Autonomous Cars

[subcritical71]

I think big car manufacturers and technology companies are pursuing this for PR benefit. Bragging rights, so to speak. It's not so much about if it is really viable, but it's good PR. It's exciting. I think robotics, AI and machine learning are probably one of the next big breakthroughs we are yet to encounter. And the technology there surely can be used for other things too, even if the autonomous cars never happen because it may not be feasible for economic or social reasons.

I can definitely see this as a PR move, but am still hopeful that they can pull it off. Computer (and their architecture) are getting really good at object recognition and optimizing such operations which will only help computing in the future. Right now, self driving cars (or more specifically their computers) are one of the most energy intensive applications around. I read that the NVidia CPU designed for AV can crunch 320 TRILLION operations per second. That's impressive and on par with standalone supercomputers from 2010.

Perhaps I could see the technology being used in more predictable circumstances. Instead of imagining a future where everyone has a self-driving-taxi, I could see the technology end up in buses that follow a controlled path (but here too, I question why it's not easier to employ a driver). Or the tech will simply be there in an assistance function. Or I could see the tech being used for agriculture. Instead of being outthere doing it yourself, you could have a 'robot' doing it for you in an environment where there is little risk to cause harm.

The comment about the bus and employing a driver instead made me think. How much money is being poured into AV compared to the savings it will return in 10, or 20 years? Surely someone has done a study on that...

I'm an audiophile, but who in gods name needs and wants 7 channel surround at home, let alone 9?

I haven't looked at audio equipment in some years. I was looking at Denon receivers the other day for a possible home theater setup. I was astonished that they had a 13.2 system! My last system was a 5.1 and I just couldn't help but think 13.2 is just a manufacturer trying to get you to buy more speakers (at a premium). Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that is overkill.

[strad]

Just had an experience ...My son flys up in his role as a salesman. He rents a car at the airport. It has all that semi AV crap including the thing where it stays in it's lane and brakes if it thinks you're too close to the car ahead.
A. It bounced like a ping pong ball from the right line of the lane and then back to the left line over and over.. back and forth , back and forth,, enough to make you motion sick.
B. on the freeway every time the car ahead slowed even slightly, it hit the brakes to make sure it stayed back the preset distance.
It sucked horribly and I sure am glad I don't have it and that it can be deactivated.
We have a long long way to go.
I have driven the ones that have a device in the seat that makes it feel like you're running over bumps if you leave your lane. Well guess what? There are times I want to leave my lane slightly to miss objects or dead animals in the road and such.

[Big Tea]

I think big car manufacturers and technology companies are pursuing this for PR benefit. Bragging rights, so to speak. It's not so much about if it is really viable, but it's good PR. It's exciting. I think robotics, AI and machine learning are probably one of the next big breakthroughs we are yet to encounter. And the technology there surely can be used for other things too, even if the autonomous cars never happen because it may not be feasible for economic or social reasons.

I can definitely see this as a PR move, but am still hopeful that they can pull it off. Computer (and their architecture) are getting really good at object recognition and optimizing such operations which will only help computing in the future. Right now, self driving cars (or more specifically their computers) are one of the most energy intensive applications around. I read that the NVidia CPU designed for AV can crunch 320 TRILLION operations per second. That's impressive and on par with standalone supercomputers from 2010.

Perhaps I could see the technology being used in more predictable circumstances. Instead of imagining a future where everyone has a self-driving-taxi, I could see the technology end up in buses that follow a controlled path (but here too, I question why it's not easier to employ a driver). Or the tech will simply be there in an assistance function. Or I could see the tech being used for agriculture. Instead of being outthere doing it yourself, you could have a 'robot' doing it for you in an environment where there is little risk to cause harm.

The comment about the bus and employing a driver instead made me think. How much money is being poured into AV compared to the savings it will return in 10, or 20 years? Surely someone has done a study on that...

I'm an audiophile, but who in gods name needs and wants 7 channel surround at home, let alone 9?

I haven't looked at audio equipment in some years. I was looking at Denon receivers the other day for a possible home theater setup. I was astonished that they had a 13.2 system! My last system was a 5.1 and I just couldn't help but think 13.2 is just a manufacturer trying to get you to buy more speakers (at a premium). Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that is overkill.

