Slashdot Mirror
Tesla's Elon Musk Talks With Google About Self-Driving Cars
Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has been thinking about bringing autonomous driving technology to Tesla's electric cars. Quoting Bloomberg:
"Musk, 41, said technologies that can take over for drivers are a logical step in the evolution of cars. He has talked with Google about the self-driving technology it’s been developing, though he prefers to think of applications that are more like an airplane’s autopilot system. 'I like the word autopilot more than I like the word self- driving,' Musk said in an interview. 'Self-driving sounds like it’s going to do something you don’t want it to do. Autopilot is a good thing to have in planes, and we should have it in cars.' ... Google’s approach builds on a push for the driverless-car technology long pursued by the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which held vehicle competitions for carmakers and research labs. Anthony Levandowski, product manager for Google’s self-driving car project, has said the company expects to release the technology within five years. 'The problem with Google’s current approach is that the sensor system is too expensive,' Musk said. 'It’s better to have an optical system, basically cameras with software that is able to figure out what’s going on just by looking at things.' ... 'I think Tesla will most likely develop its own autopilot system for the car, as I think it should be camera-based, not Lidar-based,' Musk said yesterday in an e-mail. 'However, it is also possible that we do something jointly with Google.'"
Musk later warned not to take this as an actual announcement.
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another. Driving is one of the most boring tasks imaginable, except on a few roads like BC's Sea to Sky Highway when the traffic is light. The vast majority of driving situations are tedious.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
The problem is called "humans". Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars. With planes, this was different, especially as these from their beginnings on were called "flying machines", i.e. machines made to fly ( with ). I remember that my grandma, born in 1900, never ever called them differently. Cars, OTOH, have never been called "driving machines". And this is where the crux is hidden: humans want to control their cars. I guess it will remain so for a long time.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Tedious and dangerous. A combination practically designed to induce stress.
I know we're probably not going to read the articles, but... can't we have a link just for old time's sake?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/tesla-ceo-talking-with-google-about-autopilot-systems.html
Very true. When I drive to work I usually arrive highly stressed. When I take the train I usually arrive relaxed and productive. It takes longer, but it is a far nicer trip.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
1st. He was taking about a sports car. That type of car is meant for the journey not the destination.
2nd. There are people in the world that love to drive. They are called car enthusiasts. Here I'll explain this with a computer analogy. Just like there are people that like to use command lines edit config files instead of using iPads etc...
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another.
If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Some people enjoy driving, but many do not, particularly the miserable drives that many people have to endure to get to and from work, or to move around in badly designed cities. Driving can be a lot of fun, particularly if you do most of your driving in areas that do not have a lot of traffic. Most of the time, though, driving is just something that you tolerate because you need to go somewhere.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/tesla-ceo-talking-with-google-about-autopilot-systems.html
I have lived in Indiana, and driven through the midwest several times. My experience has been that the roads are mostly flat and boring, and that the drivers are suicidal. For example, the Indiana habit of deliberately turning on you high beams when you see an oncoming car.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
No. The point of a car is to get you from one place to another. Driving is one of the most boring tasks imaginable, except on a few roads like BC's Sea to Sky Highway when the traffic is light. The vast majority of driving situations are tedious.
Well, in a self-driving car, you could play Need for Speed or Gran Turismo videogames on the HUD to make things more exciting while you wait. Ever imagined your finger was a bazooka while you're in traffic, and you could just blow up the cars in the way? Well, now we can use Altered Reality to superimpose images of Actual Explosions!
My extensive research has proven that "Time Flies when you're having fun"... Ergo, there's a loveseat in the back.
As someone who's actually done this stuff, LIDAR gives solid data, but is range-limited. Cameras have more ambiguous results. Cameras are most useful when things are going well, as on a highway under good conditions. That was Stanford's approach in the Grand Challenge. All their vision system really did was answer the question "is the near section of road (within LIDAR range) like the far section of road"? If the LIDAR said the near section was OK to drive on and the vision system said the far section was like the near section, then the vehicle could speed up and out-drive the LIDAR range. That sped up travel on good sections of road.
Google is using Velodyne LIDAR units, which are effective but an expensive mechanical kludge. A better approach is from Advanced Scientific Concepts, which has an eye-safe flash LIDAR. No moving parts.
