Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Will Have Self-driving Cars In Just Two Years, Elon Musk Boldly Declares (fortune.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the gonna-hold-you-to-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In a new interview with Fortune, outspoken Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the electric automaker is just two years away from developing fully autonomous vehicles that can operate ably and safely in any type of environment. While Musk has long championed an automotive age filled with self-driving cars, this is the most optimistic timeline for their deployment we've seen Musk make yet. In fact, Musk in 2014 said the requisite technology to manufacture a self-driving car was still about five to six years away. "I think we have all the pieces," Musk said, "and it's just about refining those pieces, putting them in place, and making sure they work across a huge number of environments—and then we're done. It's a much easier problem than people think it is."

172 comments

  1. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    -The NTSB

    1. Re:No. by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      "Putting the 'dead' into deadline."

      I really really hope they don't rush things to get it done on time.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  2. frist homburggger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I like holly, I like toes
    if i see honey
    my penis nsows

  3. Only if I have complete control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self Driving Cars with automated updates, kill switches, remotely accessed cameras and microphones, and any other means of surveillance is not a car I will finance because it will no longer be MY car.

    1. Re:Only if I have complete control... by NotInHere · · Score: -1

      The car is already not YOUR car anymore because the manufacturer controls the spare parts market. If they want a car to be EOL, it is EOL. If they want you to pay large sums of money for the spare parts, you pay large sums. And no, there is no guarantee a third party vendor has a cheaper variant of the spare part for your special car model. And yes, car manufacturers make the big money not with the actual car, but with the spare parts. If you buy a car, you don't buy just a car, but also a vendor lock for spare parts.

      Also, you can't make modifications to parts of the car because they are closed source. They expose some options to the outside, but if you actually want to change something, you need to pay large sums of money in order to get devices you can change these parameters with, or pay (or know) somebody who has such devices.

      Cars already have kill switches, as the car manufacturer can simply issue a remote "software update" just for that particular car, with the firmware doing whatever the car manufacturer commands. And the car executes it regardless whether it is "don't move", or "you drive on a bridge right now, please steer to the right as far as possible". The only thing preventing law enforcement agencies from using them is that they don't have the laws, and don't want to destroy that opportunity. If people find out about the risks of vendor controlled cars they won't buy them.

    2. Re:Only if I have complete control... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The car is already not YOUR car anymore because the manufacturer controls the spare parts market."
      This is an amazingly uneducated response.

      Go see the company called "year One" and how they are making parts for cars that have been long abandoned by the manufacturer. Oh and please feel free to continue ignoring every car made from 1927 to 1999 that also have 3rd party parts available.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re: Only if I have complete control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. What cars are you taking about? Have you ever even worked on a car?

    4. Re:Only if I have complete control... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Of course, now they are putting more computers in each car, and then embedding the VIN of the car in the code running each CPU, to make it that much harder to replace said computers when they fail.

      And I can't believe people are stupid enough to pay for a internet connection for the vehicle, just so they don't have to deal with their children, but also giving the manufacturer valuable information about them and how they use their vehicle, which is sold, will be used against them if they get in any sort of accident, and the cars systems will be able to be remotely altered. And please ignore the terrible track record the car companies have with keeping their systems safe. And the manufacturer partnering with a software maker like Google or Microsoft certainly won't result in code that will be hack-proof.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Only if I have complete control... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course, now they are putting more computers in each car, and then embedding the VIN of the car in the code running each CPU, to make it that much harder to replace said computers when they fail.

      That's not new, but eventually people figure out how to root that out. Bosch ME 5.4 and below are all fully open now, for example, including rewriting immobilizer codes. Using a $10 eBay cable and a netbook, I can theoretically the codes on mid-to-late-nineties Kraut cans in just a couple of minutes. Or, they redevelop the modules. The factory service manual typically includes literally all the information needed to implement workalikes. The good news is that automakers tend to use the same modules over and over again. The Bosch ABS 5 computer in my A8 is also the same as in contemporary A6 and Passat, and probably other modules, and there's no coding because it's fully adaptive. The only modules that tend to get coded to the car are the cluster, PCM, and TCM, perhaps the security module, and maybe the BCM but usually not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Only if I have complete control... by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Does Tesla sell factory service/repair manuals? As far as I heard nope, they don't. Neither spare parts unless you prove that you own clean title Tesla and it isn't something more complex like engine. Good look trying to reverse engineer it which would probably be declared illegal as well. And they can switch off their charger access at any moment, or any charging for that matter, thanks to that great over-the-air update & always connected feature of total control of your (are you sure it is your anymore?) car.

