Latest news with #GoogleX
Business Insider
11-05-2025
- Automotive
- Business Insider
The visionary behind Waymo reveals what will make or break robotaxi companies
Sebastian Thrun is one of the leading pioneers of self-driving technology. He cofounded Waymo, which began as a "moonshot" project under Google X. Thrun spoke to BI about his thoughts on Waymo now and what he anticipates for the future. Sebastian Thrun, a pioneer in the self-driving industry, looks at Waymo like a proud dad. Nearly 20 years ago, Thrun and his team at Stanford University made a pivotal leap in autonomous driving after their retrofitted Volkswagen completed a 132-mile course in the Nevada desert. There was no human behind the wheel. The feat captured the attention of Google cofounder Larry Page. The then-CEO called Thrun and convinced him to head Google's self-driving project, which would be part of Google X, the company's research and development arm. There, some of the smartest and brightest pursued "moonshot" projects. Since then, Thrun has watched autonomous cars grow from an experiment to a real-world business. The Google project was rebranded Waymo in 2016, two years after Thrun had already left the search engine company to start up a tech school. Thrun also headed the now-defunct Kittyhawk, a flying car project backed by Page. Thrun spoke to BI about Waymo's early aspirations, what it will take to dominate in the race to autonomy, and why he still hasn't let go of his flying car ambitions. A spokesperson for Waymo declined to provide a comment. When you jump-started what was once just a "moonshot" project inside Google X, what was the vision you had for the Google self-driving project, and does Waymo live up to or exceed your expectations? Oh, it lives up to my exact expectations. We wanted to make cars safer with self-driving technology and build a business in which cars are used better than they are today, AKA a ride-sharing business. On the timeline side, it proved to be a hard nut to crack because the tolerance to errors is extremely low. For example, compare this with recent advances in large language models and chatbots. When a large language model hallucinates, we scratch our heads and are not happy, but no one dies. When a self-driving car hallucinates, it might kill somebody or run a red light. When I was running the team, we had business aspirations, but we had not worked out practical things like go-to-market strategies. And our aspiration was really to be the number one ride-sharing, ride-hailing taxi company in the world. But 99.9% of my time was dedicated to making the technology work. And remember, this was 10 years ago. Do you think Waymo made the right decision by going city-by-city to get these highly detailed maps before it deploys a robotaxi service to the public? I believe that safety is paramount. The data suggests pretty clearly that Waymo is taking the right course here. Not only have the cars been remarkably safe — as you know, a recent study by Swiss Re showed that they're safer than human drivers — but I also think Waymo has been able to build the trust of the public necessary to operate. Do you think scaling autonomy is fundamentally a software problem that could be solved with more data, similar to AI models? Or do you think autonomy will always be bound by geographic limitations or infrastructure? No, I firmly believe that at some point, the technology will be good enough that you can forgo the necessity to build maps. But I also want to point out that building maps is not an expensive step. It's a bit of a side product of testing. We look at the number of miles that Waymo has been tested. It's now in the tens of millions. If you apply this to the United States, that's like mapping the United States over and over and over again. It's not an expensive factor. I'm pretty convinced that the technology is good enough even to drive without maps, but it's just such a good thing to have — an advanced knowledge of where to expect certain things. And remember, the map changes all the time. There are construction zones and routing changes, so it's not a constant thing. The vehicles are constantly remapping the environment. So, do you envision a future where Waymo will increasingly have to rely less on these detailed maps or maybe even fewer sensors? I can't really speak for the current team here, because I've not been with them for a decade. One of my observations is that, just looking at the field as a whole, the cost of sensors has gone down dramatically. Right now, I'd say the cost of lidar relative to IRAD (Internal Research and Development costs) is roughly down by a factor of 50. So, to the extent that the sensing argument is a cost argument, I think that as these cars will be produced in larger numbers, that argument will go away. Then it comes to safety. My firm belief is that we should have any piece of software or equipment, including sensing equipment, that can be demonstrated to enhance safety. We are very tolerant of the lack of safety in human driving and tolerate more than a million deaths every year worldwide, which is a significant number. But I don't think we should have the same tolerance for robotic systems. We should have a higher standard, and the higher standard will lead to fewer funerals. John Krafcik, the former Waymo CEO, told me that when we talk about sensor costs, the cost argument is trivial. He believes that there are "quantifiable" benefits to safety. You've tested it, trusted your life into it, and can see the reception now in San Francisco, which is really widely positive. It's become an icon in the tourism industry. You come to San Francisco to try it out. All these things are possible because of the radical focus on safety. Everything is speculation, but I