[webmasterraj]

One person can build something that starts a revolution. See Woz/Apple.

The real issue here is that self-driving cars are probably the wrong place for that to happen in AI. At best, a solo project creates a crappy prototype where there was no product before (again, see Woz/Apple). The expectation for driverless cars is too high – they need to be 100% good, because your life is on the line, not 80% good.

What's the AI project that would blow people away, even if it was a shadow of a working prototype? I think that's the real question.

[oldmanjay]

I don't follow why AI vehicles need to be 100% good. Plain old human-driven vehicles sure aren't and we accept their utility as being worth the trade.

[unclebucknasty]

Imagine the day an AI vehicle causes an accident that otherwise would not have happened.

Even if AI cars are statistically better than humans on average, it's an issue of control. It's true that most accidents are avoidable and caused by human error, but most people are (perhaps overly) confident in their own ability to drive safely (this is also why people text and drive).

[dclowd9901]

We, as the flawed beings we are, can't accept both giving up control and not getting guaranteed safety as a result.

[rolux]

In one word: liability.

[elliottpayne]

In two words: actuarial tables

[tim333]

>What's the AI project that would blow people away, even if it was a shadow of a working prototype?

Robot that can build a better robot?