ASC's units cost about $100K each, but that's because they're hand-made for DoD. The technology isn't inherently expensive if made in volume. It uses custom imaging ICs, and because they're made by tens, not millions, they cost far too much. If the cost can be brought down, the vehicle can have multiple LIDAR units around the car to get full coverage, rather than one big spinning thing up on the roof.
Millimeter radar is also useful. It's good to have a Dopper anticollision radar as a backup system. It provides an unambiguous "rapidly approaching big solid object" signal. We had one of those on our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle as a backup to the fancier LIDAR system.
I agree. Driving can be fun, and I pointed out a nice highway to drive on. However, most people do not enjoy their morning commutes, or darting around from shop to shop, or sitting still in bumper to bumper traffic with three miles to go until the next exit. These are common driving conditions for most people. If the only driving that I ever did was in a BMW 3 Coupe on a lightly used road in the Rockies I would be very happy, but in the real world driving is not quite that much fun.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
I like driving. Something is just so relaxing, yet fun, about cruising down a light traffic highway with my music playing.
Sadly, that's only a tiny portion of the driving I ever do. Most of it is spent in a congested commute, 5 days a week. I'd *love* to be able to just let my car take me to and from work as I browse Slashdot on my phone.
A self driving car would give me a precious 40-50 minutes of extra free time.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Autopilot is a good thing to have in planes, and we should have it in cars.
I like the notion, and it's a great frame of reference for consideration. One major distinction between planes and cars: When a plane is on autopilot in a relatively sparse chunk of sky, the time between sensor warning and twisted burning wreckage is tens of seconds to minutes. Most of the time in an ordinary flight plan the plane can wander hundreds of feet without a problem. On a typical chunk of sparsely populated two lane highway, however, If your car's autopilot travels twenty feet out of its lane -- things get exciting very quickly.
Moreover, most airplanes are like long-haul trucks -- they spend most of their miles in transit between heavy traffic areas. A major chunk of American automotive miles are spent with other vehicles within a few dozen feet.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
really nice roads along the Mississippi in southeastern Minnesota
You country wusses. If you want some excitement in driving, try Manhattan. Driving on an empty road is no more challenging than flying with nothing around you, but Manhattan is like the Battle of Britain.
Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?
I think cars started downhill when that newfangled synchromesh eliminated the need for double clutching, and as in so many other areas technology continues to destroy the simple pleasures of life. Imagine a train without the joy of stoking the fire while cinders fly in your eyes and you watch the pressure gauge to avoid a boiler explosion. Or a ship where you don't have to climb the ratlines in a storm. Or turning a tap labeled "hot" instead of fetching well water and starting a fire to warm it. Or of not having to run down your dinner armed only with a flint tipped spear.
I enjoy driving, on a Sunday afternoon, driving down deserted country roads with no need to be at any particular place at any particular time.
I pretty much hate it otherwise. Now here's the deal, there are some very strange desires people have. Some want to be beaten. Others want to be tied up. And others want to be tied up and beaten. And still others want some combination, or neither, of these two activities combined with having jello pudding thrown at them.
So, given that, I'm going to rule it as not entirely impossible that you're about to tell me that you think commuting to work by car is awesome, and the bit you love the most is when you're about 10 minutes from work and suddenly see red lights in front of you and realize that the next mile of traffic consists of cars travelling at about 5-15mph, stop, start, stop, start.
But I really, really, doubt it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You may not believe or understand this, but some of us actually enjoy driving.
But how many enjoys driving all the time? All traffic, all road conditions, never tired, never busy, never wanted for a button to push to make the car drive itself while you do something else? I have friends who are quite car conscious but they also like cruise control, automatic gearbox and all that, it's more about going around in comfort and style than pretending to be a rally driver. I think there's a solid market of people that aren't looking for the "basic transport from A to B" but the "private limo driver from A to B" experience, particularly since the computer has even more discretion than a human. And it's not like they're going to take away the "off" switch any time soon, so if you want to go ahead...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
When our roads are autonomous, you will get to point B faster, safer, with less fuel, less wear on the car, and better rested. You can also stop worrying about parking, fueling, and maintaining you car as it can go and do all these things automatically while you go about your business.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Once cars are robotic enough that we are only giving guidance to the car (pretending to drive but the car will ignore stupid inputs) insurance will become the battleground. I can see a car company like Tesla offering free liability insurance with their cars. They will know that basically their car can not cause an accident and with the camera/computer system will have the proof to avoid a he-said-she-said situation.
