# Waymo self-driving cars -- progress

**URL:** <https://discussion.fool.com/t/waymo-self-driving-cars-progress/118760>\
**Category:** Stocks A to Z\
**Tags:** google, tesla-motors\
**Created:** [May 31, 2025, 3:29pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/waymo-self-driving-cars-progress/118760 "2025-05-31T15:29:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 98

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mostlylong](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/mostlylong/32/3943_2.png) [@mostlylong](https://discussion.fool.com/u/mostlylong)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2025, 12:43pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/waymo-self-driving-cars-progress/118760/98 "2025-06-07T12:43:17Z")

</div>

Well, all of my responses below are correct (even in a non pedantic sense), unless someone can provide a real basis of support otherwise (which no one has).

> [@albaby1](#):
>
> I said that it’s designed to be able to function with a dumber brain.

We have no idea what Waymo AI was “designed for” with respect to a “dumber brain” or otherwise, unless Waymo disclosed it somewhere.

> [@albaby1](#):
>
> I’m not making any claims about what, specifically, makes a brain “dumber” or not.

You can’t/won’t even define “dumber.” How are we even supposed to know what you mean by AI being “dumber” if we can’t define it?

Why are we talking about “dumber” (artificial) intelligence and we can’t define “dumber”?

That’s somewhat ironic.

> [@albaby1](#):
>
> So for any given level of functionality, it will be able to perform that level of functionality with a “dumber” brain than a car that lacked the extra sensory data and map information.

You have no idea about this (how sophisticated/dumb a given AI needs to be to deliver a given functionality with different kinds of sensor data), even if you define “dumber.”

> [@albaby1](#):
>
> If you provide the car with a “cheat” like a digital map, it can get away with having less analytic power - there’s stuff it can “know” without having to infer it from visual data.

Same answer, we have no idea here.

> [@albaby1](#):
>
> Tesla’s approach is to make the brain better,

Same answer again, by what measure better? We have no idea.

I get your gist, but I think we really have no idea on these statements you are making. Without definitions of key terms (such as “dumber” in a discussion of intelligence), we really have no idea.

You could very well be correct for some definition(s) of “dumber” and “extra information,” but you don’t provide any basis for your claims, let alone definitions.

Two basic counterarguments.

First:  
System 1 could be very high resolution camera data, high spatial and temporal resolution. System 2 could be lower resolution camera with LIDAR data. Does S1 or S2 have more “information” with respect to AVs?

I would say you and I don’t really know this, and can’t even make a statement about this (unless maybe you want to define terms more precisely).

Second:  
Processing sensory inputs (including synchronizing the data in space and time, and also calculating correlated, interacting features) from multiple sensor types (camera + lidar) might require more analytical processing (somehow appropriately defined) relative to processing from a single sensor type (camera only).

One can imagine additional neurons and connections and specialized features (in artificial and/or biological intelligence) to process vision plus sound, versus either alone.

I would say you and I just don’t know.

First step in discussion: define terms so we can discuss the “same things,” especially on a technical topic.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discussion.fool.com/t/waymo-self-driving-cars-progress/118760)._