-walk-out-checkout-tech-was-powered-by-1-000-indian-workers-124040400463_1.htmlAs mentioned previously, self driving capabilities of cars are nowhere near what is being claimed by various Silicon Valley CEOs; most cars are at level 2, which means that they have driver assistance stuff.
>>203318017no you don't and this discussion has already happened, norwegian commie is full of shit.
>>203318057Yes you do actually.
>>203318055>The problem is that these things are being pitched as "self driving" alreadyEven teslas have pretty impressive self-driving capability, just because it's not perfect 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not real.>>203318064One person can watch over several vehicles. We've been over this.
>>203312955order an ubeareats bot for them to vandalize
>>203318150>Even teslas have pretty impressive self-driving capability,The problem with people like you is that you get fooled by shiny blinking icons on a screen....Tesla's autonomous stuff are literally worst in class because Musk refuses to use LIDARs. >One person can watch over several vehicles. We've been over this.You've just asserted this,without providing any arguments. Meanwhile the companies' own employees provide evidence to the contrary.
>>203318201>worst in classIt's extremely impressive even if it's worse in class, the fact that it works that well through cameras alone is impressive.>You've just asserted this,without providing any arguments.Your argument is that the service is completely fake and they have one person per car driving it with an xbox controller, which is completely nonsensical. If we have less sophisticated systems that work pretty well, why would they need to do this for a more sophisticated one? If you think their whole service is run by indians with xbox controllers then you're free to prove it to the investors, i guess.
>>203318314>Your argument is that the service is completely fakeI never once called it "completely fake", but I am calling out the bullshit. It's not at all self-driving, as this has a very specific meaning. Pic related. Most autonomous driving systems today are, as stated previously, at around "2.5" (at best at level 3).>and they have one person per car driving it with an xbox controller, which is completely nonsensical.But they literally do, since someone are required to monitor the ride at all time, and the companies themselves even report on how frequently these operators need to intervene.> If we have less sophisticated systems that work pretty well, why would they need to do this for a more sophisticated one?But they don't work "pretty well", they actually don't work very well at all.>If you think their whole service is run by indians with xbox controllers then you're free to prove it to the investors, i guess.This isn't even a secret, I don't know why you are arguing from incredulity when there are literal news articles and youtube videos ITT literally demonstrating that these robotaxi companies employ an army of operators that are ready to intervene whenever the cars do something retarded (which is quite often).
>Have to regularly taxi to work>Get to sit in a comfy clean car that drives safely instead of being at the mercy of some mystery jeet who drives like a lunaticFuck you fags, self driving taxis are amazing
>>203318490>putting your life into a jeet software engineer and a jeet remote operator insteadAt least with the jeet inside the car, he's risking his own life as well.
>>203318507I've been using waymo pretty regularly for almost a year now and have yet to have any issues.
>>203318394>Pic related. Most autonomous driving systems today are, as stated previously, at around "2.5" (at best at level 3).They're literally Level 3 and over, according to your chart. Teslas are 3, robotaxis are 4. You can't even read.>since someone are required to monitor the ride at all timeThis would always be the case even with the most amazing self-driving system in the world, someone would need to be responsible for the cars when something goes wrong (it always will).>But they don't work "pretty well", they actually don't work very well at all.There are plenty of videos of teslas driving over long stretches with no interruptions, and this is the worst in class system. They work fine for what they are.
>>203318567>They're literally Level 3 and over, according to your chart. Teslas are 3, robotaxis are 4. You can't even read.They really aren't. You're fucking delusional. They aren't self driving robotaxis, as they have remote operators that intervene all the fucking time. >There are plenty of videos of teslas driving over long stretches with no interruptions, Usually on a preprogrammed route and on highways and stuff.Speaking of teslas promovideos: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-autopilot-staged-engineer-says-company-faked-full-autopilot/
>>203318607
>>203318607>They aren't self driving robotaxis, as they have remote operators that intervene all the fucking time.This would prevent them from being level 5, your chart even mentions robotaxis directly. You can't read.>Usually on a preprogrammed route and on highways and stuff.What does this even mean? do you want your car to take you to a random place or something? you set a location and it goes there.>Speaking of teslas promovideosI'm talking about user videos.
>>203318623>You are not driving when these automated driving features are engaged, even if you are seated in the driver's seat.>When the feature requests, you must driveYou can't read.
>>203318678You're simply wrong, or deliberately misunderstanding what autonomy means. This article explains why it's not L4 when you use remote operators: https://spectrum.ieee.org/full-autonomy-waymo-driver>What does this even mean? Read the two articles. For the promo videos, they literally program the route ahead of time, like where to stop, where to start etc. >I'm talking about user videos.I thought you meant the promo videos. The user videos are of course not preprogrammed, but you'll notice that most of them are on highways and driving under conditions that are simple. Whenever city traffic is introduced, they tend to make bad choices etc, requiring the driver to intervene.Take this video for example:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ae_Pzu8lQThe car is literally just staying in a lane, which isn't very difficult.
>>203318716Yes, Mercedes i offering L3.
>>203312885>humiliate richfags with impunity WTF I LOVE ELON NOW!?
>>203314597AI reaply means All Indians
>>203318758>This article explains why it's not L4 when you use remote operators: https://spectrum.ieee.org/full-autonomy-waymo-driverThe article clearly states that it's level 4, like your chart. I've already explained to you why the whole human supervision makes it not autonomous thing is bullshit, because autonomous cars will always need some degree of supervision.>Read the two articles. For the promo videos, they literally program the route ahead of time, like where to stop, where to start etc.Not talking about promo videos, don't care.>you'll notice that most of them are on highways and driving under conditions that are simpleLike i said, it works fine for what it is. Still impressive considering the limited sensor suite.
