Slashdot Mirror
Autonomous Cars and the Centralization of Driving
New submitter arctother writes: Taxicab Subjects has posted a response to a Morgan Stanley analyst's recent take on how driverless cars will shape society in the future. From the article: [R]eally, 'autonomy' is still not the right word for it. Just as the old-fashioned 'automobile' was never truly 'auto-mobile,' but relied, not only on human drivers, but an entire concrete infrastructure built into cities and smeared across the countryside, so the interconnected 'autonomous vehicles' of the future will be even more dependent on the interconnected systems of which they are part. To see this as 'autonomy' is to miss the deeper reality, which will be control. Which is why the important movement reflected in the chart's up-down continuum is not away from 'Human Drivers' to 'Autonomous' cars, but from a relatively decentralized system (which relies on large numbers of people knowing how to drive) to an increasingly centralized system (relying on the knowledge of a small number of people)."
Just as the old-fashioned 'automobile' was never truly 'auto-mobile,' but relied, not only on human drivers, but an entire concrete infrastructure built into cities and smeared across the countryside
The original "horseless carriages" started out by following the paths their horse-drawn peers used. No special infrastructure just for them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Autonomous cars become mainstream and law enforcement gets a kill switch that locks the person into their car and drives them to the nearest police-approved pull over spot or station?
So basically farmers will be the only ones who know how to drive, and the only ones who know how to use a gun, and they'll have all the power. It'll be like 19th century France all over again.
Sounds reasonable.........~
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You're talking about it like it's some future sci-fi technology. It's not; it's already here. Google's self-driving cars have already driven many thousands of miles across the country, error-free, which is a lot better than probably any human driver can hope to achieve ("error-free" includes not committing any traffic infractions like illegal turns, tailgating, etc.).
Basically, you're arguing against something which is already proven.
Basically, you're arguing against something which is already proven.
Proven under a set of very controlled and restricted conditions.
1. Only on roads pre-scanned frequently and gone over by a person to gather enough information to allow the car to function.
2. Only in good weather. Google themselves admit that their car does not work in snow or heavy rain.
3. Only with a driver to take over when the computer gets overwhelmed. Google does not publicize how often this happens.
Google car goes far towards autonomous vehicles but it is still far from a complete solution.
3. Dangerous
What's dangerous is 3,000 pounds of metal being controlled by a driver who is impaired by alcohol, drugs or messing around on their phone. Around here the greatest impairment is age. A good third of the people on the road around here can barely see. Self-driving cars don't have achieve some lofty safety record to become the standard, they only have be better than humans and that's already within easy reach compared to the technical hurdles already overcome.
4. No one controls when and where I go
That may be the dumbest excuse to oppose technology I've ever read. If you fly, ride the bus, train or cruise ship, other people control where you go.
I remember people in a video forum in 2004 telling me they'd be shooting film the rest of their lives. That was just 11 years ago. In just that short time span video has not only rivaled film but surpassed it. Long before video surpassed film in terms of quality, video displaced film on the basis of cost and ease of workflow. The technical hurdles in 2004 for video to replace film were huge and it happened in less than a decade.
Cars are not only going to rival human drivers but surpass them, and definitely a lot sooner than you think. It won't be that long before people who insist on driving themselves become the hazards on the road and I don't think your right to seize the steering wheel is going to trump the lives of other drivers.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Damn right nobody dresses the gorilla in the room. Gorillas are inveterate nudists, and anyone who tries to force clothing onto a gorilla is going to regret it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What's dangerous is 3,000 pounds of metal being controlled by a driver who is impaired by alcohol, drugs or messing around on their phone.
I think there will be a market niche to accommodate the previous poster -- imagine a car that works just like a traditional car, except that it refuses to run into anything. It will be analogous to a (smart) mechanical horse -- you can try to get a horse to run into a brick wall, but most horses are going to turn or stop before they break their neck. There's no reason a car couldn't do the same.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
1. Too expensive
At the moment, yes, but the hardware necessary for autonomy isn't really that expensive compared to the car itself. Especially in the future when we can sell cars that are fully automated and do not need any of the controls that humans use to drive a car -- the steering wheel, pedals, switches, etc. -- I expect they will actually be cheaper than non-autonomous cars.
2. No fun
A matter of opinion, but if you think driving is "fun", you're probably one of the people making roads dangerous. I think it will be more fun to be able to read web sites or play video games while my car is driving me around.
3. Dangerous
Flat-out wrong. Autonomous cars can react much more quickly, precisely, and safely than any human can when confronted with a dangerous situation. The dangerous part will be stupid human drivers who think they can drive recklessly because autonomous cars will react quickly and move out of their way.
4. No one controls when and where I go
This doesn't even make any sense. An autonomous car is not necessarily public transportation (although they will be used for that). You'll still be able to get in your car and go wherever you want, whenever you want.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Fixed that or you.
People who come up with this crap usually live in urban areas and have never driven on anything but city streets and urban highways. I somehow don't see the autonomous car getting me up an old mining road in the Colorado Rockies that doesn't show up on any road map. I also don't see me trusting said car to pick it's way around, over and between the various obstacles like wash outs and large lose rocks that take some very careful driving to get over or around. Especially when there's a 1,000 foot drop on one side and a cliff face on the other. Routes like the Alpine Loop between Silverton and Lake City or the "road" to Argentine Pass to name just two places I've driven.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Why do you think that a vehicle that can see in 360 degrees around it in the visible spectrum, infrared spectrum, and LIDAR -- including underneath itself -- and knows exactly where it is within a few millimeters would be worse at navigating between obstacles than you are?