Its not so much about performance, more about telling others what you have.

[AJI]

Just had an experience ...My son flys up in his role as a salesman. He rents a car at the airport. It has all that semi AV crap including the thing where it stays in it's lane and brakes if it thinks you're too close to the car ahead.
A. It bounced like a ping pong ball from the right line of the lane and then back to the left line over and over.. back and forth , back and forth,, enough to make you motion sick.
B. on the freeway every time the car ahead slowed even slightly, it hit the brakes to make sure it stayed back the preset distance.
It sucked horribly and I sure am glad I don't have it and that it can be deactivated.
We have a long long way to go.
I have driven the ones that have a device in the seat that makes it feel like you're running over bumps if you leave your lane. Well guess what? There are times I want to leave my lane slightly to miss objects or dead animals in the road and such.

We get it strad, you hate AV's…

[Andres125sx]

The funny thing about this debate is people take a demagogic approach constantly, their position is "if AV are not perfect in every way, at every situation, and 100% safe, they can´t be used".

Then no human should be driving, period. Even if they´re not 100% safe and perfect, they´ll be several orders of magnitude safer than 90% of humans.

Take all those questions about AV and do it to an average driver..... What will an average driver do when a bird goes directly to his windshield? Many will panic, turn the wheel sharply tryinig to dodge it, and will even go over a pedestrian if there´s any. Should we ban human drivers then?

What if a small kid jumps into the road and the driver is distracted because he only has two eyes and they´re looking at the radio or dashboard? Do we ban human drivers then?

If there's a flaw in the software or the sensors that control hundreds or thousand (if not more) of cars, the impact is a little larger than if a single person 'makes a mistake' and causes an accident. Just because one person makes a mistake, it doesn't become a question of if the humans in general are flawed.

Actually, when you compare humans and AVs, we are flawed like it or not.

We can´t look at the road and dashboard at the same time, or change the radio while keeping an eye on the road... our field of view is pretty limited, with fog we can´t see anything and at night our FOV is even more limited than it is with daylight, we get distracted way too easily, we drive under circumstances we should never drive (drunk, too tired...)


If your argument is "AVs should pass some exaustive QC to ensure his software has no bugs" then I´ll agree, but arguing AVs can have some minor flaw so they shouldn´t be on the road, when we humans have several mayor flaws, is unrealistic

[AJI]

This has become the, 'radio with pictures, it'll never work!', thread.

Edit: I just checked, it actually started that way

[Phil]

Actually, when you compare humans and AVs, we are flawed like it or not.

...

If your argument is "AVs should pass some exaustive QC to ensure his software has no bugs" then I´ll agree, but arguing AVs can have some minor flaw so they shouldn´t be on the road, when we humans have several mayor flaws, is unrealistic

You are severely underestimating the ability of the human brain to process and anticipate complex situations based on feedback, instinct and experience.

Even with our 'narrow FOV', we are able to assess fairly well what is happening around us, even when your attention is focused on something else. Sure, how well we are able to do that, depends on various factors. But even in a highly impaired or distracted state, we are able to prioritize quite well. Reading your post makes it sound like we are all some kind of flawed zombies on the road. We're not. As I said, most people, even those that are involved in accidents, have most probably driven hundred-thousands of kilometers in their life-span. It's inevitable that something at some point will happen, either by mistake or an unfortunate chain of events of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those experiences shape us. Most of us learn from it and become better drivers for it. Most importantly, we're accountable. Those that don't learn, drive irresponsible, get fines, perhaps go to jail etc.

The problem with 'machines' is that it's effectively a piece of software that doesn't care, doesn't know responsibility. And I question the ability of technology to progress to the point where a truly autonomous vehicle is feasible and safe.

