Slashdot Mirror
Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic
An anonymous reader noted that "At the TED 2011 conference this week, Google has been giving extremely rare demos of its self-driving cars. TED attendees have even been allowed to travel inside them, on a closed course. The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver."
It's pretty amazing how they've stretched the limits of technology!
Does it track you everywhere you go?
Its from Google, of course it harvests data to better deliver targeted advertising. The real question is will it deliver targeted ads while driving. A pleasant voice telling you of the sponsored sites you are driving near.
So how do humans do it?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Classic fear mongering. The car always had a driver in it (with override capabilities) while on public roads.
Have you seen the lunatics out there? Give me a robot any day! We are given a licence (one test only) in our youth and then out you go, rain, hail or shine, fit or unfit, tired or not, drunk or senile or both. That's ignoring the meatheads who want to deliberately drive dangerously and those not paying attention on a mobile phone texting "RORL" (roll off road laughing). I see your point but lets move on.
I can't drive due to my disabilities. This would be useful. Of course, it has to be bug free (OK almost). It probably won't be ready until after I am dead though. I always wanted KITT type of car! :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The 2nd order effects from this are going to be interesting. If you only have robot drivers (and you will, cause with lower accident rates, you'll have lower insurance rates if you always let the computer drive), you won't need visible signs or traffic lights. How would this affect pedestrian crossings? Would pedestrians feel irrationally unsafe crossing a road with robot drivers on it? Will we remove speed limits as computer reaction and cognitive ability gets faster?
So how do humans do it?
They start with a small number of basic "rules" and acquire the majority of their learning from experience.
In general it seems like an expert systems AI project. You have a domain that has an incomplete definition, many variables and many inputs. You hand code some basic rules as a starting point. You rig up sensors so that a computer can observe the environment and the human and it generates new rules based on its observations(*). And/Or you let the computer loose in a simulated environment and it learns through trial and error.
(*) In the movie Starman the alien learns to drive via observation. Red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go faster. Selection of the expert to observe is a critical step.
Most can't. The big difference is we hold them personally responsible for it. And they often die in their own screw-ups which is about as accountable as you get.
The responsibility/accountability is the main problem: if Toyota released a self driving car and it crashed and killed people in "corner cases" where even a skilled human might, Toyota would still get in trouble.
Using the elevator is generally much safer than using the stairs. Fortunately for elevator manufacturers and suppliers an elevator shaft is a more predictable environment than a network of roads.
Perhaps not, but it's likely to be a hell of a lot better at not doing the idiotic things that cause the overwhelming majority of accidents in the first place.
Almost all accidents other than collisions with animals that run out in front of you are due to human stupidity. Black ice may be an exception, maybe, except that if the conditions allow it to happen a prudent driver accounts for the possibility (note that if you hit a patch of black ice the accident is considered your fault esp. for purposes of determining liability). Everything from:
You name it. It's plain old human stupidity. It's a particularly egregious kind of imbecility too, the kind that fails to recognize that other people exist and can be harmed by your poor decision-making. If "robots" can be programmed not to do these things I'm all for it. Alternatively, if robots can be programmed to beat the living shit out of people who do these things, I'm all for that too.
That's a new one to me. I have heard complaints that many train systems would be uneconomical, in the sense that they'd never survive without some kind of subsidy. I haven't heard anyone actually refer to alternate transportation as a tenet of Communism, however.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
there is no way a @#$ robot can judge what to do about oncoming accidents, like a pedestrian, a deer, a squirrel, a semi jackknifing, an ambulance passing, a crash ahead of you, a gigantic pothole, a box full of dishes that fell off a truck, a big tree branch, a patch of black ice, a tire blowing out, a semi weaving in a strong wind, etc etc etc.
A bunch of your example are redundant, object in lane will suffice.
If the computer maintains safe following distances and brakes when there is sudden deceleration ahead or an object ahead then it will probably do better than many drivers I've seen on the road. If it has sufficient sensors to be situationally aware, ie is it safe to change lanes, and is able to change lanes to avoid an object then it will probably do better than most of the drivers out there. Keep in mind that the sensors may have better perception than the human visual system. It may be able to detect that deer beyond headlight range. It certainly would not suffer from the most common human driving failure, inattention.