think it's such an important cornerstone that this technology is accepted and that we feel it defines a completely new level of safety and transportation. In that case, what do you think of Tesla's proposition: A generalized AI driver? No high-definition maps. No lidar. End-to-end AI driving. Look, I cannot comment on Tesla. I don't know the details of the technology. I can only tell you what my ethos was when I built up the early version of Waymo. Our ethos was that safety is so paramount. I can tell you, positively, that if you took Waymo and ripped out all the radars and lasers, that would make the car less safe. I can say that with confidence, even though I'm not part of the current team. The laser and the radar provide a layer of environment understanding that is succinctly different from a camera. They'll pick up objects just by virtue of being there, even if they're unknown to the machine learning system. I know from the team that they're obviously getting better and better with a subset of sensors. Can I ask like this then? What do you think will determine the "winner" of the robotaxi race? Is it the company that proves to be the safest, or is it one that will scale quicker first? There are a number of elements. I would say safety is paramount. The two remaining variables are cost and scale. They are intertwined, but they are not the same. On the cost side, a self-driving car ultimately has to be cheaper than a human-driven car or comparable. I believe that cost is an important factor in transportation for the vast majority of people in the world. And then scale is obvious, and scale is hard. It's an enormous undertaking. If you look at the details of what this really entails, there's capital, there's maintenance, and there's even manufacturing. So I think that now that we have the proof-of-concept, and it's a working, very accepted and safe taxi system in four — and soon five cities — I'm sure that, and I'm not part of the leadership team at Waymo anymore, but I'm sure that, at Waymo, people are now thinking about how to scale it up. Is there anything you think Waymo should be betting on or doubling down on right now? Well, I'm a long-term fan of an even more radical proposal, which is flying cars. Would I recommend that Waymo drop everything they do and start working on flying cars? No, I would not. But I can tell you the way flying cars are today is exactly the same way self-driving cars were 10 years ago. Ten years ago, when I left, we had prototypes in hand that were able to drive hundreds of thousands of miles without what we call "critical interventions," where the driver had to take over — although with the caveat that this was mostly highway driving at the time. But it was nowhere near a level of safety that would allow us to operate a commercial business. And obviously, between that time and today, new laws and regulations came into effect, putting a formal pathway in place that would've retroactively prohibited us from building a commercial service 10 years ago when I left. The flying car situation is more nascent. There are now prototypes of electrically-propelled vehicles that can take off like helicopters. They're super quiet and can fly for about a hundred miles, give or take. But we are far from regulatory clarity. Aviation is regulated federally, not statewide, and has a very high bar that you have to meet to even be airworthy. No one has yet met that bar. This is more of a research and development project than a practical project. Do you envision a future in which people are less inclined to drive? Look, my prediction is going to be — and I can't tell you what the timetable is — there will be cities that will realize that this technology is radically safer and radically greener. Every city in the world is full of parked cars, and we don't think about this, but it's quite a burden on the city. A friend of mine once calculated that about 60% of the land mass in Los Angeles is dedicated to cars when you count things like garages and driveways. So more than half. There will be cities that say, "Look, we are ready to make our downtown area a parked-car-free area." We'll still have car-based transportation. But we're going to make it greener. You want to make it safer and more pleasant for people. And we're going to do it in a downtown area with lots of young people who don't want to own a car to begin with. Or maybe university cities will do this. I think we're going to see this in the next few years, somewhere in the world, where cities will say that's the right time. And what this really means is: For this to be true, it has to be the case that the car will become lower in cost than car ownership. At least that's my belief. Because then you can even make an economical argument to people and say, "Look, you can own a car, but this thing, I mean, it's cheaper." And you save money on top of it. It's greener, it's safer, and cheaper. How would cities not want to do this at some point? But look at New York, for example. It has congestion pricing right now. If you switch to self-driving cars, the very first thing you do away with is traffic lights. You don't need them anymore because cars can communicate. Your capacity will also increase. If self-driving cars are allowed on a highway, you could easily reduce the spacing between cars by a factor of two, which would double the capacity of the highway. Anything you would be doing differently if you were behind the wheel at Waymo? I'm the biggest fan. I open my door every morning and see two or three Waymos zipping by my house, and I couldn't be prouder. I'm really very, very proud. The leadership has done an amazing job navigating and has really earned the public's trust, which I think is so important for technological innovations.