Here some situations we encounter in every day life on the roads, yet conscious or subconscious do a good job of assessing the situations properly:



Driving through a residential area. A potential for playing kids that could run out onto the road at any time. Cars, regardless if manual or AV don't have instant stopping power. At speeds of 10m/s (36kmh) there's still heaps of opportunity to instantly kill a small child walking into your path. Now, an AV might do a better job at registering a subject walking into your path and braking with the perfect amount of force for optimal deceleration. True. But I question the cars ability to properly assess the situation around it. I haven't counted the number of instances where I've seen through the gaps of the cars a bunch of kids playing or their trajectory pointing towards the road even before the 'kid' jumped out between the cars. Or spotting the ball before rolling across the road moments before. No matter how good a 'machine' is, I sincerely doubt its (programmed) ability to properly analyze this information and assess the situation of what is about to unfold seconds into the future.

As a human, I have that experience in my subconscious of having been a kid myself once upon a time or simply having been in many other similar situations where I did see something like that unfold. This experience and instinct helps me to anticipate and react to something that hasn't even happened yet, even if it's just a subconscious cue of slowing down or applying the readiness to brake.



Another example. When I see this, I am not only processing two 'objects' walking towards the road. I see they are not looking, possibly distracted. I don't doubt that technology can easily distinguish 'people', but I am doubtful over the ability to properly assess situations and anticipate what is going to happen, because a machine isn't human and visual cues can be very subtle. Could a machine distinguish a handicapped person from a drunk? Differentiate a person who is focused on what is happening around them before i.e. crossing the road or being distracted, in an argument, on the phone, writing a text?

This is important and what makes us anticipate situations accordingly. We might see a situation unfold before our eyes without it even happening it. For example; A cyclist driving down the street, while a person is about to cross the road while being distracted by texting on the phone. Meanwhile, we see the cyclist about to turn his head to the back because someone has called after him. Seconds later, the two collide because the cyclist did not stop and the person walked into his path. Meanwhile you are in your car just meters behind following the cyclist. A person could quite easily see this happening and react to the potential danger before it even happened, while I question the ability of a machine to do the 'math' and anticipate correctly what is about to unfold. Now I am not saying that 'humans' will always get things right and anticipate situations, but even when they don't, there's a lot happening in your subconscious that you may not register but is still there. Instinct.

I look forward to seeing how the IT world will solve this, without having to study and program the knowledge and experience of 20+ years of human behavior. And we are just talking humans here. What about animals? Objects? Debris on the road. The knowledge of knowing there's an imperfection in the road surface at that particular spot because you have driven that road a thousand times in your life? How can we expect an AV to store all that information?

[Andres125sx]

Actually, when you compare humans and AVs, we are flawed like it or not.

...

If your argument is "AVs should pass some exaustive QC to ensure his software has no bugs" then I´ll agree, but arguing AVs can have some minor flaw so they shouldn´t be on the road, when we humans have several mayor flaws, is unrealistic

You are severely underestimating the ability of the human brain to process and anticipate complex situations based on feedback, instinct and experience.

Even with our 'narrow FOV', we are able to assess fairly well what is happening around us, even when your attention is focused on something else. Sure, how well we are able to do that, depends on various factors. But even in a highly impaired or distracted state, we are able to prioritize quite well. Reading your post makes it sound like we are all some kind of flawed zombies on the road. We're not.

Some of us are not

I see an obvious problem here, you´re judging humans from your experience and point of view, but that´s a basic flaw (another one for humans ) because we humans are VERY variable. Some are responsible, some are not. Some try to avoid any distraction while driving, some do things at the wheel you´d get shocked. Some have pretty good eyesight, some have not.

If reading my post make it sound like we are some kind of flawed zombies on the road that´s because we are exactly that, at least some of us at some moments. Read my post again and tell me if some of my arguments are false or debatable. I guess you won´t because they´re all completely real when compared with an AV, less field of view, much much slower reaction times, limited eyesight in some conditions, get distracted too easily and sometimes drive under condtions we should never drive. These are facts


OTOH, reading your post it sound like we are all some kind of robots who always pay attention (none irresponsible in your country?), have loads of experience (no learners either?), have perfect reflexes and eyesight (no elderlies at the wheel?), and never drive drunk, tired or after taking some medication

But reality is we make mistakes frequently, even responsible drivers so imagine those who are not, like some carriers who read or write while driving or young people who do what young people do. Thanks god most of those little mistakes have no consequences, but from time to time they have consequences, huge consequences. Then some go to jail, agree, but that´s only after killing someone.