These complaints sound similar to the arguments made when antilock brakes and traction control systems were introduced. How will the computer know what kind of surface I am on (paved, gravel, dirt, wet, snow, etc) so it can break accordingly. While perhaps a good question in theory when compared to an expert driver (as in professional racing/pursuit instructor) but when compared to the average driver on the road not very relevant. The computers only need to outperform the average driver.
That said. I wouldn't own/operate such a car until laws are passed to shield operators from lawsuits. Cars with automated driving are going to be law suit magnets regardless of who is at fault.
Absolutely false. The car is completely capable of detecting pedestrians, deer, stopped cars, etc. This thing knows how to stop in the event that some shit goes down (see link below). You're just making up a lot of bullshit based on literally no research.
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atmk07Otu9U Skip to 2:10 to see where the ABC reporter makes a move like she's going to run out in front of the car. The thing slams on the brakes.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Good grief, man! You were making a really good point until you turned half of your post into a rant against the right-wing military industrial complex or whatever the current groupthink buzzword is for defense spending and generic angsty hatred toward individuals who don't happen to agree with you.
But yes, I certainly agree. AI platforms for driving vehicles have a long ways to go until they're able to interact with any imaginable situation (though I suspect it'll mostly involve stopping/slowing down and letting the human take over). That still doesn't negate the point that it's fairly impressive!
For future reference, though, save the political rant for a more appropriate discussion like those you might find on politics.slashdot.org. Otherwise you come off as an angry disaffected hipster with an axe to grind.
I, for one, find Google's efforts in this area to be very interesting even if it's not commercialized for decades. Worthless for now? Maybe, but it's a demonstration of technology that could potentially make roads safer in the future even if only parts of the system are implemented. Think collision warning/avoidance for the masses since not everyone has $80,000 to blow.
He who has no
TFA even mentions one of these avoiding a deer: "You could see the cars avoiding things like a deer that dashed in front of one or another making it carefully around a small hillside road, as a large truck came toward it."
There was also a story here a year ago about Stanford's efforts in this area with a computer-controlled car doing a 180 spin into a tight parking space. "That means Junior could have an entire language of extreme driving maneuvers it could unleash when called upon ... itâ(TM)s also a sign that the cars of the future will be able to respond to any adverse condition with remarkable driving talent."
Put them together and we're well on our way to computerized control that's safer than the average driver.
Absolutely true. Every time I watch traffic from my commuter bus on the highway I feel very very glad I'm not out there driving.
It gets worse when I'm out cycling. I was cycling on a nice quiet park road in SF (Washington+Arguello Blvd) the other weekend and some tourists were driving 15mph swerving in and out of the shoulder/bike lane. I ended up picking a safe time to pull around and pass them on the left since I wasn't interested in waiting for them to do something stupid like slam on the brakes.
I don't want my car to have an existential crisis while on the freeway.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to drive to the AM/PM to pick up beer. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cause I don't.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
the solution... is to build more trains
Trains don't come to my front door, which is rather necessary when I'm carrying a load of groceries to feed my household. Trains don't go to my friend's front door, who's effectively wheelchair-bound. Trains don't go from my grandmother's house to the post office, where she has her mailbox. Trains require tracks, which require a bigger initial investment than roads, and simply can't reach withing reasonable walking distance of everywhere people need to go. Then there's the noise, the difficulty in meeting their schedules, the limited per-person carrying capacity, and they also can't stop fast enough to avoid all those hazards you mentioned, even with a human driver!
Buses are a bit better in most of these regards, but just not enough to make shared transit an effective alternative to personal cars. If your house and your job are close to a train station, then go ahead and use it. Don't expect your situation to apply to anyone else, though.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Thirty thousand people dead each year in US car accidents. That's over half a million dead each generation. Robots could not do worse. And I think they could do a lot better. Especially if the cars talk to each other.
In fifty years people may well look back upon our manual driving culture as next to insane. That said. I love to drive. But really. It's hell out there
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Not many people will be willing to trust a computer to drive them, even if it's safer.
Actually, users won't have to. People think that robocars = no human drivers, but I don't think this is really true. All they need to do is have the same algorithms, but give the human drivers say 1 foot of play back and forth in the lane and say 2 seconds ahead and behind. Then people will still feel like they're in control, driving will still be fun for those of us who enjoy it, and those of us who would get sick to our stomachs in a robocar would feel better.
