591–600 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry no. Cars kill thousands of people every year, and will continue to do so. Car companies are doing just fine. Power companies literally kill millions every year, a-ok. McDonalds, Coca Cola ? ditto.
Drivers kill, not the cars. That's totally different from an autonomous car killing someone. Humans make mistakes. That's different from a defective product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between "trying to deal with" and "product on sale next month". These cars are overhyped. They've been just around the corner for the last 10 years. They are the Duke Nukem Forever of Silicon Valley.
If you use autonomous miles driven as a metric, there is actual progress happening. That metric is increasing exponentially btw. This tells you nothing about time to market, but it does tell you that the time to market is a definite (but maybe unknowable number). In contrast, fission reactors have been around the corner for a long time, however, there if you use the metric of net power generated from fission as a met…
https://www.google.com/search?q=fusion+progress&source=lnms&...
I would encourage humility when considering whether to make a claim about a field that you are not well informed of. Real progress is being made, by a number of different groups, in a number of different directions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of that will be best solved by making a lot of other actors communicate directly with the car. Traffic lights will send out the same messages they send to humans by red/green lights to the cars using radio. Emergency vehicles, roadworks, traffic signs etc will do the same. Or so I assume, because it makes so much of sense. I know there is vehicle-to-vehicle communication in the works: https://en.wikipedia.org/w…
Yes, I think you're right. We'd need to update a lot of our infrastructure to make it friendlier for these cars. I should also add: - very fast mobile data, with no blackspots, so a remote driver can take over a car that's confused by a situation - a replacement for GPS, it's not reliable enough, the signal is far too weak - digital signal beacons embedded in lane markings, and edges of the road, and on traffic cones…
The remote takeover seems entirely separate, and both promising and terrifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's safe to assume folks at these companies are aware of these issues. But if I'm going to risk my life by using one of these systems, I'd want to have good answers to how they have solved them. Until then, I think it's fair to keep asking to avoid unrealistic hype.
It only needs to be a better driver than you for you to be safer, and its that already. I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout between you and the software you will loose 98% of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also: Private car ownership is going to fall off a cliff shortly after autonomous ride services arrive. Which probably means general demand for vehicles will fall off a cliff. Or, if everyone has a self-driving car of their own (or one that can be converted to self-driving), people will rent out their cars AirBnB-style when they aren't using them. I mean, why not? You've already got a garage, a driveway, etc. Might…
Not going to happen, or if it does it won't last. The so-called sharing economy has mostly just devolved to low-barriers-to-entry entrepreneurship. AirBnB listings start off with ordinary joes renting out their spare bedrooms, but they got crowded out in a few years by businessmen providing real services, and consumers follow. Uber drivers at first were mostly just driving in their spare time, but over the years the…
Is that crowding out supported by any data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also: Private car ownership is going to fall off a cliff shortly after autonomous ride services arrive. Which probably means general demand for vehicles will fall off a cliff. I've seen this sentiment so many times now that I have to ask a serious question to anyone who echoes this sentiment: Do you own a personal car right now? If so, why? All of this... excitement over the transformations that self-driving vehicl…
I have to agree with you skepticism. Let's e.g. replace "car" with "apartment". Imagine an apartment where you pay a premium to have all the cooking, cleaning and maintenance done for you. This obviously exists today, yet >99% of people don't use it. I believe people like owning things, and using them to do stuff. This is a basic fact of being human. Probably goes right back to the stone age. I doubt autonomous cars…
The idea is that a subscription car service is likely to be significantly cheaper than owning your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a crazy business idea: You know how a person nowadays can register for uber and drive people around? In the future, maybe people will register their CAR (which can drive itself). So they sit at home, getting work done, while their car is off autonomously driving itself and picking people up. When you want it to come home, just call it home.
Literally pimping your ride
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will they stop when they see a ball fly across the street, because a child may be chasing it. Fringe cases will determine their success. Until then, it will be glorified cruise control.
Do all humans stop when they see a ball? Of course not. Some of them miss it, some of them ignore it, some of them don't make the connection. The problem is people expect self-driving cars to be perfect on day one. They won't be. But they are already safer than humans driving.
Safe driving is one of the most complex things done by people. If tech companies are good enough to solve that, there many things more profitable and easier to solve.
I beleive it will be more realistic for them to develop seprate and exclusive infa for these vechiles. We can then plan rest of the things around that infra.
Integrating self driving cars into current infra will require a true AI or something closer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's safe to assume folks at these companies are aware of these issues. But if I'm going to risk my life by using one of these systems, I'd want to have good answers to how they have solved them. Until then, I think it's fair to keep asking to avoid unrealistic hype.
It only needs to be a better driver than you for you to be safer, and its that already. I can guarantee you that on a one to one driving skills shootout between you and the software you will loose 98% of the time.
Does it drive better than me driving while being supervised continuously by a computer? I still make the important decisions, and my mistakes are pointed out by the computer.
The competition for self driving cars are not humans, but humans being adviced by driver assistance programmes
What is it about car hardware+software that gives people confidence that the operating system / some core process won't crash or reboot in the middle of a turn or brake? I'm not familiar with the architecture of "mission critical" systems which I assume would be similar to what they use in these cars.