Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Grand Challenge 2005
fishdan wrote to mention that the Darpa Grand Challenge is getting underway again. The qualifying rounds started yesterday. National media has picked up on the story, with pieces at the Washington Post and Seattle Times. From the Post: "The autonomous robotic vehicles began competing Wednesday in the first of a series of qualifying rounds at the California Speedway. Half will advance to the Oct. 8 starting line of the so-called Grand Challenge. The grueling, weeklong semifinals are designed to test the vehicles' ability to cover a roughly 2-mile stretch of the track without a human driver or remote control. Participants ranging from souped-up SUVs to military behemoths will be graded on how well they can self-drive on rough road, make sharp turns and avoid obstacles _ hay bales, trash cans, wrecked cars _ while relying on GPS navigation and sensors, radar, lasers and cameras that feed information to computers."
than a soccer mom driving her only child in an SUV it's an SUV driving no one.
Argh.
I had a chance to see the Volkswagen / Stanford entry while getting my VW serviced. That cart is pretty cool. There's a rack and a half worth of gear in the back and the shift knob has been modified to allow a robot arm to be attached. The engine is a 5 cylinder TDI and the VIN says it's a factory prototype. I heard that when the challenge is over the car will have to be destroyed since it certainly isn't US legal. And in a parody of the "Drivers Wanted" slogan it says "No Driver Required" on the side. :-) Seeing it in person certainly made waiting for my oil change fun.
On a side note...I wish they'd let more diesel cars in the country. The chase car is another Touraeg but this one is a Canadian V10 TDI. It has something like 500 lb-ft of torque but gets about the same highway mileage as my small VW does.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
This will be a MUCH more interesting contest if the teams do better than the last time around. (the best team only got 7 miles out of 175 total.) Granted, even that is impressive given the circumstances.
I wish the best of luck to all of those competing.
I for one am very happy to see this technology advancing. It's not gonna take much intelligence to make an autonomous driver better than most human drivers.
End transmission.
Only in the USA could it say FROM souped-up SUVs :-)
Here in the UK it would probably be FROM a bunch of lego bricks and a clockwork motor UP TO a Sinclair C5 (or possibly an Austin Mini with an Aibo gaffa-taped in)...
The software and use of sensors, as well as the sensors themselves are being driven to places that they probably wouldn't have gone if not for this contest. Sure, the 2 million dollars is a big-ish prize, but bragging rights are bigger.
I've seen some hobby roboticists building smaller robots for a scaled down version of this that are just amazing. Even on smaller scales, this is pushing technology. The good part? Much of the hobby stuff is pretty much shared in an OSS kind of way. That means that the technology behind all this will not belong entireley to the military, and will soon find its way into our vehicles and homes.... THAT is very cool!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I read the reports once in a while: The winners, or close-to-finishers, are huge SUVs filled with computers and special-purpose sensory equipment. What this tells me is that today's computer technology still has trouble, in many cubic feet of space, and with practically unlimited electrical power, to find realtime solutions for a problem that even severely IQ handicapped humans handle routinely while balancing a McMeal on their knees and keeping up a cell phone conversation. I would wager that, with a fair amount of training and suitable controls, even a dog could handle the task. So...
Did AI research implode for lack of funding, or is it really that hard? Will we need Cray-like computing power to handle the sensory input quickly enough to work a steering wheel, brake and gas pedal? Or has this problem simply never been tackled by sufficiently big money? And, given the obvious military implications and a $400 Billion military budget alone, why not?
All these questions are quite serious, and I'd be interested in hearing answers.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
My money is on the team that spent all of their money on identical twin spokesmodels
Yes I know, shamelessy stolen from Cruel.
If you could be anything you want, I'll bet you'd be disappointed.
FYI there is a 5min introductory video clip of the the MITRE entry here:
http://www.mitre.org/tech/meteor/
I saw it a few months ago doing it's thing around the
parking lot. It will be interesting to see how they
do on a live course.
I know my money is on Austin Robot Technology. Vehicle "(Not Available)" sounds like it'll be a real winner. lol!
-robyn
Did AI research implode for lack of funding, or is it really that hard?
None of the competitors are doing true AI. They are not using learning systems as far as I know. This is just good old fashioned programming where the designers/programmers try to think of all possibilities in advance. I don't see how this contest is advancing our understanding of intelligence. I think that the qualifying rules should have been more stringent and should have prohibited non-learning systems. Otherwise it's the same old traditional stuff.
Has any of the contestents overcome the obstacle of negative space (i.e. a cliff, a sudden drop, a crater)?
Its easier to detect something that is there like a bale of hay by radar, but what about something that isn't there (isn't an object sticking out of the ground, in y+ axis)? If not, I can see alot of Wile E. Coyote incidents with these cars flying off cliffs.