>>203318803A waymo ride is cheaper than uber here albeit
>>203318848>The article clearly states that it's level 4,It literally doesn't, the waymo engineer is saying that they are WORKING on a level 4 system.>I've already explained to you why the whole human supervision makes it not autonomous thing is bullshit, because autonomous cars will always need some degree of supervision.This is literally the thing that makes them "not self driving". Why is this so fucking hard to understand?Basically everyone's dream of just sitting in a car and closing your eyes, which is what everyone really means when they talk about self driving cars, will most likely not happen at least in a decade, if ever. I think you are being deliberately disingenuous now. >Not talking about promo videos, don't care.Fair enough.>Like i said, it works fine for what it is. Yes, it works fine as a ADAS (advanced driver-assistance system), self-driving not so much.>Still impressive considering the limited sensor suite.This was extremely impressive in the beginning. Sadly for Tesla this is probably the biggest factor holding them back right now.
>>203312885Technically no. Drivers still look at their phone screen and let Jesus take the wheel, so in effect the cars are driverless.
>>203318920>It literally doesn't, the waymo engineer is saying that they are WORKING on a level 4 system.I would imagine they are since that's literally what their system is. The article is about whether or not a level 4 system can be considered fully autonomous, the system is unquestionably level 4.>This is literally the thing that makes them "not self driving". Why is this so fucking hard to understand?They are self-driving because they're driving by themselves most of the time and there's no driver present in the car. They're not Level 5 because they don't work across all different situations, they only work in limited places. Whether or not it's "self-driving" is a different question. (It is, though). Not sure why this is difficult to understand for you.>Yes, it works fine as a ADAS (advanced driver-assistance system)It's hardly that when it's capable of driving, not just assisting. It's not perfect and doesn't work everywhere, but it does drive the car, it's not just a lane and brake assist.
>>203318490>instead of being at the mercy of some mystery jeetthe irony
>>203312885What are they writing on the car? I've never been able to make sense of graffiti.
>>203319042>the system is unquestionably level 4.It's literally not when you have an army of remote operators that constantly monitor the car and must be ready to take over as soon as the car needs to take a left turn in an intersection or drive the car when there's a reroute due to construction work. This is NOT level 3/4, in which you can mostly not pay attention at all and the car will notify you when it needs attention.>Whether or not it's "self-driving" is a different question. (It is, though).Constantly supervising and needing to be alert 100% of the time is not self driving, simple as. You're just being fooled by the fact that you don't need to literally hold on to the steering wheel at all times and/or the fact that the driver/operator is sitting remote. Which btw is probably a marketing strategy, it's much easier to pass off the car as being autonomous when the passengers can't see or register how often an operator actually has to intervene. >It's hardly that when it's capable of driving, not just assisting. It's not perfect and doesn't work everywhere, but it does drive the car, it's not just a lane and brake assist.You're very clearly overestimating what Tesla FSD/Autopilot is actually capable of doing. It's not self-driving, it's driver assistance. You are still required to pay attention at all times and react as if you were driving yourself.
>>203319135>It's literally not when you have an army of remote operators that constantly monitor the car and must be ready to take over as soon as the car needs to take a left turn in an intersection or drive the car when there's a reroute due to construction work."If a driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene, the car can stop safely." - Level 4. It's the level Waymo operates at.>Constantly supervising and needing to be alert 100% of the time is not self drivingThe system is alert, the operators are only responding to a request for a assistance when it's called by the system. What you're describing isn't the case at all.>driver/operatorNot the same thing.>You are still required to pay attention at all times and react as if you were driving yourself."Driver must appropriately respond to a request to intervene." Level 3It's level 2.7 if you want to be really pedantic about it.
>>203319237Yes, Tesla FSD is borderline level 3. Hence "2.5" as stated earlier. But I'm fine with calling it low-end level 3 as well.As for Waymo, you're beyond delusional if you don't think there is at least one operator monitoring a car at ALL FUCKING TIMES. How the fuck are you going to react in time if you think the car submits a fucking request for support that some dude looks at, at an unspecified, later time. They are clearly required to constantly monitor the cars, and their setup with 120 degrees field of view monitors + full control over steering, braking, acceleration demonstrates that. For comparison, most agree that an actual level 4 autonomous car wouldn't necessarily have steering wheel or pedals AT ALL. You are simply getting fooled by the fact that they've moved the driver outside of the car.
>>203319314>As for Waymo, you're beyond delusional if you don't think there is at least one operator monitoring a car at ALL FUCKING TIMES.I would imagine there's one guy monitoring a few cars and that will always be the case, just as there's people monitoring trains. You couldn't drive a car from a distance even if you had full control of it, the delay would be horrible, let alone expect them to 'react' to anything. It's there to get the cars unstuck and back on their routines.>an actual level 4 autonomous car wouldn't necessarily have steering wheel or pedals AT ALL.They don't? This is physical wheels and pedals. Off course the cars would always have some means of manual override, even though you're not expected to drive with that.>they've moved the driver outside of the car.They haven't, as i've told you already, a driver is not the same as an operator. What you're expecting is a system that somehow drives AND oversees a whole fleet of cars even when something goes wrong with them. It's a robotaxi from science fiction. Frankly it's not waymo's problem that people can't distinguish fiction from reality and what ultimately matters is whether or not they can develop something profitable in the end.
