License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#2> 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 into devoting attention elsewhere and unable to take quick control in an emergency.
I think this is a really good perspective. Considering how often drivers are already doing things like using smartphones behind the wheel of non-self-driving cars, I think that sort of activity is only magnified by partial autonomy - which is very dangerous! Humans get distracted or bored easily, especially when completing routine tasks. I'm glad that Google is choosing to build a car that never needs human intervention rather than rushing to market with a partial solution.
Here's a video where you can see what distracted teen drivers look like. Terrifying. http://youtu.be/SDWmwxQ_NnY
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#3> 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…
On the one hand, they're of course correct. As with automation generally (whether cars, airplanes, or software deployment), once you get to a certain level of automation, you pretty much have to be all in because humans can't act quickly enough or with enough throughput.
On the other hand, it's easy to see why auto manufacturers and others are disinterested in an all-or-nothing goal that is likely to be decades away. Because they want incremental features they can sell in the interim.
Of course, their challenge is around what incremental approaches work given that humans will not pay attention once you reach a certain level of automation. Perhaps you enable full automation only under scenarios where it works reliably--say freeways in certain weather conditions--and is legally allowed under those circumstances. (Though I suspect the first step is that people will use "autopilots" and go ahead and play with their phones--even though they're not supposed to--given that many already do that today.)
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#4I asked this before: If they need to log many hours of driving and various conditions - why cant they hook the brain of the car up to playing videogames like GTAV and EU truck simulator etc... and have it play thousands and thousands of hours of the game without killing any pedestrians or getting any tickets
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#5I asked this before: If they need to log many hours of driving and various conditions - why cant they hook the brain of the car up to playing videogames like GTAV and EU truck simulator etc... and have it play thousands and thousands of hours of the game without killing any pedestrians or getting any tickets
Something tells me you didn't read the article:
> At the end of the shift, the entire log is sent off to an independent triage team, which runs simulations to see what would have happened had the car continued autonomously. In fact, even though Google’s cars have autonomously driven more than 1.3 million miles—routinely logging 10,000 to 15,000 more every week — they have been tested many times more in software, where it’s possible to model 3 million miles of driving in a single day.
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#6> 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 concur. Here's a comment I made on another thread about self-driving cars, and my experience with even rudimentary assistance features on my 2016 VW (coming from a car with no such features whatsoever):
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#7I asked this before: If they need to log many hours of driving and various conditions - why cant they hook the brain of the car up to playing videogames like GTAV and EU truck simulator etc... and have it play thousands and thousands of hours of the game without killing any pedestrians or getting any tickets
Something tells me you didn't read the article: > At the end of the shift, the entire log is sent off to an independent triage team, which runs simulations to see what would have happened had the car continued autonomously. In fact, even though Google’s cars have autonomously driven more than 1.3 million miles—routinely logging 10,000 to 15,000 more every week — they have been tested many times more in software, wher…
Thanks - I hadnt completely finished the article. :)
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#8Google 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.
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#9Google 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.
AFAIK, pretty much everyone is. That's really been the big shift over the past few years that's allowed for fairly impressive autopilot levels without AIs having to "understand" and parse the world to nearly the degree people do. Presumably vehicles connected to the system will be able to contribute to updates but maintaining current, high resolution maps across a wide area will certainly be a challenge. It's not unreasonable to think that the government could play some role as well as it does for marine navigation.
Re: License to not drive: Google’s autonomous car testing center
#10In 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.