About those examples you mention, I´d be several orders of magnitude more relaxed if my sons are playing in that street and only AVs go throught that road. They will always respect speed limits, they will never get distracted, and if some kid jump on the road the 4-5 tenths a human need to see, react, move the food to the brake pedal and push it, will be 4-5 tenths an AV will be using to slow down and stop sooner. And that´s considering the driver was paying attention and noticed the kid instantly, if not that time may perfectly be 1-2 seconds wich will be crucial. Now imagine the kid going into the road is exactly behind the A-pilar so the driver can´t see him...

These thing happen daily Phil, they´re not as rare as you try to show. Deaths on the roads are massive at any industrialized country, and the reason, like it or not, is because humans are not robots and make mistakes too frequently

I´m not suggesting with AVs there would be zero deaths as AVs are programmed by humans so they will have some problems until the technology is mastered, but the number of deaths on the road would probably be reduced to a hundreth or thousanth of current number from day 1 (assuming some severe QC are mandated)

[Phil]

I never said these things never happen. I fully accept they do, but you are deluding yourself if you believe AV will make the world a safer place. They won't.

Now you can go on and simply make the assumptions that AVs will be 'better' because you've seen a couple of cool science fiction movies that portray them that way, but as a computer programmer, I am trying to highlight what is particularly 'difficult' about achieving what you seem to be taking for granted. I am also trying to highlight the remarkable ability of humans, even in a compromised state, to often drive vehicles without having accidents. I'm not condoning it, but there's still the element of accountability (which you have so far ignored).

When people have accidents, they are held accountable. If your country has too many accidents, perhaps you should question your laws. If an AV 'kills' or 'injures', who is accountable?

[Andres125sx]

I never said these things never happen. I fully accept they do, but you are deluding yourself if you believe AV will make the world a safer place. They won't.

Based on what?

Your approach is incorrect IMHO, the question is not if they will make the world safer, the question is when. Maybe first generation won´t, but some latter and improved generation will. Computers can read if you´re falling asleep while driving today, do you really think they will never learn to differ if a pedestrian looked at your or not to know if he´s not aware of you and increase safety margins? That may be posible even today

Now you can go on and simply make the assumptions that AVs will be 'better' because you've seen a couple of cool science fiction movies that portray them that way, but as a computer programmer, I am trying to highlight what is particularly 'difficult' about achieving what you seem to be taking for granted. I am also trying to highlight the remarkable ability of humans, even in a compromised state, to often drive vehicles without having accidents.

I don´t make any assumption based on movies, I make assumptions based on computers, processing power and sensors develpment evolution, wich was unconceivable few decades ago. Roborace car use RADAR, LIDAR, ultrasonic sensors and multiple cameras. I guess any road car will use IR cameras too, all 360º. On data acquisition humans are several steps behind even today

I know what you mean about humans ability, but we as humans don´t keep that safety level constantly. I think an AI even if can´t reach exact same safety level, it will always keep that level, without highs and lows as we humans have, and that in the end is safer

I'm not condoning it, but there's still the element of accountability (which you have so far ignored).

When people have accidents, they are held accountable. If your country has too many accidents, perhaps you should question your laws. If an AV 'kills' or 'injures', who is accountable?

I´m not ignoring anything, the manufacturer obviously. If your phone does explode while a friend is using it, who´s accountable?

[strad]

With you all the way Phil.
.
I believe we are talking to people who don't take the job of driving as seriously as we do.
Also we are talking to people who are catering to the lowest common denominator.

We get it strad, you hate AV's…

Never said I hated AVs. I have said that some day they may make a freeway drive to work better... SOME DAY.
I don't HATE autonomous vehicles I just think people over estimate their (AVs) abilities and are willing to judge humans by the lames that shouldn't be driving in the first place rather than insistence in their removal from behind the wheel. Years ago when people did not think it was their right to drive they took it more serious and now with every idiot thinking it's their right to drive and at that to drive however they want of course there are problems.
I was only relating what just happened two days ago in new car.
At least for now they are not what people want to crack them up to be.
Remember the video that was posted of Nico Rosberg in his Tesla? Remember when it scared him when it swerved too near that rock wall for his comfort and he was forced to grab the wheel?

