Uber’s self-driving unit gets $1 billion investment from SoftBank and Japan’s auto industry

goneubering

Well-Known Member

jocker12

Well-Known Member
That's...3 months operating expenses :biggrin:
Companies that need a ridiculous valuation on Uber put money in to self driving division that has made no advances in driverless technology in 3 years and is costing a million dollars a day to run and pump up paper value on said self driving division.
It's more smoke and mirrors for the IPO.
Uber
An Industry " Leader " !

Well , the problem Uber and the entire industry has, is reflected by these 3 articles published in the last 7 days:

An engineer at Uber's self-driving-car unit warns that it's more like 'a science experiment' than a real car capable of driving itself (You can read the article by going into "read" mode in your browser, or by simply going here - https://outline.com/pDDemW)
"But people inside that unit have been telling Business Insider for monthsthat Uber's self-driving cars don't work very well and that they perform reliably only on limited well-mapped routes, and aren't making much progress handling more. "
"Seemingly, if you look at the way Eric Meyhofer runs ATG, I don't know if we're actually building a product," one employee, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, said. "It seems like we are running a science experiment."
"The employee we talked to says the cars' ability to drive themselves have not made giant strides of progress in the four-plus months since they've been back on the road."
Autonomous vehicle tech is too costly and unreliable for production
"A study by analyst Forrester for chipmaker Arm, looking at the development of autonomous vehicles (AV), has reported that engineers believe the cost of the technology needed to support autonomous vehicles is too high."
"Over a third of the engineers who took part in the study said they are concerned with software that is not behaving acceptably in universal situations, the high cost of components and securing the vehicle systems from cyber attacks."
"One director of automated driving programs told Forrester the challenge in going from Level 4 to Level 5 automation is that the sensor technology does not exist. “Computing horsepower and algorithms don’t exist yet."
"Robert Day, director of automotive solutions and platforms at Arm, said: “All of my autonomous vehicle maker contacts tell me the current banks of power-hungry computers fed by arrays of expensive sensors won’t scale. And despite the huge processing power deployed, these systems still require backup human drivers.”
and this
Don’t Be Fooled By Elon Musk’s AI Hype
"Simply put, the self-driving cars we have today are suicide machines that can barely navigate simple highways, let alone complex intersections and congested parking lots. These machines don’t have a robust understanding of their surroundings nor the flexibility to rapidly adapt to novel situations."​
"Most of what’s being called “AI” today is a family of fairly primitive algorithms called Artificial Neural Networks or ANNs for short. While they might seem like magic, ANNs are in fact nothing more than simple mathematical functions that multiply inputs by learned weights to produce outputs."​
"This learning technique is laughably inefficient, often requiring an absurd amount of training data and computational resources to learn trivial tasks that children can learn with just a few exposures. It’s also fragile and stupid, frequently breaking when confronted with inputs that differ — even just slightly — from the inputs used in training, a huge safety issue in the case of self-driving cars."​
"Unfortunately, such stupidity isn’t unique to Autopilot. Other “state-of-the-art” autonomous driving systems are just as bad, if not worse. They’ve been shown to make all sorts of serious blunders, like mistaking a stop sign with graffiti as a speed limit sign or mistaking a simple pattern of yellow and black stripes for a school bus. Having built, trained, and tested thousands of ANNs myself, I can assure you that they remain vulnerable to these mistakes even when explicitly trained to avoid them — and this is backed up by numerous well-cited studies such as this one and this one and this one."​
So one can either put his head in the sand and fantasize about robots on the streets (like Lyft public investors dreamt to get rich and now they are suing the company because the stock value is sinking) or pay attention to what ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS are saying about their work, the realities and the self driving cars zealots irrational way of thinking.



 
Last edited:

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
Well , the problem Uber and the entire industry has, is reflected by these 3 articles published in the last 7 days:

An engineer at Uber's self-driving-car unit warns that it's more like 'a science experiment' than a real car capable of driving itself (You can read the article by going into "read" mode in your browser, or by simply going here - https://outline.com/pDDemW)
"But people inside that unit have been telling Business Insider for monthsthat Uber's self-driving cars don't work very well and that they perform reliably only on limited well-mapped routes, and aren't making much progress handling more. "
"Seemingly, if you look at the way Eric Meyhofer runs ATG, I don't know if we're actually building a product," one employee, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, said. "It seems like we are running a science experiment."
"The employee we talked to says the cars' ability to drive themselves have not made giant strides of progress in the four-plus months since they've been back on the road."
Autonomous vehicle tech is too costly and unreliable for production
"A study by analyst Forrester for chipmaker Arm, looking at the development of autonomous vehicles (AV), has reported that engineers believe the cost of the technology needed to support autonomous vehicles is too high."
"Over a third of the engineers who took part in the study said they are concerned with software that is not behaving acceptably in universal situations, the high cost of components and securing the vehicle systems from cyber attacks."
"One director of automated driving programs told Forrester the challenge in going from Level 4 to Level 5 automation is that the sensor technology does not exist. “Computing horsepower and algorithms don’t exist yet."
"Robert Day, director of automotive solutions and platforms at Arm, said: “All of my autonomous vehicle maker contacts tell me the current banks of power-hungry computers fed by arrays of expensive sensors won’t scale. And despite the huge processing power deployed, these systems still require backup human drivers.”
and this
Don’t Be Fooled By Elon Musk’s AI Hype
"Simply put, the self-driving cars we have today are suicide machines that can barely navigate simple highways, let alone complex intersections and congested parking lots. These machines don’t have a robust understanding of their surroundings nor the flexibility to rapidly adapt to novel situations."​
"Most of what’s being called “AI” today is a family of fairly primitive algorithms called Artificial Neural Networks or ANNs for short. While they might seem like magic, ANNs are in fact nothing more than simple mathematical functions that multiply inputs by learned weights to produce outputs."​
"This learning technique is laughably inefficient, often requiring an absurd amount of training data and computational resources to learn trivial tasks that children can learn with just a few exposures. It’s also fragile and stupid, frequently breaking when confronted with inputs that differ — even just slightly — from the inputs used in training, a huge safety issue in the case of self-driving cars."​
"Unfortunately, such stupidity isn’t unique to Autopilot. Other “state-of-the-art” autonomous driving systems are just as bad, if not worse. They’ve been shown to make all sorts of serious blunders, like mistaking a stop sign with graffiti as a speed limit sign or mistaking a simple pattern of yellow and black stripes for a school bus. Having built, trained, and tested thousands of ANNs myself, I can assure you that they remain vulnerable to these mistakes even when explicitly trained to avoid them — and this is backed up by numerous well-cited studies such as this one and this one and this one."​
So one can either put his head in the sand and fantasize about robots on the streets (like Lyft public investors dreamt to get rich and now they are suing the company because the stock value is sinking) or pay attention to what ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS are saying about their work, the realities and the self driving cars zealots irrational way of thinking.



This whole Damn SCIENCE EXPERIMENT OF

RIDESHARE IS TOO COSTLY TO BE SUSTAINABLE !

UNSUSTAINABLE !!!
Post automatically merged:

Hahahaha!!!! Who gives out these crazy valuations?? Over $7 Billion for a division that has never produced one dime of profit.

I almost feel sorry for Toyota. Almost.
UNSUSTAINABLE ! ! !
Post automatically merged:

Good idea to separate self driving unit just in case uber folds.
The Next Scheme to Bilk Investors !

UNSUSTAINABLE !!!!!
Post automatically merged:

Well Incoming Headline: UBER kills 3rd person testing Self driving cars :rolleyes:
They will be Leaping Off of Buildings after the I.P.O.

" FLYING CARS "!

UNSUSTAINABLE ! ! ! ! !
 
Last edited:

jocker12

Well-Known Member
This whole Damn SCIENCE EXPERIMENT OF

RIDESHARE IS TOO COSTLY TO BE SUSTAINABLE !

UNSUSTAINABLE !!!
Of course, it will die because it's way too expensive and the more the developers move ahead, the more money they spend, the more problems to solve they'll face, the more patience investors lose, the closer everybody gets to the decision to move to the next "big thing".

This self driving cars hallucination started as a project by former Google Street View developing team members, engineers encouraged by the Google Maps (integrating Google Street View) huge success and looking to solve the "continuous" Street View image updates required to keep up with the environmental constant changes - "For its next big mapping act, launched in May 2007, Google again brought in outside talent. It recruited a research team from Stanford that had made a 3-D scan of Michelangelo’s David, and acquired Stanford professor Sebastian Thrun’s startup, called VuTool, which was working on imaging using a fleet of cars and off-the-shelf cameras. The outsiders were combined with an internal team that volunteered their experimental “20 percent time” to the project, which would end up being one of Google Maps’ most distinctive features: Street View."

In 2009 Thrun led the development of the Google self-driving car and after he left Google, he co-founded Udacity. In April 2017, Udacity announced a spin-off venture called Voyage Auto, A self-driving taxi company to compete with the likes of the Uber ride-hailing service.

