As prototypes, yes. But that's like pointing to Japanese robots in the 80's and expecting robot butlers any day now. Or maybe Boston dynamics 10 years ago. Or when OpenAI was into robotics.
There's a big gap between seeing something work in the lab and being ready for real world use. I know we do this in software, but that's a very abnormal thing (and honestly, maybe not the best)
When people say “we'll have self-driving cars next year”, I understand that self-driving cars will be widespread in the developed world and accessible to those who pay a premium. Given the status quo, I find it pointless to discuss the semantics of whether they exist or not.
I don't think that is a reasonable generalisation. A lot of people would have been talking about the first person to take a real trip in a car that drives itself. A record that is in the past.
Not to mention that HN gets really tetchy about achieving specifically SAE Level 6 when in practice some pretty basic driver assist tools are probably closer to what people meant. It reminds me of a gentlemen I ran into who was convinced that the OpenAI DoTA bot with a >99% win rate couldn't really be said to be playing the game. If someone can take their hands off the wheel for 10 minutes we're there in a common language sense; the human in the car isn't actively in control.
Yeah, it’s a big grid with wide streets. Did it fail there? If so I imagine it’s just due to lack of business—there are almost no taxis in Phoenix. Mostly just from the airport.