Under normal driving conditions, a human is not really better than a robot. It's the extreme conditions, where the driver is not paying attention to the road, or a sudden even, or ice and snow or a mechanical problem that gets you. If you build a few avoidance systems, you could make driving a ton safer without going through all that work of building a full robocar where you get in, click on a map, and sit back. You don't need to go through and figure out how to drive every weird unmarked intersection in the country, "just" look at some laser scans and hit the brakes if something gets in the way. You also get superhuman vision, like infared cameras, laser arrays, sonar, DHS xrays, as well as road information such as traffic cameras and CCTV's.
You have the following:
1. Fully human-controlled (1980's and before)
2. Computer controlled emissions equipment (1990's)
3. Computer controlled stability and traction (2000's)
4. Computer assisted accident avoidance (2010's)
5. Optional full computer control? (2020's)
Notice that there is no mandatory full computer control. That's because I don't think you really need it. Sure, some economy cars will come without steering wheels or stuff, but many luxury and performance vehicles will. I think what will happen is that you average sports vehicle, be it and offroader or a sports car or a road-going rally car will have three settings: no assistance, computer assistance, and completely autonomous. Eventually, "no assistance" will not be a good idea on public roads. Not like it is going to negatively impact the driving experience anyway.
Now, many people discuss scenarios where "road trains" and other modes of driving that would not be possible with human drivers with no spacing between the cars. I don't see that as a viable scenario. While many accidents are caused by people's mistakes, some are caused, or at least helped along by mechanical failure, such as tire blow out or brake problems. These automated cars may be better at reacting to the problems, but I don't want to be in a road train inches in front of a semi when its tire calls it quits.
If robocar technology can save 40,000 lives a year, why should we care about letting people drive them? Because it will allow the systems to make a significant impact much earlier, and it will cause a who group of people (people who like driving) who would be otherwise opposed to robocars to be supporters of robocars. They're actually a surprisingly useful group of people, being car mechanics (who will fix the things and install assistance systems on pre-built cars), race car drivers (who will promote the things to the general public), and not to mention people who work for automakers who build the cars in the first place.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
Not only are there significant technological hurdles, of course, since you have to make your self-driving car capable of coping with all the regular cars and pedestrians and so on, but there are legal hurdles. The first time your car gets in a major accident, you are getting sued big time and it'll be humans, not car computers, on the jury. Say your car hits and kills a pedestrian because there was simply no way to avoid it at all. Their family will sue you for tons.
As such you have to be able to prove, beyond any doubt, that your car did the right thing, that the choice it made was the very best possible choice in that situation and no human could have done any better. It can't be as good as a normal human, you'll lose because that's just how people are. You have to be able to completely demonstrate how you car handled the situation so much better than a human and even still couldn't do anything to prevent the accident because there was just no way it was preventable.
I've confidence that will happen. We will get to the point where they can do that, but it'll take a long time in development. The cars will have to be certified under the most adverse conditions and still have exemplary performance. Then they can be brought to the mass market.
That's convenient except for the fact that there are lots of legal reasons to exceed the speed limit and it is not for you to decide if other drivers are being prudent. That is why we have police patrolling streets. There is no legal reason for you to be in the left lane as you stated yourself, it is for passing. If you are not passing then you should not be in said lane performing a rolling road block.
While yes, poor impulse control is a huge issue it is often caused by people that shouldn't be on the road to begin with. When someone is so scared to drive that they can't maintain speed then they shouldn't be on the road at all. They force people to pass them and clog up road ways when they fail to merge properly. Every time I see someone stop and wait for an opening I know I get a little more mad.
Ahh yes, "fix it with a law". That's right, there's no amount of danger or risk that a good ol' Form 544813 written by a bureaucrat can't mitigate.
This is just funded by Google. It's the group at Stanford which did the DARPA Urban Challenge that's doing the work. It's essentially the same technology. They're getting very good at this.
The thing on top of the car is a rotating cone of LIDAR scanners. The original version of that was developed by Team DAD for the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. The prototype, which was a much bigger wheel of scanners, fell off the vehicle. But they then built a more compact production version, the Velodyne scanner, with 64 lasers. It costs about $100K per unit, but automatic driving became much better once that came out. Most of the teams in the DARPA Urban Challenge used that.
