Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once the machines are better than humans at a macro level, insurance companies will notice, and I think this will cause widespread adoption pretty quickly.
The scenario in which insurance companies drive adoption of self driving cars depends upon insurance companies accepting the risk of system failure due to manufacturing defects or limitations that generate the wrong response in particular conditions.
Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
411–420 of 443 posts
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it's also called "Autopilot" which sets an extremely different tone and expectation than other driver-assistance/safety technologies. Only to those not familiar with autopilot systems in aircraft. It's like the use of "hacker" - here on this site it still (probably) has most of it's original meaning. To the rest of the world it means a guy in a ski-mask with a russian/chinese accent who's after your bank accoun…
>Unfortunately most of the world thinks pilots in commercial aircraft turn on the autopilot and can then go for a sleep They can go for a sleep though.
The Pilot in Command is expected to sit in their seat and monitor the aircraft, surrounding airspace and the radios, and be ready to take control at a moments notice.
They can't go for a snooze without handing that over to another pilot first.
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
That being said, Toyota's (and Subaru's) approach is the smart way forward - add sensors and capabilities that augment the human, but leave the human always responsible and in control. In order for a crash to happen, the human AND the machine BOTH have to miss it. That's the approach we know won't work. That was Tesla's first-round autopilot, the self-crashing car. The one that would happily run into obstacles protru…
Whether or not it "works" it has the overwhelming benefit of being an incremental approach. Incremental (evolutionary) change tends to work while revolutionary is more tricky. e.g. video phones were demonstrated in the 1960s but are still not really widely used. Also no need for Star Trek - level AI, which is a significant advantage.
Seriously? All smartphones are video phones. I fail to see how they could be more widely used.
You may mean that people choose to make audio-only calls... but just because people choose to do that, it doesn't mean the technology isn't here & fully available in affordable, commercial, "good enough" form.
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#414I've been saying this for a while. The problem is that people are mostly familiar with the rate of overcoming traditional technical challenges (e.g., making your current computer/phone more compact, improving graphics quality, making cameras and screens with more pixels, etc.). What people don't realize is that full autonomous driving will require more than just faster/smaller/cheaper technical innovation - it will r…
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#415One 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…
Planes are mostly automated. The pilots are involved for takeoff and landing or emergencies, but little else. All modern Airbus or Boeing planes are mostly flown with autopilot. The human component is still involved primarily for the "what if it breaks" case where the software isn't there today. A computer would likely have never considered putting a plane into the Hudson river, but that pilot saved a lot of people b…
That’s about the most reckless and grotesque characterization of an airline pilot’s job I’ve ever heard. To say that a 787, or any other airliner, can fly “unaided” and that pilots are on hand to “babysit the autopilot” isn’t just hyperbole or a poetic stretch of the facts. It isn’t just a little bit false. And that a highly respected technology magazine wouldn’t know better, and would allow such a statement to be published, shows you just how pervasive this mythology is. Similarly, in an article in the New York Times not long ago, you would have read how Boeing pilots spend “just seven minutes” piloting their planes during a typical flight. Airbus pilots, the story continued, spend even less time at the controls.
Confident assertions like these appear in the media all the time, to the point where they’re taken for granted. Reporters, most of whom have limited background knowledge of the topic, have a bad habit of taking at face value the claims of researchers and academics who, valuable as their work may be, often have little sense of the day-to-day operational realities of commercial flying. Cue yet another aeronautics professor or university scientist who will blithely assert that yes, without a doubt, a pilotless future is just around the corner. Consequently, travelers have come to have a vastly exaggerated sense of the capabilities of present-day cockpit technology, and they greatly misunderstand how pilots interface with that technology.
I’d like to see a remotely operated plane perform a high-speed takeoff abort after an engine failure, followed by a brake fire and the evacuation of 250 passengers. I would like to see one troubleshoot a pneumatic problem requiring a diversion over mountainous terrain. I’d like to see it thread through a storm front over the middle of the ocean. The idea of trying to handle any one of these, from a room thousands of miles away, is about the scariest thing I can hardly imagine. Hell, even the simple things. Flying is very organic — complex, fluid, always changing — and decision-making is constant and critical. On any given flight, there are innumerable contingencies, large and small, requiring the attention and visceral appraisal of the crew.
