Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders • Hacker News Board

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#271

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #229

loup-vaillant wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct answer to that is very simple, and very expensive: just make correct software. Such malware are only possible because the targeted system has vulnerabilities to begin with. One just has to ensure the absence of such vulnerabilities, possibly using machine checked proofs. One obvious approach is to properly isolate the driving software and sensors from external input.

> The correct answer to that is very simple, and very expensive: just make correct software. I used to think that was unlikely. Then I had a few discussions with people about the state of C, and things that could be done to make it default to a slightly more deterministic case by changing how undefined behavior is dealt with in regards to optimization. Now I think it's impossible, because nobody is willing to give up…

Forcing a change away from C/C++ is easy: regulation. If a software error (or vulnerability) kills anyone, the vendor is to stop all sales and recall all cars immediately. Sales can resume pending an evaluation period, and the evaluation is to be made by independent experts, at the expense of the vendor. (We should heavily imply that such an evaluation can take months, killing the company in the process.)

Correct software is expensive. But if we make sure incorrect software is even more expensive, we'll get correct software.

Once the industry is forced to get serious about correctness, they will move away from the C/C++ minefield real quick —or at least come up with safe ways of using C and C++.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#272

Post by ghaff » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

jsymolon wrote: post #260

doczoidberg wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure people will buy self-driving cars. People want to own things for themself. If a car has a higher value with this feature even more people want to have a car. Consumers don't think economically.

People want the convenience of having access to transportation 24/7 no matter where they are and when. Ever call a taxi (not in city) ? 30+ minutes. Also, tragedy of the commons ... who was the last one to use the car has to pay for clean up. How to accomplish that ? ... "No the other guy did it ..."

I'm skeptical about the "no one will own" meme. That said, there's no reason cleaning would be any more of an issue than it is with Zipcar today. If you go to pickup a car and it needs cleaning, you refuse it and report the problem.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#273

Post by monkmartinez » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:52 PM UTC

Qwertious wrote: post #231

monkmartinez wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious counter question; Why is nobody talking about cost? Cars are very expensive... is self-driving tech going to increase or decrease the cost of a vehicle? Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice? Why does everyone assume the cost will decrease with scale? How many people can afford a Tesla right now? Let alone a fully autonomous car? If flying were more affordable and less strict more peopl…

"Serious counter question; Why is nobody talking about cost? Cars are very expensive... is self-driving tech going to increase or decrease the cost of a vehicle? Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice?" Because you don't need to own the car - you could feasibly rent one on demand (like a taxi), since you can now rent a car without the necessary wage overhead of the taxi driver, or the minimum co…

I live in the suburbs. I have a family with two grade school kids that participate in seasonal team sports and year-round gymnastics. They attend a charter school with no school bus system.

Let's say each ride cost $10... that is $20 to $40 per day just for the kids on most weekdays. Add in birthday parties, saturday games, doctor/dentist, trip to grandma/grandpa that live 7 miles away... and we are talking $1000 per month in "ride-sharing costs" for my children alone. We could add in my wife and I's costs, but it would be silly.

Maybe this service is less than $10 per ride, even at $5 per ride it is wayyyyyy more expensive than I currently spend on a 4 year old Toyota Highlander with low miles with insurance and fuel.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#274

Post by monkmartinez » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #242

monkmartinez wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is every reason to believe these price drops will continue as more resources are put into scaling production and more companies enter the game of component design and production. Why? We literally never see that with top shelf products. This isn't an arduino solder job. This is going to be an integrated software and hardware package that will rival an aircraft autopilot/navigation. Please check you facts on t…

>Why? We literally never see that with top shelf products. This isn't an arduino solder job. This is going to be an integrated software and hardware package that will rival an aircraft autopilot/navigation. Please check you facts on the cost of these things. Google claims that it dropped the price of lidar by a factor of 10x once it started producing them. That seems like a significant, factual, drop in cost.

The iPhone is how much to produce? Very important point you missed in what I wrote; Hardware and software package. A lidar without software is useless.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#275

Post by Hydraulix989 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

monkmartinez wrote: post #263

MarkMc wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this graph about airplane accidents: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2... Since 1970 total airplane casualties have halved, while there are now 7 times the number of passengers. Much of this improvement has been due taking decisions away from pilots and into the hands of 'unfeeling' automated systems.