    7. Re:Only if I have complete control... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Self Driving Cars with automated updates, kill switches, remotely accessed cameras and microphones, and any other means of surveillance is not a car I will finance because it will no longer be MY car.

      In case you hadn't noticed, the Uber model means that in a few years' time, almost no one will bother owning a car. Except the not-a-taxi drivers of course, and even they will probably have some sort of lease arrangement with Uber.

      Why else would Uber be valued at sixty zillion dollars? Certainly not because they'll be just a big not-a-taxi company.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Many issues to address first by burtosis · · Score: 0

    If he means he is willing to accept full liability for any and all problems that's one thing. But I doubt we will have autonomous cars that can replace drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon. It's difficult for computers to solve visual captchas humans solve easily, likewise humans navigate better than computers today with far inferior sensors. We can essentially duplicate the computational power of a common housefly, but that housefly has superior navigation and SLAM to any man made machine we have today, using far inferior sensors. But hey if it's just a stunt to raise money for research that's not really a bad thing.

    1. Re:Many issues to address first by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If he means he is willing to accept full liability for any and all problems that's one thing. But I doubt we will have autonomous cars that can replace drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon.

      if he's willing to sell a car as "self driving" and accept liability for its driving, then that car had better be able to handle all driving conditions, or Tesla won't survive long under all of the liability lawsuits.

      It's difficult for computers to solve visual captchas humans solve easily, likewise humans navigate better than computers today with far inferior sensors.

      It often takes me several tries to complete a Capcha, while Google says that they've got AI that can solve their own capchas:

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/4...

    2. Re:Many issues to address first by phantomfive · · Score: -1

      It often takes me several tries to complete a Capcha, while Google says that they've got AI that can solve their own capchas:

      It's not particularly surprising that when text is distorted by a simple algorithm, it can also be "fixed" by a simple algorithm......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Many issues to address first by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Are you sure we can duplicate a housefly. Are you sure you're not thinking of fruit fly? (which are admittedly, probably more common in households than the house fly...)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Many issues to address first by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I don't know why that should imply any particular degree of surprisingness. Cryptography is all about algorithms that are relatively simple, but which don't have simple (or at least, no known simple) reversing algorithms.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Many issues to address first by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because most programmers don't apply cryptographic techniques when making captchas.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Many issues to address first by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Captchas may be easily solvable for a specific type of obfuscation. But it is extremely computationally intensive and still the best generic systems struggle below 90%, sometimes well below, when it comes to solving any generic type and not a specific method. The article from the verge about Google posted above a 96% success rate for house numbers lmao how many literate and sober humans are that bad at reading straight forward numbers? Humans are still better going into 2016 hence the croudsourced software models still in use today.

    7. Re:Many issues to address first by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Yes when you compare supercomputer clusters to a common housefly it should be possible to exceed the housefly computational power. My point is it's not brute force, simply that we are decades behind on intelligent algorithms and getting hundreds to tens of thousands of these algorithms to effectively work together properly. That's likely what you would need to outperform a human with similar sensory input.

    8. Re:Many issues to address first by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon."

      I imagine that they can do a bit better than that. e.g. navigate a parking lot on a "If it isn't moving steer around it and if it is moving wait for it to get out of the way" basis. But they are going to get stuck occasionally and need a bit of help -- which is why they'll need a driver on board who is capable of making decisions.

      Overall, I agree. It'll surely be a decade or three before autonomous cars can consistently navigate arbitrary urban or suburban streets safely.

      Increasingly, Musk seems like an old fashioned snake oil salesman.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:Many issues to address first by localman · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Why don't they crowdsource autonomous cars then? Just have millions of people in third-world countries paid pennies an hour deciding whether your car should speed up or slow down. If it's the best way to solve captchas, what could possibly go wrong?

    10. Re:Many issues to address first by burtosis · · Score: 1

      These are called taxis. And now uber.

    11. Re:Many issues to address first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I doubt we will have autonomous cars that can replace drivers in anything but freeway and some limited pre mapped city driving situations any time soon.

