Hacker News Reader

It is not. These companies are actively hostile to this sort of thing and with good reason: muddy liability in a context where people can be injured, maimed, crippled and killed.

The “add on” thing belongs in he list of tarpit ideas. Watching Cruise and Ghost Automation flail about for years vaporizing cash trapped on this idea was like watching a comedy.

View on HN

Waymo did it successfully with the Jaguars. I think the idea is that the VC environment isn't conducive to this type of work (I worked for Cruise). The companies grew too big too fast b/c they need to show results to investors. This forced them to invest in custom hardware before they even knew how to solve many of the fundamental problems and got their software stack in order.

Waymo got away with what they did b/c they stayed focused and didn't grow too big, but they could only do that because they had Google to finance them.

Waymo didn’t do it for anyone else’s gear. They own it all. The liability is all on Waymo.

Traffic laws are a hell of a lot more lax than the situation around on the job injuries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com