The initial Google self driving car project led by Thrun consisted of 15 Google engineers, including Chris Urmson, Dmitri Dolgov, Mike Montemerlo, and Anthony Levandowski, who had worked on the DARPA Grand and Urban Challenges.

Today, many of those engineers have their own self driving cars developing companies or work for important self driving cars pilot programs (Urmson has Aurora, Dolgov is still at Google as Waymo CTO and Levandowski went to Uber, where he caused the biggest scandal of the self driving cars "industry" so far).

Between 2007 and 2009, Google recruited engineers and scientists from Carnegie Melon and Standford University, previously involved with the Pentagon-funded contest Darpa Urban Challenge in November 2007.





Most of the self-driving descendants have vaguely futuristic, one-word names—Argo, Nuro, Waymo, Zoox—as well as a fervent idealism about preventing traffic deaths and transforming the way people live and move.

Long story short, this is how this scam got started and gained corporate traction.
 
Last edited:

No Prisoners

Well-Known Member
This whole Damn SCIENCE EXPERIMENT OF

RIDESHARE IS TOO COSTLY TO BE SUSTAINABLE !

UNSUSTAINABLE !!!
Post automatically merged:


UNSUSTAINABLE ! ! !
Post automatically merged:


The Next Scheme to Bilk Investors !

UNSUSTAINABLE !!!!!
Post automatically merged:


They will be Leaping Off of Buildings after the I.P.O.

" FLYING CARS "!

UNSUSTAINABLE ! ! ! ! !
Look I get why some people pound at my posts when I've said that there's a way to make ridesharing work. Of course some will pound, because it sounds unbelievable. If Uber and lyft haven't figure it out how can a group of retired banking veterans do it.


The difference is that this group has analyzed thousands of companies throughout our carriers. Most of us have participated in creating companies that have subsequently been sold or dismantled in leverage buyouts.

At first we felt like most here. That ridesharing was inherently unprofitable. That a system that is based on fares could not possibly generate enough revenue to be sustainable.

It was not until we started looking at the platform as a centralized but independent element of the puzzle.

There's a way to make it work. Uber is from its inception focused on revenues from fares generated by drivers. That's totally wrong.

Revenue for the platform doesn't have to be and should not be based on fares. Therefore, drivers can retain 100% and fares can be whatever the market permits.

Eventually you will see, then just as with the creation of sticky post-it notes everyone will say "why didn't we think of that."
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
throughout our carriers.



Most of us have participated in creating companies that have subsequently been sold or dismantled in leverage buyouts.

At first we felt like most here. That ridesharing was inherently unprofitable. That a system that is based on fares could not possibly generate enough revenue to be sustainable.

It was not until we started looking at the platform as a centralized but independent element of the puzzle.

There's a way to make it work. Uber is from its inception focused on revenues from fares generated by drivers. That's totally wrong.

Revenue for the platform doesn't have to be and should not be based on fares. Therefore, drivers can retain 100% and fares can be whatever the market permits.

Eventually you will see, then just as with the creation of sticky post-it notes everyone will say "why didn't we think of that."
Careers.

It should say alleged careers.
 

rkozy

Well-Known Member
Even if these tech companies manage to overcome the seemingly insurmountable technical barriers that plague autonomous vehicle development, they'll then be faced with an even more unforgiving ecosystem: A skeptical public.

Most people are not going to wish to ride in RoboCars that are slower and more delicate in adversity than their human counterparts. But, investors just see endless dollar signs instead of the obvious psychological roadblocks that these machines cannot conquer.
 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
This explains what Softbank did with the $billions$ they raised in a recent bond sale.

Junk Bonds
Post automatically merged:

Google
Of course, it will die because it's way too expensive and the more the developers move ahead, the more money they spend, the more problems to solve they'll face, the more patience investors lose, the closer everybody gets to the decision to move to the next "big thing".

This self driving cars hallucination started as a project by former Google Street View developing team members, engineers encouraged by the Google Maps (integrating Google Street View) huge success and looking to solve the "continuous" Street View image updates required to keep up with the environmental constant changes - "For its next big mapping act, launched in May 2007, Google again brought in outside talent. It recruited a research team from Stanford that had made a 3-D scan of Michelangelo’s David, and acquired Stanford professor Sebastian Thrun’s startup, called VuTool, which was working on imaging using a fleet of cars and off-the-shelf cameras. The outsiders were combined with an internal team that volunteered their experimental “20 percent time” to the project, which would end up being one of Google Maps’ most distinctive features: Street View."