      Modern non-autonomous cars have cruise control, lane following, automatic braking and assisted parking. That pretty much covers the cases you listed.
      I expect autonomous cars to be able to do slightly more than a non-autonomous one.

    12. Re:Many issues to address first by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      ... That's likely what you would need to outperform a human with similar sensory input.

      And that's where we disagree. Humans are impatient, short-sighted, inattentive, and panicky. A computer isn't. It's patient, and always pays attention. Yes, humans are extraordinary at sensory input processing (well, for the parts they are looking at), but that's only part of the pipeline. There have been great advances in image processing in the past couple of years. Further, the computer gets input from more directions at once. Combine that with flexible decision making (and complete attention to the problem) and the overall system performance is already higher in some situations. In a couple of years, it will be better across the board.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    13. Re:Many issues to address first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument just shows how much ground autonomous systems need to cover on the algorithm side of things. I don't think anyone would argue that for specific simple tasks computers are not as good as humans, such as looking at the numbers on a rangefinder for gaging distance. But autonomous driving systems, by your own admission, using far superior sensors, cannot even cope with generic driving conditions, much less under adverse conditions like fog, rain, snow etc. And if by "a couple of years" you mean at least 10 if not 20+ then we agree. If you were to remove all humans from the roadway, both as pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers then maybe 2 years, but as it stands it isn't going to happen in 2 years, or even 5 for all driving conditions.

    14. Re:Many issues to address first by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Humans who don't operate machinery loose skills to do it inevitably. It is already happening with airliners, from time to time pilots get confused with simple things when autopilot disconnects, even if they are supposed to receive simulator training. E.g. Air France flight over Atlantic, autopilot disconnected and pilot was unable to keep plane going at constant speed and pushed up until it went into stall. Or Korean plane hitting seawall in CA in perfect weather just because some autolanding system was off.

      You may still retains driving skills as you were driving for many years. But younger generation will not have them.

    15. Re:Many issues to address first by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In a couple of years, it will be better across the board.

      You're begging the question.

      No one is denying that if there is a huge leap forward in AI in the next two years then autonomous cars could work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. He was counting in Mars Leap Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was counting in Mars Leap Years

    1. Re:He was counting in Mars Leap Years by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Knowing Musk, "available in two years" means they'll have a widely publicized demo on a big parking lot in two years, and we'll get actual self-driving cars with severe limitations on how and when to use the system in at least four years.

      Come on, Elon, prove me wrong!

    2. Re:He was counting in Mars Leap Years by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      A few years ago at the darpa challenge every competing vehicle was able to park by itself. Within a year many manufacturers were selling cars with some type of park assist.

      That was pretty cool considering a lot of them weren't even able to finish the challenge.

      But two years? Yeah I think you are right marketing seems to want to say WE HAVE A SELF DRIVING CAR!!! while selling something that is just fancy cruise control. Like tesla's autopilot many sources reported it as being much more than it is /. included. http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

      I feel the same about this as astronauts do when someone calls the shuttle a spaceship.

      Lets not call anything a self driving car until one can actually drive by itself from point a to point b without interaction being required.

      Have one go from CA to NY without any driver interaction (other than for fuel) now that would be something worthy of the title.

      There are a lot of people working on it and an enormous amount of funding being poured into it I personally think it will be done within the next 10 years hopefully sooner.

      Keep in mind here in the US we had to lower the standard of what was considered broadband so it would look like people actually had access to decent service. The limit for broadband is now 25/3 so dsl no longer qualifies.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:He was counting in Mars Leap Years by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Have one go from CA to NY without any driver interaction (other than for fuel) now that would be something worthy of the title.

      I'd have thought that getting the car to fill/charge itself while stationery was a relatively trivial matter compared to actually driving at high speed on roads filled with drunks, texters and people with an allergy to indicators or looking in the mirrors.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:He was counting in Mars Leap Years by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      It should be but I haven't seen any news of any automated fill systems in development. As for electric Ive only heard of the snake charger tesla is working on.
      So maybe they will start work on automatic gas stations later? Many of the gas stations here have intentionally slow pumps so it takes 15 minutes to get 10 gallons of fuel.
      Some have even went as far as disabling the cc machine at the pump so you have to go inside. Somehow I don't think they have my convince in mind. So if I want to fill up at existing stations manual will be required. However since we are talking about a SDC having to drive an extra 100 miles to get to an automatic fill/charger may not be considered an issue on a cross country trip.