And look at the cost of planes and those systems. Absolutely out of reach for 97% of the world.

I don't see how the ownership model affects parent's argument.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#276

Post by abawany » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

monkmartinez wrote: post #263

MarkMc wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this graph about airplane accidents: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2... Since 1970 total airplane casualties have halved, while there are now 7 times the number of passengers. Much of this improvement has been due taking decisions away from pilots and into the hands of 'unfeeling' automated systems.

And look at the cost of planes and those systems. Absolutely out of reach for 97% of the world.

But commercial airliners were never intended for private ownership, right? I would say a significantly large proportion of the world is unable to own a large bus and these are quite manual still.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#277

Post by ForHackernews » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

Qwertious wrote: post #214

stevenh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine ransomware infecting your car that gives you 30 minutes to pay or you'll be rammed into a tree at 90mph. I don't care about any contrived and well-funded narratives about how unthinking, unfeeling, driverless cars will somehow save lives. No thanks, I'd rather take my chances continuing to share roads with human drivers who are careful because they fear their own death just as much as I do.

In all seriousness, ransomware that would kill someone won't be a remotely common thing - for one thing, it will be represented as "$COMPANY's lack of security KILLS PERSON X", and the bill for the ransom will need to be paid by them. And then the cops/secret-service would get involved. If there's a death involved (and reason to believe more will occur in the future, which would be necessary for ransom as a prolonged…

I think this is correct. Criminals aren't stupid. It'd be much safer (in terms of risk of authorities coming after them) to have ransomware where the car just refuses to go anywhere, or drives you to a far-away location, until you pay up.

People will pay a fair amount of money to avoid a major inconvenience, but "my car won't start" is a lot less likely to have the FBI beating down your door.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#278

Post by monkmartinez » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:58 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #228

jonmc12 wrote: post #146

Am I the only one feeling the press + big tech narrative of "driverless vehicles = safety" is way ahead of itself? OK, "driver error is blamed for 94% of crashes", but what is the validation strategy to show where driverless cars can quantifiably improve? In 2016, Philip Koopman of CMU discusses that there are non-trivial engineering challenges of achieving safety in NHTSA Level 4 vehicle automation: https://users.ec…

Imagine it's April 2018 and Waymo releases this statement: "In the past year our autonomous cars have driven a total of 50 million miles in real-world conditions. Over that period there were 4 collisions, plus an estimated 12 which would have occurred if our trained staff in the drivers seat had not intervened. Insurance analysts estimate that if human drivers had driven under similar conditions there would have been…

Depends on the price. I suspect it will be prohibitively expensive for the long foreseeable future.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#279

Post by legolas2412 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #145

marvin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The large print says to keep your hands on the steering wheel and be prepared for the autopilot to fail or disengage at any time. I don't see how this is promising a self-driving car?

It does now, but in previous versions it did not.

And even now, the popular perception is that Tesla is autonomous, and it is only the regulations holding them back.

Re: Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars to Get Their First Real Riders

#280

Post by c22 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #215

stevenh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine ransomware infecting your car that gives you 30 minutes to pay or you'll be rammed into a tree at 90mph. I don't care about any contrived and well-funded narratives about how unthinking, unfeeling, driverless cars will somehow save lives. No thanks, I'd rather take my chances continuing to share roads with human drivers who are careful because they fear their own death just as much as I do.

The correct answer to that is very simple, and very expensive: just make correct software. Such malware are only possible because the targeted system has vulnerabilities to begin with. One just has to ensure the absence of such vulnerabilities, possibly using machine checked proofs. One obvious approach is to properly isolate the driving software and sensors from external input.

Yeah, let's just ask the engineers who are solving one of the toughest robotics problems ever to rewrite the entire house of cards that is their technology stack without any vulnerabilities.

Of course even machine checked proofs will have trouble finding vulnerabilities that creep in during the specifications stage or exist in the realm of hardware.

How do you isolate your sensors from external input and expect to do anything?