(**poof**)
~ slashdot.org - Where some of the world's greatest minds come together to scrutinize grammar.
I can think of no reason at all. Hell, most "Science and Technology Museums" would love to have a car like that as an exhibit! And, last I heard, jet engines and a cruising speed of 716 mph wasn't street-legal anywhere, but the Thrust-SSC team didn't put their car through the trash compactor.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I for one am very happy to see this technology advancing. It's not gonna take much intelligence to make an autonomous driver better than most human drivers.
The benefits of having cars that drive themselves will be enormous. First, these cars can be programmed to drive in a manner that conserves gasoline (e.g., no jack-rabbit starts, limit speeds to 55 mph, time their accelerations between stoplights so they don't have to come to a complete stop at every one). Second, cars that drive themselves in a rational manner -- instead of the emotional, irrational manner that people drive them -- can significantly reduce traffic jams. There is an insightful analysis of traffic jams at this page which explains that jams are larely the result of people not letting other people merge into their lane coupled with the relatively-slow reaction time of humans. Cars that can synchronize their motion in relation to nearby traffic could make traffic jams a thing of the past.
Not to mention that if the car drives itself, I can read slashdot on the commute home (or watch Natalie Portman movies).
GMD
watch this
Remember the famouse automaton Mephisto from the 19th century that claimed to be a chess playing robot.h tml
http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBChess/automaton.
I think I could hide a midget inside an SUV with enough computer looking doohickies to make a cool $2mill.
And, last I heard, jet engines and a cruising speed of 716 mph wasn't street-legal anywhere
Not even in German Autobahns?
*Sigh*
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
In comparison, the world's fastest supercomputer (BlueGene/L) is rated at a maximum of 183,500 gigaflots, which is about 0.2 peta flops, or one fiftieth of the maximum speed of the human brain.
Now, you don't NEED the full processing power of the human brain in order to drive. That's not my point. My point is that a car-load of computer parts, at the current level of technology, is probably going to drive about as well as a Horseshoe Crab. I'm actually very impressed that developers have actually got as far as they have, as they're very unlikely to be using state-of-the-art technology for this, most are probably using pile-of-PC architectures, not much more than some webcams for vision and basic motors for the robot linkage, most likely continuous for power - steppers have vastly superior accuracy but have no force behind them.
You also have to look at the power cleaning systems they need - car batteries are NOT smooth and car electrical systems are typically pretty rough. On the other hand, computers need power that is spike-free and ADCs (analog-to-digital converters) rely on a steady reference voltage to be able to do anything useful. A noisy power system would be Bad News for a self-operating vehicle. Oh, and computers don't do well when hot, but air conditioning units - particularly if they switch on and off - are going to add some serious noise to the power.
Whoever builds a car that can go a decent distance is worthy of vast respect and awe, because there are some massive technical problems that require ingenious hacking of mechanical, electrical and microelectronic systems to operate in some pretty harsh environments.
I do think DARPA would be foolish to end the contest if there is a winner this year - rather, they should extend the challenge. Have the vehicles go through a wider range of terrains, as a multi-stage rally, perhaps, with cars who succeed in the desert then having to navigate through a forest, swamps, along the tops of snow-covered mountains - pretty much any terrain that a vehicle could realistically encounter if used for military missions.
If DARPA did that, and the contestents succeeded, then (and pretty much only then) would DARPA have a general-purpose robotic vehicle they could throw into any arena that would be hazardous for humans under combat conditions. Why stop when you have something that could have made things easier three years ago had it existed, but which may be useless in a scenario three years from now, when the dangers may be completely different?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Tomshardware is posting daily updates live from the Fontana Speedway http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050929_1259 19.html
My home team, Cornell, is currently in second place at the qualifiers, knocking only over one cone on the obstacle course.
You can read their blog here, or find their website (with technology writeups) here.
He doesn't know the mean of the phrase AI.
AI doesn't mean "Learning", it means Artificial Intelligence. Said poster is probably a stage in his life where his visual system is relatively stable from day to day. Whether it got there by being hard wired by his designer or through learning is irrelevant. His intelligent behavior (barring perhaps said post) on a moment to moment basis is the result of his pre-wired system, not some kind of fabulously amazing learning algorithm.
Some of the engineers attacking this problem are using machine learning, others are using pre-fab algorithm, most are using a combination of both. They're all true AI by any stretch of the definition.
The safety expectations for a self-driving car will be exponentially greater than we demand of our own stupid selves. Even if self-driving cars kill people in only 5% of the situations where a human driver would, it will be too much liability for the market to bear. I'm not saying it makes sense. We accept (out of necessity) that human drivers are fallible, and expect profound remorse (as well as prison time) if they make mistake that takes a life. If a machine kills, it can't be remorseful and we can't punish it. Human nature will push us to -find- somebody to punish, and out of fear and frustration, the punishment will be extreme.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050