      Years ago I was hearing about plans for wireless chargers where you just parked your vehicle over a certain spot. Haven't heard anything about them in a while so I assume its been decided the losses are too great with the amount of transfer required to charge an electric car.

      However much smaller things eg a roomba already have a automatic (and wired) charging solution. So it can be done easily enough.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  6. Musk Has Motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no link, nor Did I read the article, But, Musk has some kind of bet with George Hotz regarding auto driving cars.
    Recently G.H. did a preview of the tech with Bloomberg or something. So 2 years? sure.

      We don't want another "welcome to the club" tweet like Jeff Bezos just tossed out for landing rockets. ( Apples to Oranges comparison there, but Oh, The Gamesmanship!)

  7. round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when will they be able to handle round-abouts and unmarked lanes?

    1. Re:round abouts by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In two years, didn't you read the summary? O_o

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:round abouts by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So when will they be able to handle round-abouts and unmarked lanes?

      I don't know about roundabouts, but Tesla Autopilot, can already handle unmarked lanes. Tesla collects GPS data while you are driving. So if you drive down a street with unmarked lanes, it just follows the same path as other Teslas that have driven down the same street. My street has no lane markings, and my wife's Tesla can drive it on Autopilot with no problems. So this is a solved problem, and the solution is already in use by consumers.

    3. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when will they be able to handle round-abouts and unmarked lanes?

      I don't know about roundabouts, but Tesla Autopilot, can already handle unmarked lanes. Tesla collects GPS data while you are driving. So if you drive down a street with unmarked lanes, it just follows the same path as other Teslas that have driven down the same street. My street has no lane markings, and my wife's Tesla can drive it on Autopilot with no problems. So this is a solved problem, and the solution is already in use by consumers.

      We still haven't got reliable gps but we want to make an autonomous car. This is a freaking joke.

    4. Re:round abouts by germansausage · · Score: 2

      When will humans be able to handle roundabouts? Because where I live not many people are smart enough to successfully navigate roundabouts.

    5. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC as OP here:
      It's all good if there are enough Teslas to provide average out to a good autopilot, but if you're the only tesla driver in the area, then you can cause serious problems for whoever comes next.

    6. Re:round abouts by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Really? So you regularly encounter people stuck in them? Or did you mean they can't navigate it in the most efficient way? There's a difference there.

    7. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! What do you think happens when the proportion of GPS-guided cars rises vs human-operated? Where are they going to get the requisite super-accurate track data from? The blind leading the deaf indeed..

      PS: I guarantee that your GPS is not accurate enough for the kind of blind navigation an auto-pilot does. You just _think_ it is because you haven't gotten in an accident _yet_..

    8. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends where you are, and if they have experience with them on a regular basis. San Francisco only has a couple, and the one I know of that serves a relatively high traffic area is a cluster-fuck. Each entrance is a stop sign, and still folks already in the roundabout will stop for them, thus backing up the rest of it and grinding things to a stand still. Yeehaw.

    9. Re:round abouts by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      And yet, it works. A single car with wonky GPS is one thing. Having hundreds of cars with GPS, and gathering data repeatedly over the same location, allows high accuracy. You combine that with systems that use the sensor inputs and you can be very accurate. Consider the following article that discussed the data that they have already gathered. Now, do that for the next 2 years, while compute power, algorithms, and sensors improve. This is doable, though still hard.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    10. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when will they be able to handle round-abouts and unmarked lanes?

      I don't know about roundabouts, but Tesla Autopilot, can already handle unmarked lanes. Tesla collects GPS data while you are driving. So if you drive down a street with unmarked lanes, it just follows the same path as other Teslas that have driven down the same street. My street has no lane markings, and my wife's Tesla can drive it on Autopilot with no problems. So this is a solved problem, and the solution is already in use by consumers.

      We still haven't got reliable gps but we want to make an autonomous car. This is a freaking joke.

      If you mean reliable standard consumer grade GPS, then maybe you have a point.

      But you do know the stuff that gets installed in aircrafts, farm equipment, used for surveying has mm accuracy right? I doubt Tesla uses Garmin NUVIs or iPhones for their auto-pilot system...

