Slashdot Mirror
MIT Creates Car Co-Pilot That Only Interferes If You're About To Crash
MrSeb writes "Mechanical engineers and roboticists working at MIT have developed an intelligent automobile co-pilot that sits in the background and only interferes if you're about to have an accident. If you fall asleep, for example, the co-pilot activates and keeps you on the road until you wake up again. Like other autonomous and semi-autonomous solutions, the MIT co-pilot uses an on-board camera and laser rangefinder to identify obstacles. These obstacles are then combined with various data points — such as the driver's performance, and the car's speed, stability, and physical characteristics — to create constraints. The co-pilot stays completely silent unless you come close to breaking one of these constraints — which might be as simple as a car in front braking quickly, or as complex as taking a corner too quickly. When this happens, a ton of robotics under the hood take over, only passing back control to the driver when the car is safe. This intelligent co-pilot is starkly contrasted with Google's self-driving cars, which are completely computer-controlled unless you lean forward, put your hands on the wheel, and take over. Which method is better? A computer backup, or a human backup? I'm not sure."
I'm sorry David, I cannot allow you to pass that car.
While fully autonomous cars may be the more desirable future, computer backup systems like this are a more likely first step. Once people start getting used to cars making good decisions on the road, they will be more willing to give the computers even more control.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure computers are landing airplanes with the pilots overseeing the process.
I also find it hard to believe that a computer cannot get better at driving a car the most people. Sure there are emergency situations the require extreme skill and judgement calls, but how many people are good in those situations? I have seen many drivers who react 100% wrong in dangerous situations. They don't understand the dynamics of the car and get confused in a panic. Computers don't have this problem.
I would be all for this if the computer would take over once it determines you are driving too slow in the fast lane and blocking traffic. Maybe there can be 2 modes, emergency take over, and 'Nag' mode for when the computer determines your acting like a selfish asshole.
I disagree. Human drivers are always a disaster waiting to happen. Computers don't get drunk. Computers don't get angry. Computers don't get sleepy. Computers aren't trying to impress a woman. (At least not yet...) Sure, computers fail, but humans fail too, but much more often. My concern is with the cases where a malfunction occurs in the system, maybe a broken sensor. How does a computer driver respond to these scenarios, which are guaranteed to happen in the real world?
I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure computers are landing airplanes with the pilots overseeing the process.
There's not many obstacles to avoid up in the air. On the road there's dozens of other cars all around you.
No sig today...
Computers don't get drunk. Computers don't get angry. Computers don't get sleepy.
And computers absolutely will not stop, ever, until ...... ummm, until you arrive at your programmed destination.
No sig today...
There's a whole class of philsophical problems about when to save one life v. n lives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. One very awkward thing about this is that advanced emergency driving systems may need to address questions that we are fundamentally uncomfortable answering or discussing. Should a system for example protect the life of the people in a car as opposed to the life of people in a nearby car that they might crash into? Which gets higher priority. Does the number of people in each car matter? Exactly what the cars do in the few seconds leading up to a crash could alter this. Essentially this sort of thing may force us to examine difficult ethical problems.
Because none of those are point-to-point, to your home and place of work especially.
My concern is with the cases where a malfunction occurs in the system, maybe a broken sensor. How does a computer driver respond to these scenarios, which are guaranteed to happen in the real world?
The only thing that the computer can't be designed to cope with is complete hardware system failure. Are the automotive companies really prepared to put dual systems in the vehicle with backup power? And for that matter, are they going to be willing to disable the vehicle if a sensor is out of commission? They will really need to do that because drivers will become used to depending on the system.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Auto pilot for landing exists, but it requires ground equipment that is only available in the biggest airport, and it's only installed in the biggest airliners.
The vast majority of landings are done manually by the pilots, while the autopilot is sometimes used in extreme conditions (fog especially).
Actually, the autopilot will usually take you to the "minimums" which is usually set to several hundred feet above the deck at which point, an audible alarm is sounded "Minimums!" and the pilot is expected to take over the throttles and yoke. If that does not happen, the AP will make an attempt at landing using nothing but the ILS and glidescope, provided you are nav and gs captured (which you should be while landing).
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Not many obstacles, but there's one really big one.
That one's only dangerous if you approach it off course or at a sharp angle. Computers are pretty good at linear algebra (better than humans), getting it right isn't a massive problem (how many years have they been doing it now...?)
Guiding a car safely along an arbitrarily curved road full of unpredictable other users is much trickier than landing an aircraft.
No sig today...