Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen' • Hacker News Board

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#781

Post by bpfrh » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #778

bpfrh wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but couldn't you also simply disconnect the beacons with a wirecutter? I mean, every technical system can be shutdown and will shutdown sometimes, isn't that a inherent weakness of such a system? if that beacon does not respond disable automation for that part?

Sure, but I was thinking about temporary disabling (like a temporary, reversible DoS). If you can temporarily disable something, it is more difficult to find the culprit, and the impact is higher because of the surprise element. If something is permanently disabled, you fix it right away. Just like bullying: bullying itself is annoying, but what I found annoying is the inconsistency of it. At some point, my bullies w…

Ahh, yes that would be a problem.

On the other hand, wouldn't a ddos be visible in the logs?

Logs should be checked centrally anyway, so a 30 second flood of messages should be visible.

But in the end, you are right that it will be hard to do this the right way.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#782

Post by jcranmer » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #734

gsnedders wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hence the significantly bigger gaps between consecutive trains compared to the gap between consecutive cars or trucks A lot of this is because railway signalling operates on a brick-wall principal: it is constantly assumed the vehicle in front could come to a dead halt instantaneously, whereas most road situations assume if you can match the braking performance of the vehicle in front with some margin. The railway…

But that not just some weird quirk railroad engineering clings to because Musk has not disrupted them yet, it's a consequence of braking performance. Drivers feel safe to attempt brake matching (they fail often enough) because road code assumes that you never go fast enough to make stopping distance exceed visual range. Even if that rule is routinely broken the brake-match distance stays comfortably within visual ran…

> In rail, everything happening within visual range is basically too late to even bother

Not really. EMU passenger trains, such as subway trains, do have good acceleration times--good enough that it's limited by passenger comfort, not by physical hardware. This limit is about 1 m/s², with emergency brake conditions reaching 3 m/s² (note that the latter does imply several passengers are going to be nursing injuries--there's no seat belts after all). That's roughly comparable to typical passenger vehicles.

Freight trains have much longer braking distances, but that's a factor of 10,000 tons moving at 50mph has an insane momentum combined with relatively few axles being able to contribute to stopping force.

The main reason you need large distances between trains: switches. To control where a train goes requires moving a physical piece of infrastructure at the switch. You can't move the switch until the previous train clears it, and you don't want to let the subsequent train reserve a path over it until it switches into a new position--if the switch gets stuck in the middle, the train derails instead (or worse). The "brick-wall" principal follows from this situation.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#783

Post by cglace » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

TwoBit wrote: post #573

aetherson wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you destroy a yield sign, maybe it will eventually cause some problems, or maybe not. We could imagine a world in which destroying smart infrastructure could pretty instantaneously and reliably cause massive traffic jams, which seems like it would appeal more to certain trolls and perhaps protestors. We could also imagine a world in which more subtle attacks could reliably and fairly quickly cause injury/fatality…

If you destroy a yield sign, the system will immediately know because all the cars previously recorded it.

So what happens when a road sign legitimately changes? Does the system use the previous values recorded or the new value?

Im also curious how situations will be handled where there are two speed signs: the regular posted speed and a temporary speed for construction. How does it know which to obey.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#784

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

the-pigeon wrote: post #410

est31 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but if the system is designed in the wrong way, hackers could kill millions in a single moment. Admittedly, this danger already exists as in all modern cars between driver and car there is a layer of (hackable and wireless network connected) software.

Hackers could hijack a missile and kill a lot of people too. This is why we have security. And honestly modern cars are so computerized already I think your argument applies to them as much as autonomous cars.

I am sorry, what? Which missile system can be hacked and launched remotely? This is a ridiculous claim.

Cars are already getting hacked. The whole point of the post is to highlight how car manufacturers have no concern or competence for security, is will be like the boeing scandal but much worse.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#785

Post by aantix » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

kohtatsu wrote: post #725

kohtatsu wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So presumably every self-driving vehicle is going to be constantly streaming all sorts of information in their purview to a central hub? That is a privacy nightmare without regulation on scrubbing extraneous information, done before upload: for example blocking out of pedestrian data; not just faces but clothing and gait, and probably also any data captured through windows. It would be ideal to have a limited view of…

Self-driving vehicles should be implemented with the same care Apple has given Touch ID and Face ID in regards to protecting sensitive data. Having a central database capable of being scraped and process to determine where any person is at any given time is a non-starter. Care needs to be taken to scrub all extraneous data from the fleet's network.