[subcritical71]

With you all the way Phil.
.
I believe we are talking to people who don't take the job of driving as seriously as we do.
Also we are talking to people who are catering to the lowest common denominator.

We get it strad, you hate AV's…

Never said I hated AVs. I have said that some day they may make a freeway drive to work better... SOME DAY.
I don't HATE autonomous vehicles I just think people over estimate their (AVs) abilities and are willing to judge humans by the lames that shouldn't be driving in the first place rather than insistence in their removal from behind the wheel. Years ago when people did not think it was their right to drive they took it more serious and now with every idiot thinking it's their right to drive and at that to drive however they want of course there are problems.
I was only relating what just happened two days ago in new car.
At least for now they are not what people want to crack them up to be.
Remember the video that was posted of Nico Rosberg in his Tesla? Remember when it scared him when it swerved too near that rock wall for his comfort and he was forced to grab the wheel?

No offense, but that example is bad. Tesla even states the current implementation is not AV and the driver needs to be 100% attentive, they have even had to put in feedback loops for the autopilot to remain engaged. His hands should have already been on the wheel ready to take control at a moments notice. But as you say, people want to believe what the systems are capable of and not what they are capable of. Tesla calls it autopilot. Ask any pilot who is flying their airplane who is in control when it is on autopilot and I bet he tells you he is. This is the response these pre-AV drivers should be giving.

[Just_a_fan]

I believe we are talking to people who don't take the job of driving as seriously as we do.

Ah, the Trump approach to discussion - hit the ad hominem button.

Some of us do a lot of driving and take it seriously. We also realise that in many parts of the world, the steady increase of traffic on our roads must eventually lead to humans being removed from the loop - either partially or totally.

Partially, I can see happening relatively soon. By this I mean in situations of heavy single direction traffic (motorway / freeway / autoroute). In these circumstances, humans cause problems that an AV can be easily programmed to avoid. In these situations, having AVs that talk to each other etc can ensure that traffic flows without the bunching and the stop-go brake pulses that humans are really good at creating. I think this would be an acceptable implementation of AV systems for many people - I think this because they will see a large benefit in their time being freed up. In the UK, and other places I'm sure, there are so called "smart roads" where the speed limit is adjusted to account for traffic density. This is backed up by enforcement cameras. The idea is that as traffic density increases, traffic flow rates increase as speed is reduced (to a level, below which rates drop again obviously). Moving from this to a system where the car is in control would mean even higher flow rates as you could drive closer at higher speeds, for example.

Total AV will, I think, be much longer arriving because they require much more "intelligence" as Phil pointed out previously. I can also see this taking longer because of both legislative and social engineering issues.

I could see a transition arrangement whereby those who do not wish to have an AV will be allowed to continue as now, but there will be an assumption of liability on their part in an accident. You choose to be in control, you show you were in control and not at fault. That sort of thing.

I can see AVs being increasingly accepted in urban environments, however. There are increasing numbers of people in cities who do not have a car, and do not have a license to drive. I can see these people embracing AVs - in the "car club" style system where the AV is just rented by the hour, for example.

What is needed, as always, is a broad approach to the issue with a number of solutions provided to allow for different needs.

[strad]

You guys gotta make up your minds. You now say it's understood you still have to be paying attention and have your hands on the wheel. Other times you talk of answering e-mails and doing work. Which is it?

[AJI]

You guys gotta make up your minds. You now say it's understood you still have to be paying attention and have your hands on the wheel. Other times you talk of answering e-mails and doing work. Which is it?

My mind is made up. Right now I'm the only option to drive the car, so I pay attention, have my hands on the wheel and on long boring drives I use the car stereo to stop me going insane.
In the future I hope to make better use of my time whilst stuck in a car. If I want to go racing I'll go to the track.
I'd like Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey's opinions on an AV. Both are proper petrol heads and neither drives themself because it's a total and utter waste of time...