At the same time I can see the insurance companies realizing that a huge huge HUGE market will simply go away when car accidents become unlikely enough for car companies to be able to cover it. Think about it. Every car that you see is paying in around $1,000+ for insurance. The only insurance people will want after robotic cars will be theft (hard to do with a hi-tech upgradable car), vandalism, trees falling on them kinds of insurance. Plus nearly every jurisdiction says you must have something like 2 million in liability; that need will vanish or at least be covered by the manufacturers.
So my robotic car prediction is that car companies will be trying to terrorize us into hating robotic cars. They will show videos of families being driven off cliffs, or saying it is our god given right to have control of our cars. And of course they will spend ungodly amounts of money lobbying everyone from the president down to your school board to stop this.
But the simple reality is that 35,000 people are killed every year in the US and robotic cars might take this down to a few hundred. (mechanical failure, trees falling on them, sinkholes, etc)
If his name was Joe Smith nobody would care about him.
Wrong. Musk has a track record of making major projects work in areas where others have failed big-time. Tesla and Space-X make stuff that works, at a profit.
There are overpromoted hipsters. Vivek Wadhwa (Y2K COBOL code conversion), Nicholas Negroponte (One Laptop Per Child), Shai Agassi (Better Place), and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Empirica Capital) come to mind. All are heavily into self-promotion, but each of their startups failed.
Electric motors need a transmission too.
If by transmission you mean a fixed ratio reduction gear. Electric motors have actually been used for years to eliminate the need for variable ratio transmissions, which often don't work well w/ high torques or other situations that electric motors handle gracefully. That's what the electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive is - an electric motor used in place of a transmission. They're built that way because mechanical transmissions can't cut it.
Teslas engineers were just too incompetent to build one correctly.
Tesla subcontracted the transmission design, and three companies, all of which have extensive experience, couldn't produce something that worked right. Tesla's solution was to improve the electric motor and drive electronics, which gave them equal or better performance than was originally anticipated with a transmission, but without the weight or unreliability of a mechanical transmission. Tesla's "incompetence" led to a better car.
Yeah except there is no "he". Each of his endeavors involved many other people and their money.
Is it the other people's money that is noteworthy, or the other people whose ideas and work made these ventures a success?
Who is heavily into self-promotion again?
Of course Musk is a self-promoter. You rarely hear about people who aren't self promoters (unless they invented the polio vaccine or something). So what?
I also get tired of hearing about tech billionaire garbage. It's usually more about business strategy and getting away with monopolistic practices and a bunch of luck. However, if money is your interest, why not talk about the Waltons (worth a combined total of $115.7 billion)? Personally I'm a technophile. I'm more interested in (Nikola) Tesla, who died in debt, than I am in J.P. Morgan. I'm certainly not saying that Musk is another Nikola Tesla, but at least he starts ventures that do seriously cool and technologically interesting things, rather than making billions from boring over-hyped technologically uninteresting things like the latest "cloud" whatever.
Clearly you've never seen what humans do on highways in foggy days...
People will drive recklessly when they can't see crap. They'll drive too fast, out of a sense of security, out of stupidity, out of an illusion effect coming out of the foggy conditions. And you... well, you can't do much about it, since you only control one gas pedals over the entire highway.
Computers, on the other hand, can "see" in different wave lengths than we do. Potentially wavelengths that are visible through fog. So, when you don't know there's a car there, because it's hidden from the fog, even though it's only 40 meters away (which will take what... 1 or 2 seconds to travel) the computer may. And if all cars are driver-less, worst case scenario, they'll be programmed to reduce the speed in foggy conditions to keep within a predefined safety margin. And that my friend, can be a lot better than having more f-stops in your eyes which you can't use anyway.
I find driving incredibly relaxing.
Then, like most people, you're not doing it right.
Try riding a motorcycle for a while and see what happens if you don't concentrate 100% of the time.
It's the need to concentrate that makes it relaxing.
It's like rock climbing. You have to focus on the immediacy of the moment. It relieves my overactive mind from cycling over emotionally charged thoughts and leaves me unable to return to them because I'll die if I do.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth