27 years. The first famous "proof of concept" autonomous driving is Navlab (Thorpe, 1990). (Are there any prior projects?)
Good thread. What was the school affiliation?
A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
31–40 of 99 posts
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#3227 years. The first famous "proof of concept" autonomous driving is Navlab (Thorpe, 1990). (Are there any prior projects?)
1989, ALVINN, an autonomous land vehicle in a neural network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilP4aPDTBPE&t=32s
the paper, for those interested: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2874&c...
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
This analogy can't work in 21st century. First this is linear thinking, it does not take exponential progress into account. Second, in the case of Autonomous vehicles, the problem is purely software related and does not have any limitations in terms of hardware.
>does not have any limitations in terms of hardware. That seems a little strong. Lidar tech, for example, seems to still be a differentiator between competitors.
Good observation. Compounding progress in other sensors (high-resolution stereo cameras, GPS, radar/proximity) has also been important, but none more so than lidar. Also, increased on-board processing power for computer vision/machine learning. In the early 2000s we had nowhere near the onboard compute that we have now.
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#34It was 13 years from the Wright Flyer to the first commercial fixed-wing aircraft. And that was still very dangerous. Jet engines (which really introduced the safety we are used to in airlines) took 50 years.
[deleted]
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#35It was common lore in CS grad school that there were self driving cars, funded by DARPA, driving around the CMU campus back in the 90s. It was not as easy to look things up. I am glad this story is being told, but I'd love to know about the history and the early days.
There was one at CMU back in the 1980s, the NavLab. Autonomous vehicle with a crew of five. Three racks of workstations. Really, really slow.[1]
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#36It certainly seems to validate the strategy of "grand challenges" to focus research. One could argue that the X prize helped spawn today's commercial space companies. So does this mean a good way for benevolent billionaires to improve the world would be to sponsor things like this? Certainly Gate's sponsoring the toilets prize was influential in bringing out better sanitation ideas. I wonder if anyone would sponsor a…
>One could argue that the X prize helped spawn today's commercial space companies. That'd be a stretch. The Ansari X Prize led to a bunch of companies pursuing a goal with little commercial value and few designs with orbital aspirations. The winner led to a costly, dead-end design that has still yet to fly again for suborbital tourism, killed four people along the way, and will never service orbit. The rest of the co…
Agreed it is a stretch, but the argument would be that Virgin Galactic is exactly the follow-on to the rocket that won the x-prize and that Blue Origin's effort came out of their work to win the x-prize but didn't get it done in time.
That said, the challenge is a goal that, if accomplished, results in some foundation capability (like vehicle navigation in the 'real' world). I was hoping the robotics challenge that DARPA has been running would have similar benefits but those efforts don't seem nearly as applicable to everyday stuff.
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-Jet flight wasn't exactly a suicide run. A turboprop plane with dual engines was as safe as a jet, fixed for a number of factors. The larger benefit with jets is being able to fly much higher and faster and being able to hit the 30,000-35,000 sweet spot where the air is thinner, the plane is above storms, and jet fuel efficiency for typical planes is pretty good. The larger 'innovation' on the success of jets is…
Turboprops were developed after jets. But yeah there were other reasons planes got much safer after around the 1950s.
In fact, turboprop (and turboshaft which is the same thing, but for applications other than fixed-wing aircraft propulsion) is jet engine designed such that it produces mainly mechanical power instead of thrust.
Most commercial airliners use turbofans which are similar in that majority of their thrust does not come from the engine's jet exhaust.
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#38StartUp's most recent podcast episode is related:
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/grand-challenge-season-6-epi...
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#39It certainly seems to validate the strategy of "grand challenges" to focus research. One could argue that the X prize helped spawn today's commercial space companies. So does this mean a good way for benevolent billionaires to improve the world would be to sponsor things like this? Certainly Gate's sponsoring the toilets prize was influential in bringing out better sanitation ideas. I wonder if anyone would sponsor a…
Hasn’t this been validated for hundreds of years? The Story of Longitude is a great read. Harrison spent decades working on the problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book) The Spirit of St. Louis crossing the Atlantic was for a prize, and I believe an inspiration for the current X-Prize. I don’t think we need “grand challenges” but simply challenges, to help get us to successive breakthroughs. I’ve thro…
Capitalism is a huge motivator by itself. Come out ahead of the competition and reap the benefits, it's a permanent contest. It's not without its downsides (externalization) but it definitely seems to move the needle.
Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jet travel brings improved speed and comfort, not really improved safety. Prop planes, as a technology, are very safe. It is a lot easier to land a prop with a failed engine or another part -- due to is low speed one can land small props with a high chance of no injuries on unprepared surfaces such as grass fields. For jets, if you have a failed engine and no landing strip you are likely toast (although there are som…
It is very counter-intuitive, but speed increases safety in an aircraft type both as a function of hours and as a function of miles. This is an empirical fact that's true for both military and civilian aircraft, I was looking for the US Air Force chart on this, but couldn't seem to find it. Not to discount other factors, but the OP is correct that speed increases safety. Maybe someone with more Google skills can find…
Speed + altitude combine to give you options, options are what makes an in-flight issue survivable.