Sydney Morning Herald
08-05-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Four ways to sharpen your mind and stay relevant in the age of AI
Here are four simple yet proven methods to do better thinking. As an author of two books on high performance, I've used these methods to improve my own thinking. I've also seen great results when using these methods with leadership teams to overcome challenges and create new strategies. Full spectrum thinking Loading Full spectrum thinking is a concept created by Matt Church and Peter Cook in their 2018 book Think. Full spectrum thinking encourages us to flesh out an idea by scoping it from four different angles: from 'left brain' rational view to 'right brain' creative view, and from big picture 'conceptual' view down to detailed 'concrete' view. For example, to flesh out an idea like 'culture drives performance', incorporate the research and statistics that support the idea, share a story that brings it to life, frame it with a model or method, and add a metaphor for clarity and interest. By fleshing out an idea in full spectrum, you add both substance and appeal to your idea by making it accessible to people with different preferences for absorbing information. Yes and, yes but This is another thinking strategy shared by Church & Cook in Think. When you hear a concept or idea that you either agree or disagree with, use this method to build upon the idea with your unique perspective. 'Yes, and' asks you to elaborate on why you agree with an idea or concept. 'Yes, but' asks you to consider the opposing idea, or provide a contrary view. Yes is different to no. Yes suggests we are building concepts. No suggests we are debating concepts. Examples are: How can we grow both revenue and margin at the same time? How can we improve both productivity and engagement? How can we gain market share and consolidate our offerings? These questions seem paradoxical until they are considered as opportunities for radical change. Scientific thinking Loading The main premise behind scientific thinking is to treat opinions simply as hypotheses to be tested as either true or not true. Scientific thinking wards against cognitive biases getting in the way of the truth. For workers, adopting a scientific approach to thinking is about being willing to test ideas and let them go when they don't work out. The smart people at Google X have designed a whole innovation factory around scientific thinking. They are the team behind self-driving cars, self-flying delivery vehicles, smart glasses, smart contact lenses and balloon-powered internet. They see failure as a positive because in the words of one of their employees, 'killing a good idea, makes room for truly great ones'. Design thinking Design thinking was a concept introduced by Hasso Plattner and David Kelly in 2004 as a revolutionary way to transform problem-solving. This approach encourages individuals to identify and tackle problems through three unconventional ways: Empathise – understand the problems and challenges from the perspective of the 'user' or customer Work together – recognise that creativity sparks from collaboration – that working together can and does produce a better result than individuals working alone Fail effectively – work fast to build a minimum viable product (MVP) and test it. Adopt a 'fail fast' mentality, seeing continuous improvement, or iterative improvement over perfection. Applying design thinking, in just about any context, quickly evolves their thinking. It also helps people better respond to feedback and improve.