    11. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because no one ever thought of using other inputs in addition to GPS for auto-pilot...

      And no one ever thought of using high precision GPS... You know, the one's that are used in surveying, air crafts, and farm equipment...

      Nope, no one at all. I am sure you can attest to this with your profound knowledge in this area.

    12. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you lose GPS AND Cell signal while moving down the road in autonomous mode?

    13. Re:round abouts by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We still haven't got reliable gps but we want to make an autonomous car.

      Who is this "we"? Under $20 gets you a modern GPS module (and GLONASS, etc) with an active patch antenna and a compass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you switch to the organic ocular-tactile feedback control system.

    15. Re: round abouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the tesla I was in starting tracking the wrong side of the road because of tram tracks and then proceeded to charge towards a workman holding a "slow/stop" sign in the middle of the road. Time span - 20 seconds.

      Elon musk is a snake oil salesman.

    16. Re:round abouts by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      What I've seen is an inability of people to handle multiple lanes in a roundabout. So if new lanes start in the middle, while lanes spiral off to outside exits, people will be oblivious to the line markings. As well you can have people on an inner lane, that abruptly exit without checking if there is a car continuing past the exit in an outer lane.

      Also just a general lack of use of Turn signals. More than normal.

    17. Re:round abouts by rch7 · · Score: 1

      It is fine for driver assistance, but it doesn't sound like fool-proof for autonomous car. What if you drive in some location where Teslas are not very popular and get into new road construction zone with remapped or absent lanes? Will Tesla just follow previous path and go straight into a pile of sand? I would rather wait for other guinea pigs to test such system on full scale before relying on it myself.

    18. Re:round abouts by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So if you drive down a street with unmarked lanes, it just follows the same path as other Teslas that have driven down the same street.

      So it's able to follow a map? That is not AI, and it is not adequate for the real world.

      So this is a solved problem

      No, it's not.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:round abouts by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When will humans be able to handle roundabouts? Because where I live not many people are smart enough to successfully navigate roundabouts.

      Idiocracy has become reality.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    They'll be defending themselves from lawsuits within 3.

    1. Re:lawsuit by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      They'll be defending themselves from lawsuits within 3.

      So what? They're safer than the average driver. Juries on average may prefer to side with the little guy, but what really convinces juries is showing them exactly what happened. The many, many tort cases about car accidents are all about whose story about how the accident occurred is correct.

      Anyone defending a robotic car will be *really* good at showing exactly what happened in an accident. It's not just about witness statements any more.

      We're already paying a lot of money because of lawsuits around cars. Insurance will ultimately be cheaper with robotic cars involved.

    2. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So what? They're safer than the average driver.

      How can you know that about a technology that isn't even built yet?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How can you know that about a technology that isn't even built yet?"

      Because it is. What's happening now is testing, validating and minor refinements based on existing builds.

    4. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here's the self-driving technology level list. Which level would you say we are at with current technology?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:lawsuit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How can you know that about a technology that isn't even built yet?

      Because it is built, and has already been tested over millions of miles of driving. Many of the specific technologies, like adaptive cruise control, and automatic lane following, are already installed in millions of cars.

    6. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Again, here are the self-driving technology levels. Where would you say were are currently on that list? What do you think it will take to get to level 4?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:lawsuit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Where would you say were are currently on that list?

      Legally, we are at level 2. Technologically, we are at level 3.

      What do you think it will take to get to level 4?

      Two years.

    8. Re: lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop lying you astroturfer.

    9. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What do you think it will take to get to level 4?

      Two years.

      That avoids answering the question. If you don't know what technological advances are still necessary, that's fine.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:lawsuit by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Are technological advances actually necessary, or is it just a matter of gathering a lot more data with testing to refine the logic?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re:lawsuit by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Are technological advances actually necessary, or is it just a matter of gathering a lot more data with testing to refine the logic?

      Faster hardware will also help. Most vision and AI algorithms are highly parallel, so more cores helps almost as much as faster cores.

    12. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It depends. If you want an AI that can handle any new road it's never seen before (like a human), then yes, we need to invent that kind of AI.

      The Google/Tesla method is to have a very detailed 3D map of the area, and then the car can navigate through the pre-made map. It seems like Tesla is planning on creating a detailed 3D map of the entire United States, probably by collecting data from cars that are already on the road. I am fascinated to see if that is enough. I doubt it, but if I'm proved wrong, then great we have self-driving cars.