Personally, I think the rotating machinery approach is too expensive for production, and that the Advanced Scientific Concepts flash LIDAR has more promise as a production product. The ASC system requires some exotic custom imaging ICs, with a time-of-flight timer behind each pixel. That's the kind of thing that's incredibly expensive when you make 10 of them, and cheap when you make 10 million.
Of course there's a citation. He said it's against the law.
This sentence no verb.
Or rather, their employees. Self driving cars are the death of the car industry as it currently stands. There is only 1 reason we need our own cars.
1. Taxis are expensive.
If you don't have a driver, you can put a taxi on every street corner which means that the customer can order one on his iphone taxi app as he leaves the house/office and it's waiting at the kerb before he gets there. No salary to pay, only running costs & depreciation.
An average taxi can currently make something like 30 journeys per day, where an average privately owned car makes about 3. So you will see something like a 10 fold reduction in the number of cars produced when self driving becomes the norm.
Deleted
Taxi: Welcome to the free automatic Google Taxi. Where do you want to go? ...
Passenger: To the train station.
Taxi: OK. By the way, there's a Starbucks on the way. They currently have a special offer, two coffees for the price of one. Maybe you want to go to there first?
Passenger: No, I just want to go to the train station.
Taxi: If you are interested in train stations, maybe the railway museum would interest you. It's only five minutes from here.
Passenger: I'm not interested in the train station, I just want to get my train.
Taxi: Maybe you are interested in Morton's model railway shop? They have great models, and I can get you there in only ten minutes.
Passenger: I don't want a model train, I want to use the real train!
Taxi: Did you know that just this week, the Railway Academy opened? In the first year they give discount for their locomotive driver courses. I can send you the application form to your phone.
Passenger: I don't want to drive the train, I just want to take the train. And if you don't drive me there soon, I'll miss it.
Taxi: Did you know that you can buy train tickets with 5% discount at train-ticket.com?
Passenger: I already have the train ticket. I just want to get to the fucking train.
Taxi: Oh, you are interested in fucking? There's a whorehouse not far from here
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
No, this does not compute. I want my own care in order to arrive with all my "stuff", the briefcase, maybe extra coats, the 2 way radio that _I_ want in it, the external cell phone antenna, the laptop in the trunk, etc. I don't want to think of carrying all that stuff along to stuff in a Taxi when I'm going to work, etc. I want it in the garage when I get up at 4:00 AM and decide to go into work early, rather than waiting for a cab to get here from town, 20 miles away. I want _my_ car to have the "maximum summer grip" tires that will go 'round corners faster than other cars and I want to have an engine in the car that will out-accelerate the pinhead in the other lane that would like to keep me from changing lanes. In the snow I want my own car that happens to be a Jeep with the big, knobby tires to go thru it even tho it is up to the axles.
The person driving in the left lane doing exactly the same speed as the car in the right lane is just as guilty of breaking the law in most states as the person who drives faster than the speed limit. In most states, the law says that the left lane is for passing only. There is no compelling reason for society to tolerate people who think it is their job to regulate the behaviors of others by violating the law.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Exceeding the legal speed limit during passing isn't only legal...in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law.
Some states allow exceeding the posted speed limit while passing, when on a road which has only a single lane in the direction you are traveling (and by some I mean Washington). In no state is it "against the fucking law" to travel the posted speed limit, in any lane. Yes, some states require that the left lanes only be used to pass vehicles in the right lanes, but this does not mean you have to, or are even legally allowed to, speed to do it. If the car in the right lane is doing the speed limit, then you have no reason to attempt to pass them, and therefor no reason to be in the left lane.
The real problem is that there comes a point where the "corner cases" where the self-driving car would crash are vastly outnumbered by the real situations where humans actually do crash.. and because of the liability issue, we still don't get self-driving cars.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Yes, part of the problem is that the speed limits for the lanes are the same. But the left lane is for passing. If you're not overtaking the traffic to the right, you shouldn't be in it. Even if the traffic in the right lane is at or exceeding the limit. If you feel you can't legally drive fast enough to pass the cars in the right lane...you should be in the right lane, let other jokers risk traffic violations.
And, btw, it is also against the law in many states to match speeds with traffic in the manner described in the GP's post. It's called "obstructing traffic" and can get you a ticket just as surely as speeding would. If you're uncomfortable about it, then don't drive in the passing lane.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!