The Age
08-05-2025
- Business
- The Age
Four ways to sharpen your mind and stay relevant in the age of AI
Here are four simple yet proven methods to do better thinking. As an author of two books on high performance, I've used these methods to improve my own thinking. I've also seen great results when using these methods with leadership teams to overcome challenges and create new strategies. Full spectrum thinking Loading Full spectrum thinking is a concept created by Matt Church and Peter Cook in their 2018 book Think. Full spectrum thinking encourages us to flesh out an idea by scoping it from four different angles: from 'left brain' rational view to 'right brain' creative view, and from big picture 'conceptual' view down to detailed 'concrete' view. For example, to flesh out an idea like 'culture drives performance', incorporate the research and statistics that support the idea, share a story that brings it to life, frame it with a model or method, and add a metaphor for clarity and interest. By fleshing out an idea in full spectrum, you add both substance and appeal to your idea by making it accessible to people with different preferences for absorbing information. Yes and, yes but This is another thinking strategy shared by Church & Cook in Think. When you hear a concept or idea that you either agree or disagree with, use this method to build upon the idea with your unique perspective. 'Yes, and' asks you to elaborate on why you agree with an idea or concept. 'Yes, but' asks you to consider the opposing idea, or provide a contrary view. Yes is different to no. Yes suggests we are building concepts. No suggests we are debating concepts. Examples are: How can we grow both revenue and margin at the same time? How can we improve both productivity and engagement? How can we gain market share and consolidate our offerings? These questions seem paradoxical until they are considered as opportunities for radical change. Scientific thinking Loading The main premise behind scientific thinking is to treat opinions simply as hypotheses to be tested as either true or not true. Scientific thinking wards against cognitive biases getting in the way of the truth. For workers, adopting a scientific approach to thinking is about being willing to test ideas and let them go when they don't work out. The smart people at Google X have designed a whole innovation factory around scientific thinking. They are the team behind self-driving cars, self-flying delivery vehicles, smart glasses, smart contact lenses and balloon-powered internet. They see failure as a positive because in the words of one of their employees, 'killing a good idea, makes room for truly great ones'. Design thinking Design thinking was a concept introduced by Hasso Plattner and David Kelly in 2004 as a revolutionary way to transform problem-solving. This approach encourages individuals to identify and tackle problems through three unconventional ways: Empathise – understand the problems and challenges from the perspective of the 'user' or customer Work together – recognise that creativity sparks from collaboration – that working together can and does produce a better result than individuals working alone Fail effectively – work fast to build a minimum viable product (MVP) and test it. Adopt a 'fail fast' mentality, seeing continuous improvement, or iterative improvement over perfection. Applying design thinking, in just about any context, quickly evolves their thinking. It also helps people better respond to feedback and improve.
The National
27-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The National
Culture Summit Abu Dhabi 2025 opens with call to place humanity at the heart of AI
Culture's importance in an AI-driven society was a key theme on the opening day of this year's Culture Summit Abu Dhabi. Running at Manarat Al Saadiyat until Tuesday, the seventh year of the event brings together thought leaders from government, technology, the arts, heritage, film and music for discussions on the future of their sectors. Under the theme Culture for Humanity and Beyond, Mohamed Khalifa Al Mubarak, chairman of the Department of Culture and Tourism – Abu Dhabi (DCT Abu Dhabi), set the tone by highlighting the expected benefits and challenges facing the global creative industries in the wake of the AI revolution. 'Together we can ensure that AI enhances creativity and empowers humanity, not displaces it," he said as part of his opening remarks. "Our collective ambition is simple – to chart a path towards a more sustainable and human-centred global society, with culture as its compass." AI ethicist Mo Gawdat expanded on that point with a stark yet hopeful address on the future of AI in modern societies. The former Google X executive said technology has already achieved autonomy in decision-making. "There is a very big difference between the way we coded computers when I was a young man, where I solved the problem in my head and then told the computer, through data, what to do," he said. "The computers, being so fast and scalable, appeared intelligent, but the one that had the intelligence was the developer. That ended basically at the turn of the 21st century. From the early 2000s onwards, we started to let computers make their own decisions. As they did that, they became autonomous and I think that's a very interesting keyword." Gawdat described the situation as a pivotal moment for human civilisation – a fork in the road when it comes to deciding how to harness AI for society's future. He advocates a human-centred approach to the technology, akin to raising 'a child with special powers'. "We have a responsibility and a duty – every single one of us. That duty is to raise AI. I call it raising Superman. Think of the analogy: Superman is this super alien with superpowers who comes to Earth. He can stop speeding bullets, fly, carry anything, break anything – but he's adopted by parents who teach him to protect and serve, so he becomes Superman. If that same alien had been adopted by parents who told him to steal, kill and lock the enemy away, he would have become a supervillain," he said. "That's why we don't make decisions based on our intelligence – and neither does AI, by the way. We make decisions based on our morality, as informed by our intelligence.' AI's disruption and promise are also forcing artists, curators and programmers to re-evaluate how to use the technology in their respective practices. In a session moderated by The National's Editor-in-chief Mina Al-Oraibi, the creative director behind Broadway blockbuster Hamilton, David Korins, described AI's arrival into the arts and cultural space as part of an old story. "Museums used to be filled with didactic panels all night. Then in the 1920s and 1930s, when televisions were invented and monetised, screens started showing up to make those panels more dynamic," he said. "Then came projections, then generated projections and now we are walking through immersive worlds. Technology adds layers to storytelling but it should never take over the story itself." Korins urged contemporaries to "lean in" to the opportunities AI affords rather than remain suspicious. "Disruption has caused an extraordinary amount of raw, authentic growth," he said. "Some of the greatest pieces of literature and music have been created in the shadow of, or directly because of, disruption. Fear, on the other hand, narrows people's vision. It makes people not feel heard, not feel seen." Jewellery designer Lama Hourani is circumspect about how AI could transform her craft – choosing to use the technology for efficiency rather than creativity. "AI today isn't my best friend. I use it occasionally to save time,' she said. 'But I know I need to open my mind – not only for myself, but for my children, who will grow up with a massive technological landscape around them. I need to constantly find a common ground and a common language with future generations."