      Previously reports were that Google car sensors couldn't handle certain weather conditions. Maybe they've solved that by now (they aren't very open at all about what their cars can do), but if not, then we'll need to improve that technology as well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:lawsuit by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      What about data? Cars may need a lot of local storage can't relay on there being some kind of good cell / wifi network 24/7 even 1 way GPS is iffy in some areas maybe mesh networks but still rural areas and other network black holes.

    14. Re:lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That list is clearly put together by some nitwit that has no clue about how autonomous cars works.
      I recommend that you throw it away and write your own. You can't do worse than that.

    15. Re:lawsuit by rch7 · · Score: 1

      The problem with these millions miles is that they are all on the same track, so really means nothing when you go elsewhere or when something changes on the road.

    16. Re:lawsuit by rch7 · · Score: 1

      GPS may be hardly usable in some places like South America.

    17. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How can you know that about a technology that isn't even built yet?
      The technology is partly 20 years old so it is built.
      Basically all majour car companies in Europe and Asia have self driving cars since about 10 years. With more or less success, of course.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We are already at level 4.

      I never sat in one of those cars, but we have a few at my University more precisely at the "Forschungszentrum Informatik" here in Karlsruhe.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Erm, we are using 4 ARM cores and 2 DSPs and mostly they idle, one DPS does nothing, one ARM is only needed during booting. On something like 500MHz and 16MB RAM. TI board, forgot the name. A pretty simple and cheap one.

      We don't need anything faster for simple image processing.

      Radar, Lidar and other sensors are processed by different boards.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      With more or less success, of course.

      lol there's a lot of variance in that phrase.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:lawsuit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "How can you know that about a technology that isn't even built yet?"

      Because it is. What's happening now is testing, validating and minor refinements based on existing builds.

      Cool, Elon Musk himself is posting on slashdot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would you say were are currently on that list?

      Legally, we are at level 2. Technologically, we are at level 3.

      What do you think it will take to get to level 4?

      Two years.

      Do you actually work for Elon Musk, or are you just stupid?

    23. Re:lawsuit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The Google/Tesla method is to have a very detailed 3D map of the area, and then the car can navigate through the pre-made map.

      The map is not the territory.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:lawsuit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We are already at level 4.

      I never sat in one of those cars, but we have a few at my University more precisely at the "Forschungszentrum Informatik" here in Karlsruhe.

      So one of the cars at your university can drive me from there to (say) Berlin, while it's snowing, with no human intervention other than my opening the door to get in? Really?

      If this is the case, why haven't you licensed the tech to Musk and let him make you all a boatload of cash?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think what you are saying is that the map will never accurate represent the actual world. In that case, I agree with you, and I will actually be astonished if it works. Pleasantly astonished, but astonished nonetheless.

      Also, agile techniques definitely don't work with self-driving cars. Can you imagine an OTA update that isn't quite right, and ends up killing 15000 people?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I guess Elon will license the tech from someone ... what is your point?

      At least if he starts from scratch now and does not license anything, or simply buy the required parts (actually no need to license anything if you simply buy the sensors and computers from Bosch and Continental e.g.) he wont make anything in the next 2 years.

      After all the other companies are working since 20 years on the required sensors and software.

      So one of the cars at your university can drive me from there to (say) Berlin, while it's snowing, with no human intervention other than my opening the door to get in? Really?
      Yes, they are only at the university, more precisely FZI Karlsruhe, to fool around with them. They are mainstream cars ... not sure which brand we have right now, I think an BMW and an Audi.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That means that some have 100% autonomous cars, and the others are a bit behind ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well, Google has a car without a steering wheel, and the DARPA challenge was won a while ago, but that doesn't mean we have the technology for a street legal car without a steering wheel.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:lawsuit by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Legally, we are at level 2. Technologically, we are at level 3.

      I'd say that's correct.

      But 2 years to get to level 4? No. 2 years we'll be able to expand the list of "specific traffic and environment" situations that are supported, but that's still miles away from level 4.

      For level 4, the car has to be able to cope with the car in front of it having a blowout on a bridge, and skidding to a stop on its side. And I'm not talking about just safely braking to avoid a collision; that's the EASY part.