[1] http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am referring to a governor which would prevent cars from being capable of 10MPH even on empty roads. Actual in town speed limits would presumably be lower. Now, with our infrastructure that seems like a huge issue, but cites used to be built for walking and even small towns simply had vastly higher density. Watch this and suddenly those mentioned speed limits are completely reasonable. https://www.youtube.com/watch…
Indeed, the speed limits are completely reasonable if you don't want to remove people from the streets - but your suggestion seemed to be that people were near-immediately removed from the streets instead of limiting what cars can do at first. There were 30 years when cars were lawfully limited to 4mph in rural areas, so your "even on empty roads" point is moot.
Thus you get jaywalking as a crime, and justified many deaths as people breaking the law instead of the naritive that cars are insanely dangerous and should be banned. In theory cars could have been banned, but in practice their advocates had little trouble changing perceptions.
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've hit the nail on the head - audio recognition is quite poor after (a lot of) concerted effort over decades. Driving a car safely is significantly more difficult (and dangerous). That being said, Toyota's (and Subaru's) approach is the smart way forward - add sensors and capabilities that augment the human, but leave the human always responsible and in control. In order for a crash to happen, the human AND the m…
That being said, Toyota's (and Subaru's) approach is the smart way forward - add sensors and capabilities that augment the human, but leave the human always responsible and in control. In order for a crash to happen, the human AND the machine BOTH have to miss it. That's the approach we know won't work. That was Tesla's first-round autopilot, the self-crashing car. The one that would happily run into obstacles protru…
More like, if you are not a car on the left lane, then you are not. Bam, you got an accident.
Edit: Is the last video in the US? Is it normal for other drivers not to stop when they see an accident?
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#418- Palm's CEO Ed Colligan on the persistent rumors that Apple will be introducing a Apple phone in the near future (2006)
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's also called "Autopilot" which sets an extremely different tone and expectation than other driver-assistance/safety technologies.
> And it's also called "Autopilot" which sets an extremely different tone and expectation than other driver-assistance/safety technologies. Only to those not familiar with autopilot systems in aircraft. It's like the use of "hacker" - here on this site it still (probably) has most of it's original meaning. To the rest of the world it means a guy in a ski-mask with a russian/chinese accent who's after your bank accoun…
Isn’t that most people?
Re: Toyota Research Institute head says full autonomous driving is “not even close”
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
Planes are mostly automated. The pilots are involved for takeoff and landing or emergencies, but little else. All modern Airbus or Boeing planes are mostly flown with autopilot. The human component is still involved primarily for the "what if it breaks" case where the software isn't there today. A computer would likely have never considered putting a plane into the Hudson river, but that pilot saved a lot of people b…
I've heard the opposite. [1] You sound like you have some first-hand experience though, so I'd like to hear what you think of the below: That’s about the most reckless and grotesque characterization of an airline pilot’s job I’ve ever heard. To say that a 787, or any other airliner, can fly “unaided” and that pilots are on hand to “babysit the autopilot” isn’t just hyperbole or a poetic stretch of the facts. It isn’t…
Factually, autopilots are what actually fly the overwhelming flight hours in commercial aviation. The pilot takes off, gets to altitude, sets the heading with the assistance of tech like a VOR[1], sets the autopilot, and then just scans the instrument panels for the duration of the flight. They then take over for the approach and landing. I strongly doubt any commercial pilot would disagree with this (I've got several in my family, but am not one myself). The fact is that the number one cause of aircraft crashes is pilot error. So for the 1-5% where a human would indeed prevent a crash as mentioned in your article, over 50% [2] of the fatal crashes are in fact due to human error.
Regarding the last paragraph, I was the pilot on a mission over the Sinjar Mountain[3] range and had my altimeter go haywire and think I was at 20,000ft AGL (above ground level) when I was in fact more like 7500ft AGL. The troubleshooting for a remote plane is exactly the same as any IFR (instrument flight rating aka you can't see outside of the cockpit due to weather) rated plane when you have zero visibility. You trust your instincts and the sensors / instruments. I knew the altimeter was totally full of lies as the plane started descending below the tops of the mountains thereby killing my signal. So I set the camera to "nose" which means straight forward and when I regained communications, I managed to switch it to manual roll ("roll knobs as they call it") and did a turn left as hard as feasible to miss the tip of one of the mountains. Totally ignoring the altimeter, I flew it home with the aid of the camera to gauge rough altitude and safely landed the plane. Do they crash occasionally? Sure. However, none of these were designed with safety critical autopilot and that could certainly be developed with today's software and hardware. That pilot is arguing "computers can't replace me!!!", but in reality if they did, the majority of the crashes[1] that are fatal would not happen in the first place.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range