A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups • Hacker News Board

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#51

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

vladislav wrote: post #42

The DARPA grand challenges were an important step for autonomy, by demonstrating basic capabilities and bringing attention and industry funding to the field, but overhyping the expertise gained there may have held the field back over the years. The hardest part of building a self-driving car has proven to be robust perception (processing sensor data to create a very accurate representation of the dynamic environment)…

I think this graph from the article supports its thesis pretty well: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iUXzVqS5lbv...

And that thesis is not, obviously, that the most important problems, or even any problems, were solved by the DARPA challenges.

> Building robust perception is a hard AI problem,

Oh, I predict, now and here, that something like the following will be posted to HN in 2025 at the latest: "Yes, it's great that my Tesla Model Z lets me browse the internet while commuting, But lets not pretend that this is AI. It's just basic statistics. Also, I really like cozy warmth of Tesla's new line of coal-powered vehicles."

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#52

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

It 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…

You might enjoy the "tiny house" idea that's been trending for a while: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tiny+house

There are also various initiatives and competitions in the "sustainable living" space that fit the bill, such as https://www.solardecathlon.gov

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#53

Post by EGreg » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 8:54 PM UTC

aresant wrote: post #28

Keeping up with Darpa's challenges is a good way to see into the future a couple of their current projects: 1) A machine-learning competition to overcome scarcity in the radio frequency which is INSANELY fascinating and, if they pull it off, hugely impactful -> https://spectrumcollaborationchallenge.com 2) A program to build technology to drive “swarm sprint” exercises to inform tactics and technologies for large gro…

Anyone here in NYC that wants to meet up?

Any cool hacket events here?

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#54

Post by hnaccy » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 8:55 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

vkou wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people.

> The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people One can go to the dawn of self-driving cars, the Internet, really any potentially game-changing technology, and throw this out. It's an inconsequential assertion that provokes no follow-on thought. Just emotion. Graduating this seed from FUD to a chain of critical thought involves asking…

Anyone who thinks deeply on the ramifications of the computer and related technology should come to the conclusion that they will inevitably lead to the destruction of individual liberty and total subjugation or annihilation of a significant portion of humanity.

This is not gunpowder, the printing press, or the cotton gin and to compare them you're either naive or being disingenuous.

There is little hope for us to deviate from this path barring significant technological regression due to cataclysmic events or mass enlightenment of the human character. The former is a problem in and of itself and the latter is comically unlikely.

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#55

Post by ptero » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #43

ptero wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

What you describe has nothing to do with jet versus prop, it's just big versus small. Small planes can land in small, unprepared fields, which are common in many parts of the world, whereas large planes can't. You could make a small jet-powered Cessna that would be just as capable of landing in such small places, while offering more safety due to better reliability of the engine. And an airliner-sized prop plane woul…

Sure, big vs small is a better way to slice it. In fact fast vs slow is likely a better distinction still. But jets are more practical for fast(er) planes.

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#56

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

terravion wrote: post #30

ptero wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#57

Post by 659087 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

Always-connected self-driving vehicles in many ways seem like something that would be a dream come true for the government and intelligence/law enforcement agencies (not to mention the advertising companies currently developing some of those vehicles).

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#58

Post by vlehto » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

vkou wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people.

> The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people One can go to the dawn of self-driving cars, the Internet, really any potentially game-changing technology, and throw this out. It's an inconsequential assertion that provokes no follow-on thought. Just emotion. Graduating this seed from FUD to a chain of critical thought involves asking…

Anything that increases the destructive capacity of armed forces while lowering the manpower requirements is going to make it easier for politicians to misuse those armed forces.

Most obvious example would be the Vietnam disaster. It was eventually shut down because of "bring our boys home". Not because of international reputation, human rights violations or the capability to win or lose the war.

Another example would be how Germany used mechanized forces and air power in the start of WWII as force multipliers. Without sophisticated war machines, attacking France and Great Britain would have been suicidal. Simply because they combined matched German population.

The best bet to mitigate such technology? In those examples it was probably MANPAD that killed helicopter cavalry after Vietnam war. And evolutionary steps of Bazooka helped to keep west Europe from soviet tank invasion during cold war. Those specific inventions increased the manpower requirement while adding relatively small and very specific firepower advantage.

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#59

Post by xapata » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #47

aresant wrote: post #28

Keeping up with Darpa's challenges is a good way to see into the future a couple of their current projects: 1) A machine-learning competition to overcome scarcity in the radio frequency which is INSANELY fascinating and, if they pull it off, hugely impactful -> https://spectrumcollaborationchallenge.com 2) A program to build technology to drive “swarm sprint” exercises to inform tactics and technologies for large gro…

The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people.

Nearly all technology can/will be used for that purpose. I think swarm AI is likely to help people more than it will harm. It's a critical step in big tasks like terraforming Mars.

Re: A Pentagon-funded contest spawned many of today’s self-driving startups

#60

Post by browep » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #49

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technologies that will be developed in #2 will be absolutely, unquestionably used by governments to repress their own people One can go to the dawn of self-driving cars, the Internet, really any potentially game-changing technology, and throw this out. It's an inconsequential assertion that provokes no follow-on thought. Just emotion. Graduating this seed from FUD to a chain of critical thought involves asking…

Every technology has a spectrum of usefulness, between applications that make people's lives better, and worse. It's not FUD to point out that a particular technology will be primarily used for the latter. We generally don't hold people responsible for direct effects of their work. Working on drones that will kill people for the military is a direct effect. 'Game-changing potential', whatever that means for this kind…

sorta.

the same arguments against the drone fleet is the same against the atomic bomb. What something is designed for (death in both cases) is not always their effect. For example, the atomic bombs were used to incredible devastation and death when used but it could be argued they prevented the next war with Russia since a war between two nuclear powers meant total destruction on both sides.

I'll venture into prediction here. Do you think a regional warlord or rogue state ( ISIS or whatever comes after it ) would enter a conflict with another state that was backed by the US? They might, knowing that the US would be unlikely to do more than give airstrike and strategic support. But what if the US had a drone army/fleet that could do close air-support, block to block firefighting, differentiate combatants and non-combatants? It could mean a tougher fight for a group like that since little but money is risked on the side of the US.