      I'm talking about coping with the fact that now there is a traffic jam piling up behind it, and a 2 tons out of commission vehicle blocking the lanes in front of it.

      So it needs to get out of the way for the ambulance if necessary. It needs to follow directions to detour around the wreckage, perhaps backup, off the bridge cross over to the oncoming lanes using one of the emergency/service vehicle openings, and then take turns with oncoming traffic to pass the accident as directed by the police.

      You think we're two years from a car that can do that? Not me. I don't think we're even close.

      And if we don't have that? Then what? We're going to have empty cars, and cars occupied by people who aren't able to drive causing truly epic traffic jams because they simply don't know how to cope with exceptional circumstances like this.

    30. Re:lawsuit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      but that doesn't mean we have the technology for a street legal car without a steering wheel.

      I would not be so certain about that. And ofc. some questions remains:
      a) with or without steering wheel, would an occupant require a driving license (especially if it has a steering wheel)
      b) would there be a way, perhaps with an App, to interfere aka giving directions, in case the car is indeed lost, e.g. in a small path through a wood, or if it "sees" tracks of a agricultural machine on a field and likes to divert to follow them from a country road

      Hm, I had one more question before, but I lost it.

      As far as I see it (checked how far Tesla is, but could not figure how they went there so far, they are basically on par with google I would say) the legal question comes in tough when the majour car companies make pressure. As I mentioned before: all big Germans and a few of the Japanese with which we have cooperations have the technology to sell self driving cars _right now_

      I just watched a movie of the Tesla in "autopilot" mode on german roads. The testers where extremely surprised and confident. It seems it only lacks abilities in crossing roads in tows or making turns there, when no traffic lights etc. are available. I guess they have no proper camera/algorithms ready yet.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:lawsuit by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I would not be so certain about that.

      I am lol.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. I'd rather the common housefly do the driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We can essentially duplicate the computational power of a common housefly"

    Common housefly is essentially free.
    Self-driving car, $100 billions in research.
    Housefly is smarter than car, avoids pesky obstacles.

    Obvious answer: teach common housefly to drive car.

    1. Re: I'd rather the common housefly do the driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah. most flies have seen with run j to a window over and over again. You'd think it's give up the first time but no. Surely we do t want our cars doing the same.

    2. Re: I'd rather the common housefly do the driving by burtosis · · Score: 1

      And you don't think autonomous cars, with subsidized AI, won't keep driving past the mall where you make regular purchases? Or the casino or liquor store if it's not out of the way. Or to be free it continually makes inane product or service placement suggestions? I'm not so sure that these centeralized AI models will be much different.

  10. For 99% of conditions it is trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the car gets to ice, broken line markings, rough road, construction code madness, deer coming onto the road, or thousands of other unexpected events, a human's understanding of the situation can sometimes be superior. I guess until you get strong AI, you can drive on a subset of all roads until you fix the harder problems. For 99% of driving self driving cars are good to go. It's the unexpected details that could cause it problems. Maybe going slow and sticking to strict GPS locations of where the road shoukd be will cover most unknown cases...

    1. Re: For 99% of conditions it is trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The 99% is already figured out. It's the unknown 1% which could end in injury or death.
      A driverless car needs to be as good or better than the best human driver, not the average driver who will often crash in an emergency situation. If a driverless car ran over my child I would demand to know that every evasive action was taken to avoid the accident. A driverless car that merely hits the antilock brakes and ploughs through a baby stroller isn't good enough to not be sued off the road.

    2. Re: For 99% of conditions it is trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the car is as good as human it will never get a permission to go public roads. Human brain is a hack. Usually it happens to work but quite often it makes mistakes and people survive mostly by luck.

    3. Re: For 99% of conditions it is trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And given the sampling rate - 1% is a huge margin of error for driving.

      AI image processing is stuck at 99.1% - i'd be surprised to see that go to 5 or 6 "9's" in 2 years.

  11. Still riding the high by al0ha · · Score: 1

    Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars. I certainly wish him luck, I love his bravado for sure; but me thinks NOT.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Still riding the high by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.