If anything, static obstacles are the easy part. Predicting what crazy human drivers are going to do is hard.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
You're seriously underestimating the connectedness and security of cars. They're already networked and hackable remotely.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What I'm curious about is how will different algorithms from different manufacturers all react to each other? Is there a standard set of rules that Google/Tesla/etc are all working together on? i.e. What happens when one mfgr's car does something mfgr B's car doesn't recognize or "agree" to?
Further, if the rules states "minimum distance is 3 car lengths" then how does it know when the brakes have worn out and 3 car lengths is no longer a safe distance? Is the onus on the car or the owner at that point? Will the car just refuse to turn on if it senses that work needs to be done?
What happens when a tire blows and the car goes into a spin? (I've seen this a number of times). Has Google's autonomous car blown a tire at highway speeds?
I didn't assume that, and that has nothing to do with your original assertion that a robot car would be somehow worse than navigating rural roads than you are.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
There are maybe 2-3 times a year I would actually use an autonomous car per year if it was perfect and free (big if's). Basically just on long full day road trips. The other 99% of the time driving is no burden, or would be less of a burden than having to sit in the car bashing in an address and other vital details into the infernal thing before getting out of the driveway.
How many folks actually have a sigh of relief when their spouse offers to drive? Very few I suspect, as this is a problem that mostly does not need to be solved. I mostly don't even use the navigation system in my car now.
Heck, the navigation system should be a huge warning sign of what these cars could be like. The interface (Nissan) is lousy, map updates are way overpriced (and still outdated), and they want a subscription if you want traffic information. The car has a 2G modem for its connection to Galactic Central that will be no longer be serviced by AT&T in a year and a half. An autonomous car would similarly fall victim to being orphaned after a few years due to either hardware or software, and would almost certainly require some sort of data plan fee to stay up to date. Cars should last at least 20 years, and frankly car companies don't have a clue how to design and maintain critical life supporting software for that type of lifespan across.
Autonomous driving should concentrate on trucking, and maybe taxi type services. The rush for sticking it in general passenger cars is either stupid, or a Trojan horse for some other motivation.
What's even more dangerous is 3000 lbs of metal controlled by a computer programmed by ego maniacs with the arrogance to assume their heuristic model accurately interprets the reality of free-range driving. A human is slow compared to a computer, but is far better at preemption and situational awareness.
The irony here, of course, is that you're the one assuming the programmers making these systems are egomaniacs who don't take any exceptional cases into account and never test for them.
What does being "far better at preemption" even mean? If a human can interpret a cue to react in a particular way, a computer can be programmed to recognize that cue, too. And suggesting that humans are better at situation awareness? Crazy talk. A car with a couple of LIDAR units knows exactly how far it is from everything in a hundred meter radius (or more) around it, within a cm or two. It has no blind spots, it doesn't care about lighting conditions, it's not fooled by optical illusions, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.
Then we have deliberate attacks on the network they'll use. Finally, we have deliberate kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by authorities, public and private
They don't need to use networks, and they're as likely to have kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by the authorities as your current car does. In other words, because of the mass push back there would be against it, not likely at all. Because of the extreme expense, the only reason auto manufactures would do that is if they were legally required -- and if somehow it gets pushed into legislation, have no fear that every car will be required to have it, not just the autonomous ones.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Oh, they probably haven't driven on city streets either. With America's crumbling infrastructure. city streets are pothole-ridden messes, with traffic-calming, school buses, bike lanes, and other interesting twists; and unpredictable traffic including cyclists darting between motorized vehicles. Not only is it unpredictable, but it changes day-to-day - with construction, schools being in or out of session, and any of the other obstacles that the city likes to throw in drivers' way.
The people who come up with this crap are those who will benefit from it financially if/when idiot-lawmakers allocate money to it. The real solution is funding planned infrastructure renewal and intelligent traffic planning and control. Butt that is hard, unsexy, actual work that requires real engineers - not political appointees and tenured "seniority" employees.
You mean like in the DARPA grand challenge?
"I'll keep my 'dumb' car, thank you very much. It always does what it's told and that is not a limitation, it's a feature."
It's only, of course, that even now your "dumb car" is not so dumb anymore: it choose the proper gear for you. You tell it to accelerate but when reaching the red line it cuts the injection. You tell it to brake but it stops braking the moment the wheels start to slip. You tell it to corner full force to the right and it brakes some/all wheels so you can't really do it.
And that's only for average cars. Above that, you already have cars that won't allow (or at least warn you) if you try to tailgate the car in front of you, or won't allow/warn you to go over the speed limit, or crossing lanes, or forgetting about your blind spot...
Autonomous cars will happen or maybe not, but the example of the film industry, or mobile phones, or even microwaves, if you are that old, is spot on: if it ends up happening, it will be like a boiling a frog, you almost won't notice it and it will be there.
Who cares if autonomous cars can't take you up an old mining road in the Colorado Rockies. The number of trips along those roads is small enough that the EXISTING set of vehicles will satisfy all demand for many decades EVEN if no more are built.
On the other hand, for the other 99.999% of required commutes autonomous vehicles will do fine.
Because one of the first perks that well off people get is to be driven around in cars by other people.
A lot of people like driving, on some roads, for pleasure, some of the time.
That does not describe the vast majority of required driving in most conditions. I.e. to and from work or the mall.
Again, small enough demand that driving clubs will accommodate it. Just like some people own and ride horses, other people will own and drive cars.
The vast majority of people won't own horses or drive their own cars.
Autonomous vehicles will have to scrupulously obey the law. But society and business depend on the mass NOT obeying the law. We get to work on time because we cheat. How long would it take you to do anything if you could not depend on the timing from route selection and speed? You would not be able to project the future. And huge chunks of your life would disappear into these prison-pod vehicles full of people desperately checking their watches. Also, how about the fact that actually driving the vehicle takes up the time. Do you really want to sit staring out the window for the entire trip? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
E Proelio Veritas.