41–50 of 130 posts
The technology is impressive, but humans drive okay without LIDAR, radar, or GPS. Maybe some day self-driving cars can drive using only two small visible-light sensors located above and behind the steering wheel. It might just be an AI challenge to operate that way, and commercial systems will always employ advanced sensors for better safety. But I don't think true parity has been reached until they can drive like we…
Seriously?
Once legislation is updated to allow self-driving cars in most parts of the world, I wonder how profitable self-driving cars could be for Google. About 77 million cars were produced in 2010. With the appropriate licensing, a percentage of that could make a very nice profit. I should buy some Google stock :)
I don't see what Google's role is going to be, aside from pushing forward legislation for unknown reasons. The auto manufacturers don't need them for the technology and research... they've all had access to that for just as long. We'd have self-driving cars today if the public (and regulators) were ready for it. But they're not and aren't going to be overnight; what makes more sense is to gradually introduce the feat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You _would_ screw it up - but only that mirror. The systems are designed for safety - the car would likely stop.
But what about reflective objects? The roadway is covered with different degrees of weirdly-reflective surfaces. Surely those beams land in places where they shouldn't (on the mirrors), and surely the car doesn't stop every time.
That being said, laser range-finding works well on diffuse surfaces; this is because when diffuse surfaces reflect, they reflect the incoming light in a broad hemisphere (or cone) which sends the laser pulse out in many directions. Consequently, the surface to measure can be at a variety of angles and still be picked up by the LIDAR sensors (the sensor doesn't care about strength, only time-to-return)
So in terms of "weirdly reflective" surfaces out there, almost everything is diffuse enough for LIDAR to work well. Car hoods, carbon fiber, chrome wheel covers, etc. The only exception is glass, where generally lasers travel straight through and don't return to the sensors. So LIDAR actually detects "holes" in these situations, as if other cars were driving with no windshield an all their windows down.
So the only real risk would be a large plane of glass in the middle of the highway with completely normal road behind it. LIDAR would miss the glass, and the cameras would not be able to see it either. Most real drivers would fail at that too though :D
I wonder how long will it take till the price of something like this gets to reasonable levels. The lidar and other sensors probably won't get cheap anytime soon. Imagine the costs of Google having to drive through all the places first, mapping them. Then the massive insurance until its proven that self-driving cars are safer (and then it will probably get expensive again after a first accident) Perhaps it would make…
Not to speak like a party-pooper, but could someone potentially mess with this LIDAR system by aiming a very bright IR beam at the device, if not a matching laser itself? Bringing down the cost of the LIDAR will be one major task, the other will be making this untouchable in the environment, IMO.
Everything Google does feeds back, somehow, to data mining. How does self-driving cars fit in to Google's plans? ETA: Downvoted for asking a serious question? WTH?
What do you think a bunch of people in self driving cars with smartphones or personal wifi hotspots are going to do? Surf the internet, and therefore use more of Google's products. It's similar to Chrome or Android in that it enables more people to use Google's core services which they make money off of.
The technology is impressive, but humans drive okay without LIDAR, radar, or GPS. Maybe some day self-driving cars can drive using only two small visible-light sensors located above and behind the steering wheel. It might just be an AI challenge to operate that way, and commercial systems will always employ advanced sensors for better safety. But I don't think true parity has been reached until they can drive like we…
The problem is not the AI (driving is relatively simple), but the sensors. Cameras are bad vs. our eyes.
Sure our eyes have great resolution and batteries-included depth perception, but they can't see around 360 degrees around the car at 15 fps. Pros & cons
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what about reflective objects? The roadway is covered with different degrees of weirdly-reflective surfaces. Surely those beams land in places where they shouldn't (on the mirrors), and surely the car doesn't stop every time.
LIDAR works _through_ reflections. It essentially paints out the surrounding area with laser pulses and then measures the time for those pulses to come back. Since lasers travel at the speed of light, this time-to-return is quite small and hence they need quite accurate clocks (which is where a lot of the expense comes in). That being said, laser range-finding works well on diffuse surfaces; this is because when diff…
So surely the automated car, when it sees data it does not expect, does not stop, because it must see data it does not expect often through multiple bounces, right?
Everything Google does feeds back, somehow, to data mining. How does self-driving cars fit in to Google's plans? ETA: Downvoted for asking a serious question? WTH?
You summon a self-driving taxi to take you to Bob's Bistro--known throughout the city for its steaks, and your call is serviced by a car using Google self-driving software. Google knows who you are and knows where you are going.
The car's route planner determines that there is a route that is within 10% of optimal that takes the car past Sam's Steakhouse, and Sam is currently paying for a Google ad campaign targeted at self-driving passengers. The car takes you past Sam's where Sam has a hard-to-miss sign touting reviews that say his steaks are better than Bob's.
Google is clever so the car might even time this so that you'll hit a red light in front of Sam's to give you a better chance of seeing Sam's sign. If the sign is electronic the message you see comparing Sam's to Bob's might even be specifically targeted at you. A moment later when the next cab goes by, carrying a passenger to Carl's Crab Shack, that sign might have a message touting Sam's amazing surf'n'turf compared to Carl's.
Right now, you go to Google when you want to drive more traffic to your website. With self-driving vehicles, you'll go to Google when you want to drive more traffic to your brick and mortar site.
Does anyone know what languages are used to build the software brains for the car? I haven't found any information on the actual software architecture, more on the hardware.
It is normal for pedestrians to look for eye contact in order to know if a driver will yield the right of way or simply will accelerate and pass (in light less crosswalks). In dense pedestrian cities (I am from Spain) it is very usual to have some guessing and false start stop between the pedestrian and the driver, nobody seems to know who is going to yield finally. I wonder if this is been thought and how you'll sig…
My experience in Spain is that drivers won't yield unless the alternative is hitting you! In that regard not much will change with self driving cars.
I really would prefer to face the google.Canadian version rather the google.Paris or google.Rome tuned examples