In 2009 Thrun led the development of the Google self-driving car and after he left Google, he co-founded Udacity. In April 2017, Udacity announced a spin-off venture called Voyage Auto, A self-driving taxi company to compete with the likes of the Uber ride-hailing service.

The initial Google self driving car project led by Thrun consisted of 15 Google engineers, including Chris Urmson, Dmitri Dolgov, Mike Montemerlo, and Anthony Levandowski, who had worked on the DARPA Grand and Urban Challenges.

Today, many of those engineers have their own self driving cars developing companies or work for important self driving cars pilot programs (Urmson has Aurora, Dolgov is still at Google as Waymo CTO and Levandowski went to Uber, where he caused the biggest scandal of the self driving cars "industry" so far).

Between 2007 and 2009, Google recruited engineers and scientists from Carnegie Melon and Standford University, previously involved with the Pentagon-funded contest Darpa Urban Challenge in November 2007.





Most of the self-driving descendants have vaguely futuristic, one-word names—Argo, Nuro, Waymo, Zoox—as well as a fervent idealism about preventing traffic deaths and transforming the way people live and move.

Long story short, this is how this scam got started and gained corporate traction.
Google OWNS D.A.R.P.A.

Google IS BIG BROTHER


ANTI TRUST SUIT ANYONE ?
Post automatically merged:

Google
Of course, it will die because it's way too expensive and the more the developers move ahead, the more money they spend, the more problems to solve they'll face, the more patience investors lose, the closer everybody gets to the decision to move to the next "big thing".

This self driving cars hallucination started as a project by former Google Street View developing team members, engineers encouraged by the Google Maps (integrating Google Street View) huge success and looking to solve the "continuous" Street View image updates required to keep up with the environmental constant changes - "For its next big mapping act, launched in May 2007, Google again brought in outside talent. It recruited a research team from Stanford that had made a 3-D scan of Michelangelo’s David, and acquired Stanford professor Sebastian Thrun’s startup, called VuTool, which was working on imaging using a fleet of cars and off-the-shelf cameras. The outsiders were combined with an internal team that volunteered their experimental “20 percent time” to the project, which would end up being one of Google Maps’ most distinctive features: Street View."

In 2009 Thrun led the development of the Google self-driving car and after he left Google, he co-founded Udacity. In April 2017, Udacity announced a spin-off venture called Voyage Auto, A self-driving taxi company to compete with the likes of the Uber ride-hailing service.

The initial Google self driving car project led by Thrun consisted of 15 Google engineers, including Chris Urmson, Dmitri Dolgov, Mike Montemerlo, and
Post automatically merged:

Google INVESTS MUCH MORE IN " "TRANSHUMANISM".

Look it up.

Google wants to END EVOLUTION !

To ALTER MANKIND FOREVER !
 
Last edited:

jocker12

Well-Known Member
Even if these tech companies manage to overcome the seemingly insurmountable technical barriers that plague autonomous vehicle development, they'll then be faced with an even more unforgiving ecosystem: A skeptical public.

Most people are not going to wish to ride in RoboCars that are slower and more delicate in adversity than their human counterparts. But, investors just see endless dollar signs instead of the obvious psychological roadblocks that these machines cannot conquer.
There is also the infrastructure that needs constant fixing, set aside updating to accommodate fictional projects. Here is how cities see this issue - "Cordell Schachter, chief technology officer at the New York City Department of Transportation, said that New York should not approach autonomous vehicles as a sector to attract at any cost or try to redesign its roadways and infrastructure to be more conducive to the technology. The companies that build and operate self-driving vehicles should instead figure out how they will fit into New York’s existing infrastructure. “New York City has been built, layer upon layer, for hundreds of years. [Autonomous vehicles] need to get ready for us,” Schachter said, echoing testimony made by DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg before Congress last summer. Schachter added that he didn’t think anyone in the city would want to incur the millions of dollars it would cost to make infrastructure changes to accommodate autonomous vehicles."

Also, in order to start making a profit with self driving cars for the investors to see a reason to keep investing in your company (both platforms case), you need to build the cars. That is the cheapest most efficient way, in case you're already building conventional vehicles. Otherwise, if you need to buy the fleet or use a car manufacturers regular product (like Waymo does today with Chrysler Pacificas), you'll either need to pay extra for a sold to you product or share the already very low (and here is another issue) profit margin with the manufacturer that is giving you the cars.

Here is where (as a car manufacturer ALREADY building cars) you'll look in the mirror, asking yourself why in the world give your cars to a rideshare platform and share the profit with a "partner" and not buy or develop the software for a rideshare platform yourself and expand around the cars you already assemble on a daily basis?
 
Top