31–40 of 58 posts
This is just blog spam regurgitation of the only slightly longer (but at least actually original research) Technology Review article from a few days ago: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles...
The real question is whether Google's self-driving car is better (it doesn't have to be perfect) than humans in heavy rain (humans also have difficulties in heavy rain).
If a human has bad driving habits you can fine him or revoke his driving license without impacting the rest of the drivers. A bug is a self driving software would require to stop all the self driving cars at the same time. Obviously, that would be a problem.
Bad drivers only drive one car at a time and thus they have limited potential impact. Again, a bug in the deployed driving software would impact many more cars, with consequences multiplied by the number of cars. This could have disastrous human consequences, thus more care must be taken.
Finally, human are legally responsible, if something bad happen they can compensate for the damage caused. This is unclear who would be responsible in case of self driving cars.
The key question is what competitors have as technology. I don't know about the Japanese manufacturers, but in Germany Audi and VW have been heavily working on self-driving and assistive technology for the last decade and only incorporated communication technology at a later point (I was working at Vodafone R&D then and our team participated in joint tests starting six years ago). It is safe to assume that Google's a…
The real question is whether Google's self-driving car is better (it doesn't have to be perfect) than humans in heavy rain (humans also have difficulties in heavy rain).
That was an argument made in the "Humans need not apply" video. The question I care about is whether Google's self-driving car is better than me in heavy rain. Not all humans drive equally. I think Google's self driving car might be better for some people more than it is for others.
And, really, you want other drivers to be better so Google's cars probably are what you want.
All self-driving technology I am aware of is based on visual input (cameras, lasers, etc.). I'm not sure self-driving cars can get as good as human drivers without any audio input. Noises are an extremely important source of information, especially in critical situations. I guess that a startup focusing on converting audio input into 3D-data (e.g. "truck approaching from behind") could become very valuable.
What are examples of situations in which audio input provides relevant information that 360 degree video input doesn't? Humans rely on hearing because our visual arc is only about ~120 degrees.
Yes, the 360 would see the truck, but it won't notice the honking so it can not be aware that the truck is trying to "tell" it something.
The real question is whether Google's self-driving car is better (it doesn't have to be perfect) than humans in heavy rain (humans also have difficulties in heavy rain).
True, but self driving cars have to be much better drivers than the average human for multiple reasons. If a human has bad driving habits you can fine him or revoke his driving license without impacting the rest of the drivers. A bug is a self driving software would require to stop all the self driving cars at the same time. Obviously, that would be a problem. Bad drivers only drive one car at a time and thus they ha…
Would it be possible for someone to just address the complaints in the article? "While Google's fleet has safely driven more than 700,000 miles, the autonomous model relies so heavily on maps and detailed data that it can't yet drive itself in 99 percent of the country, according to an MIT Technology Review report."
All self-driving technology I am aware of is based on visual input (cameras, lasers, etc.). I'm not sure self-driving cars can get as good as human drivers without any audio input. Noises are an extremely important source of information, especially in critical situations. I guess that a startup focusing on converting audio input into 3D-data (e.g. "truck approaching from behind") could become very valuable.
What are examples of situations in which audio input provides relevant information that 360 degree video input doesn't? Humans rely on hearing because our visual arc is only about ~120 degrees.
How do you tell an autonomous car exactly where to park or at what exact spot in a parking lot to pick up a friend without a steering wheel?