11–20 of 23 posts
Google is betting on a system that depends really heavily on detailed mapping. I'd love to know their plan for determining when the map is out of date, because of road construction or whatever. That seems like the hardest part of the whole thing to maintain long-term.
In light of all the IoT bugs we've been hearing about, it's really nice to hear that they are being super cautious about development here. I hope they keep the same level of caution (or increase it) as they get close to market. My biggest worry here is that as the different car companies get close to market on SDCs, there will be more pressure on each to hurry.
> For some time, Google has been convinced that the semiautonomous systems that others champion (which include various features like collision prevention, self-parking, and lane control on highways) are actually more dangerous than the so-called Level Four degree of control, where the car needs no human intervention. The company is convinced that with cars that almost but don’t drive themselves, humans will be lulled…
> For some time, Google has been convinced that the semiautonomous systems that others champion (which include various features like collision prevention, self-parking, and lane control on highways) are actually more dangerous than the so-called Level Four degree of control, where the car needs no human intervention. The company is convinced that with cars that almost but don’t drive themselves, humans will be lulled…
I've seen discussion of this issue in the domain of pilots with commercial airlines. The suggestion was made that because so much of flying is now done by autopilot, pilots' ability to react quickly and appropriately in a real emergency when control is handed back to them has significantly declined. And that we may soon go to completely pilotless airliners which are taken over by ground control in case of emergency.…
In light of all the IoT bugs we've been hearing about, it's really nice to hear that they are being super cautious about development here. I hope they keep the same level of caution (or increase it) as they get close to market. My biggest worry here is that as the different car companies get close to market on SDCs, there will be more pressure on each to hurry.
My biggest worry is that Tesla's half-baked almost-self-driving-but-not-really will hurt someone and cause reactionary anti-self-driving-car laws.
Cruise (YC 14) is just scary. They still have that advertising video online [2] that totally oversells what they can do. All they have is lane-keeping and smart cruise control, like the other entry level systems. It's automatic driving from the "move fast and break things" crowd; they're from web and app startups.
Google is being cautious and testing heavily. But they're spending enough money to test fast, with many cars on the test track. That's the auto industry way of doing things. It takes money, but not decades, to get it right.
The CEO of Volvo has the liability issue right - when in autodrive, the manufacturer is responsible. If you can't accept that, you shouldn't be doing this.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-autopilot-fail-video... [2] http://www.getcruise.com/
Google is betting on a system that depends really heavily on detailed mapping. I'd love to know their plan for determining when the map is out of date, because of road construction or whatever. That seems like the hardest part of the whole thing to maintain long-term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My biggest worry is that Tesla's half-baked almost-self-driving-but-not-really will hurt someone and cause reactionary anti-self-driving-car laws.
Tesla is worrisome, but they backed off some on the automation. Everybody else who has Tesla-level autodrive (NHTSB level 2, or lane keeping plus radar cruise control) has sensors to make sure the driver has hands on the wheel, or is at least in the seat and looking forward. Tesla didn't put that in. Hence those scary Youtube videos.[1] Cruise (YC 14) is just scary. They still have that advertising video online [2] t…
> For some time, Google has been convinced that the semiautonomous systems that others champion (which include various features like collision prevention, self-parking, and lane control on highways) are actually more dangerous than the so-called Level Four degree of control, where the car needs no human intervention. The company is convinced that with cars that almost but don’t drive themselves, humans will be lulled…
I've seen discussion of this issue in the domain of pilots with commercial airlines. The suggestion was made that because so much of flying is now done by autopilot, pilots' ability to react quickly and appropriately in a real emergency when control is handed back to them has significantly declined. And that we may soon go to completely pilotless airliners which are taken over by ground control in case of emergency.…
In light of all the IoT bugs we've been hearing about, it's really nice to hear that they are being super cautious about development here. I hope they keep the same level of caution (or increase it) as they get close to market. My biggest worry here is that as the different car companies get close to market on SDCs, there will be more pressure on each to hurry.
My biggest worry is that Tesla's half-baked almost-self-driving-but-not-really will hurt someone and cause reactionary anti-self-driving-car laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen discussion of this issue in the domain of pilots with commercial airlines. The suggestion was made that because so much of flying is now done by autopilot, pilots' ability to react quickly and appropriately in a real emergency when control is handed back to them has significantly declined. And that we may soon go to completely pilotless airliners which are taken over by ground control in case of emergency.…
How does this reduce the risk of hijacking? An attacker would just hijack ground control instead.