Arab News
23-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Arab News
Abu Dhabi gears up for 7th Culture Summit
DUBAI: The UAE capital is preparing to host the seventh edition of Culture Summit Abu Dhabi, a global forum for cultural exchange and dialogue, from April 27-29 at Manarat Al-Saadiyat. For the latest updates, follow us on Instagram @ Organized by the Abu Dhabi Department of Culture and Tourism, the three-day event will bring together policymakers, artists, scholars, and innovators to explore the theme 'Culture for Humanity and Beyond,' focusing on the intersection of culture, technology and global governance. A post shared by Culture Summit Abu Dhabi (@culturesummitad) The program will feature keynote speeches, panel discussions, artist talks, and workshops. Confirmed speakers include Mo Gawdat, former chief business officer at Google X; philosopher Susan Buck-Morss; Prof. Iyad Rahwan from the Max Planck Institute; and Glenn D. Lowry, director of MoMA. A post shared by Culture Summit Abu Dhabi (@culturesummitad) Other prominent voices set to appear include Sir William Sargent of Framestore, and Koyo Kouoh, executive director and chief curator of Zeitz MOCAA. The panels will explore a wide range of topics, including the impact of artificial intelligence on the creative industries. Sessions such as 'AI Revolution: Redefining Creativity in the Age of Machines,' 'Should Governments Regulate AI to Compensate the Creative Industries?' and 'The Double-Edged Sword of AI in Cinema' will address the growing role of generative technologies in reshaping artistic expression, intellectual property and creative labor. A post shared by Culture Summit Abu Dhabi (@culturesummitad) The summit will also revisit cultural policy discussions, hosting the second edition of the Mondiacult Ministerial Dialogue. The two-part session will bring together more than 10 ministers of culture to explore the influence of AI on culture and the role of the arts in peacebuilding and sustainability. Another key session will examine the implementation of the UNESCO Framework for Culture and Arts Education, building on outcomes from a related global conference held in Abu Dhabi in early 2024. Highlighting culture as a public good, the summit will include sessions on environmental sustainability, heritage preservation, and cultural governance. Sessions will include 'Turning Green: What Happens When Cultural Leaders Take Action for the Planet' and 'From Ruins to Resilience: A New Era of Heritage Rehabilitation.' A post shared by Culture Summit Abu Dhabi (@culturesummitad) Creative voices such as Thomas Heatherwick, Colleen Atwood, Refik Anadol, and Herbie Hancock will participate in artist talks and panels. The program will also feature conversations between prominent figures, including philanthropist Maja Hoffmann, architect Hashim Sarkis, and director Sir John Akomfrah, as well as a session on jazz and humanity led by Hancock and journalist John Ridding. Attendees will also be able to engage with the work of regional talents, including poet and artist Alia Al-Shamsi, designer Omar Al-Gurg, and architect Abdalla Almulla, offering insights into the UAE's growing creative sector. The event's global partners include UNESCO, The Economist Impact, Design Museum, Google, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and Foundation, and the Recording Academy. Additional collaborators range from regional institutions such as Louvre Abu Dhabi and Cultural Foundation to international cultural bodies such as Institut du Monde Arabe, TeamLab and the Herbie Hancock Jazz Institute.