If I had to choose between privacy of my location or the convenience of a self driving car, I’d choose the car. Every single time.

Convenience wins out over privacy for me. It’s the same for the billions that elect to use Facebook. I don’t care if Tesla’s knows I visited the supermarket.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#786

Post by nojvek » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

It’s really hard to predict. I have sat in a Tesla, have a comma ai kit, seen tons of videos of Cruise, Zoox, Waymo, Voyage Taxis.

The space is incrementally improving. Lots of new ideas.

I’m very bullish on systems that improve human driving and slowly move to more and more autonomy than “replace humans”

Anyone claiming full self driving is around the corner is prolly lying. I have no idea when it will be here. The edge cases are enormous.

But self driving on selected city routes and highways in good weather is here.

I would say Highway lane following and distance keeping is already better than human.

We aren’t great at holding monotonous focus. Machines on the other hand excel at that. We do excel at edge cases though. Marrying the two seems like a good bet.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#787

Post by davewritescode » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

TwoBit wrote: post #573

aetherson wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you destroy a yield sign, maybe it will eventually cause some problems, or maybe not. We could imagine a world in which destroying smart infrastructure could pretty instantaneously and reliably cause massive traffic jams, which seems like it would appeal more to certain trolls and perhaps protestors. We could also imagine a world in which more subtle attacks could reliably and fairly quickly cause injury/fatality…

If you destroy a yield sign, the system will immediately know because all the cars previously recorded it.

Ideally we get to a point where we’re at least publishing signage to a database so that cars don’t have to rely on visual cues both human and automated.

I personally don’t think it’s possible to make automated cars work well without a ton of infrastructure support.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#788

Post by j-c-hewitt » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

cameronh90 wrote: post #545

einrealist wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am more fearful of trolls, tricking the technology. I doubt, that the software / hardware will have a common sense, like we humans have. Its this common sense that keeps us alive in unexpected scenarios, like when the paint on the road is missing.

What's stopping people from destroying yield signs and other safety critical road infrastructure now? Sometimes common sense helps, but it you're out to cause chaos, there's a ton of things you can do today that would cause crashes - but most of the time, people don't.

Nothing and it happens all the time. This is something that a human driver familiar with the road will notice and it will be unlikely to cause an accident. An out-of-towner might get into an accident. An automated vehicle would ideally not even be looking at signs and just operating from its stored data.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#789

Post by NicoJuicy » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

tripa wrote: post #276

mavhc wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point though, the Waymo car doesn't rely on gps, it's has HD maps on board. Plus is has dead reckoning because it's touching the ground, so it knows where it's moving.

Not sure I get your point. Having atom-resolution maps doesn't help a bit it you don't know where on it you are.

The first navigation devices didn't rely on GPS. I wouldn't be suprised if Waymo reintroduced this.

Re: Volkswagen exec admits full self-driving cars 'may never happen'

#790

Post by ryukafalz » Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

akrymski wrote: post #750

ryukafalz wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone lives in a major city though. Certainly self-driving cars are less efficient than buses for transport within a denser city, but go a few miles outside the city (at least in the US) and you’ll find yourself far from practical bus range. The situation may be different in Europe, but I think self-driving cars could be useful for navigating the sprawling American suburbs or less-dense cities. But yes, we sho…

There's no reason you can't have buses outside major cities - most EU countries do this fine. Self driving, self-recharging buses, that you can track and hail on-demand would be much more efficient than self driving cars. It means you may have to walk the last mile, but I can only see that as a benefit in a country where obesity is one of the biggest problems. People with disabilities or those living in extremely rem…

Maybe, provided they run 24/7 and have very good coverage. Europe has much higher population density than all but the most populous regions of the US, though. Perhaps self-driving buses could do an amazingly better job than our current transit infrastructure, but I'd have to see some really convincing estimates.

For some context here: it would take on average 1.5 hours for me to get to a friend's house by bus/train, when that's ordinarily about a 30 minute drive. That's highly variable too; if I miss one bus with a 1.5 hour route, there's another one a few minutes later, but that one would take 2 hours. If I didn't leave before 8pm for the return trip, I'd be stuck there until morning, as the buses stop running around then.

And Google Maps won't even give me transit directions to the venue for a friend's recent wedding, which I interpret as "don't even try."