Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 443 posts

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#31

Post by jbob2000 »

limeblack wrote: post #5

One thing I would love someone to explain is how can people assume cars are going to be automated soon when both planes and trains haven't been automated for various reasons. They are different issues I have gathered but essentially shouldn't trains be dead simple but to this day at least the trains(not metras though) often have someone to stop the train in case of emergencies. Planes are more complex but have lower…

There's no good reason to automate trains right now, aside for the sake of automating them. It would take a lot of cash to accomplish and it would put us exactly where we are now.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#32

Post by EGreg »

bpicolo wrote: post #6

> unveiled a new concept car, the Concept-i Man sure would be cool if any concept car ever presented were actually released. They do look fancy and futuristic.

Still waiting for the Cadillac Ciel!!!!

That car had nothing but positive reviews from all corners of the internet. I am surprised Cadillac canceled its production and thought of making a coups instead of a convertible.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#34

Post by arkitaip »

_m8fo wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm ignorant (very likely) but I've never understood the difference between full autonomous driving and a fully intelligent AI. If a car can drive in any environment and react to any circumstances surely said AI could also do anything else, no? EDIT: Thanks for the responses everyone. Though, to clarify, when I think of "full autonomous" driving, I'm thinking of a car that can go from A to B regardless of the c…

Driving is just a tiny subset of what a general AI could do. In the grand scheme of things to which AI could occupy itself with, it's an absolutely trivial undertaking.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#35

Post by limsup »

limeblack wrote: post #5

One thing I would love someone to explain is how can people assume cars are going to be automated soon when both planes and trains haven't been automated for various reasons. They are different issues I have gathered but essentially shouldn't trains be dead simple but to this day at least the trains(not metras though) often have someone to stop the train in case of emergencies. Planes are more complex but have lower…

Consider the proportion of the cost of an Uber ride that goes to the driver compared with the proportion of the cost of an airplane ticket that goes to the pilot. A driverless car has the potential to be much cheaper, but a pilotless plane would not be much different. Many new train systems are automated. The cost of retrofitting older systems is just too great.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#37

Post by maxerickson »

simonh wrote: post #3

I'd not come across the different levels of autonomous driving before. 0 No Driving Automation 1 Driver Assistance 2 Partial Driving Automation 3 Conditional Driving Automation 4 High Driving Automation 5 Full Driving Automation From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#Levels_of_dri...

https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf fills out the descriptions a bit.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#38

Post by ep103 »

_m8fo wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm ignorant (very likely) but I've never understood the difference between full autonomous driving and a fully intelligent AI. If a car can drive in any environment and react to any circumstances surely said AI could also do anything else, no? EDIT: Thanks for the responses everyone. Though, to clarify, when I think of "full autonomous" driving, I'm thinking of a car that can go from A to B regardless of the c…

nope. Because they're not building something that has decision making or consciousness. What they're building is a very complicated and nuanced math equation, that reads along the lines of: when a camera sees a line of X whiteness at Y distance, and we are travelling at speed Z, in this geographic region, turn the wheel left E percent. What these companies are doing is trying to calibrate such an equation so well, that it can successfully navigate roads on its own.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#39

Post by blktiger »

limeblack wrote: post #5

One thing I would love someone to explain is how can people assume cars are going to be automated soon when both planes and trains haven't been automated for various reasons. They are different issues I have gathered but essentially shouldn't trains be dead simple but to this day at least the trains(not metras though) often have someone to stop the train in case of emergencies. Planes are more complex but have lower…

With regards to airplanes, you have several issues. The main one being that airplanes are not equipped with sensors capable of detecting other aircraft nearby. Without a complete picture of the airspace to a very significant distance a fully autonomous aircraft isn't possible. Today that is managed by the air traffic control system which is entirely run by people communicating with other people. That said, aircraft are capable of fully autonomous landings - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland.

Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”

#40

Post by senatorobama »

_m8fo wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm ignorant (very likely) but I've never understood the difference between full autonomous driving and a fully intelligent AI. If a car can drive in any environment and react to any circumstances surely said AI could also do anything else, no? EDIT: Thanks for the responses everyone. Though, to clarify, when I think of "full autonomous" driving, I'm thinking of a car that can go from A to B regardless of the c…

So true. I've always thought that fully autonomous driving is a slippery slope to AGI. Imagine Google having to collect an INFINITE amount of driving data (the perfect manifold) before they realize they've sunk billions into an intractable problem?!

Problems in AI can very easily turn into a black hole of money and data. I hope the large number of AI startups appreciate this.

Post reply on HN