      When you launch rockets, you have fairly moderate risk connected to it. Yes, money can burn, but unless you have manned missions, no human will get harmed. Most rocket launches don't have humans on board. Cars on the other hand drive so that they can transport humans. Many cars also drive to transport cargo, but even if they drove without human oversight, they would still be on roads populated by cars with humans. So the risk connected is far higher for cars. Also, with rockets, the astronauts chose themselves if they want to become astronauts, and live with the risk of dying in a rocket accident. But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street.

      We should do what the AC in the rocket launch story suggested: wait until the first service pack is out. We shouldn't throw an immature technology on the market.

      Also, one has to talk about software updates for self driving cars. Almost every hardware stops getting software updates by their manufacturer at some point. You can't have cars with EOLed firmware driving on the streets. Nobody should make money by selling security improvements that just mean to flip a switch.

    2. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see you land a rocket like that. Bet you absolutely cant, yet you can drive a car?

      Driving a car is a hell of a lot easier. Dont kid yourself into thinking you are exceptional at driving and a finely tuned machine , it's actually a really simple task and very low IQ people do it every day.

      Remember the average IQ is 100, and 80 is barely functional.

    3. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Falcon 9 success

      Loved it when the workers chanted "U S A U S A U S A." I imagined untold numbers of 'merica-loathing pseudo-hippies cringing in mortification. LOL.

    4. Re:Still riding the high by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars.

      Ummm...I kinda doubt that. One of their engineers did the math and found that it was just like trying to launch a really fragile pencil over the empire state building and then have it land on a moving shoe box in heavy wind. NOT a trivial thing to do. Hell, most people couldn't even figure out how to make the pencil actually launch.

      I think the really, truly, absolutely hardest part of making self driving cars a reality is the politics. Why? Because people worry about everything from skynet to "think of the children" when there isn't a person driving a car. Their fears are horribly misplaced though, and if you want an example, go read what happened in Las Vegas last night. Scary shit, but believe it or not, people would readily trust the person driving that over a computer.

    5. Re:Still riding the high by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      Also, one has to talk about software updates for self driving cars. Almost every hardware stops getting software updates by their manufacturer at some point. You can't have cars with EOLed firmware driving on the streets.

      Cars with EOLed firmware will not be allowed on the street, you will have to buy a new car. Yay for planned obsolescence.

    6. Re: Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even now, google cars have already racked up 50+ accidents, with payola marketing press releases in overdrive trying to blame everyone and everything other than the google cars for each accident. Look it up, there's even an example where a google car was in a kerfufle with ANOTHER self driving car - no humans required.

      It's laughable except for all the paid shills here on /. trying to shift the truth.

    7. Re:Still riding the high by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and that will fail and lead to a big waste issue as well.

    8. Re:Still riding the high by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But with cars, you can't chose if a self driving car is with you on the street." I already can't choose if drunks, teenagers, and idiots are on the street with me -- I'll take self-driving cars over at least half the drivers I see every day. Self driving cars would be easy to be on the road with -- predictable, not distracted, and no road rage.

    9. Re:Still riding the high by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The successful landing was on land, not the barge. I don't think shoebox part applies. Still impressive.

    10. Re:Still riding the high by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      I don't have those concerns, but I will not drive a car that reports back my location at all times. When a fully automated vehicle exists that works without the constant phoning home then I'll be interested. If that never happens so help me I'll walk before I give up my liberty. I trust the computers to get me there safely, but I don't trust the people behind them with that level of surveillance.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    11. Re:Still riding the high by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The google cars are driving themselves already now. One could easily just replicate the technology they use and get those things onto the streets, right now. But it would be extremely risky, because google drives them in a fairly controlled environment, and the number of accidents that will happen will multiply by a large count. The question is whether one should start throwing a technology onto the markets when its still incomplete and not polished, or whether one should wait some years before that is possible.

      Well, except technology doesn't age like a fine wine. It won't be mature technology before it has lots of real world testing and a lot of developers have worked on it for a long time to work out the bugs, both of which involve bringing a product to market and getting a cash flow going. Google's approach has been the Big Bang, when it's <agile>Done</agile> the car will drive itself and until then it will be a lab project doing controlled experiments. Tesla's approach has been to put it out there and let idiots abuse it leaving them to take the fall, while getting lots of paying beta testers who are formally required to be just as attentive as when it's off. I'm guessing that somewhere in the terms for using it, Tesla is getting data feedback.

      Assuming the actual go-ahead for a fully autonomous consumer car that doesn't require you to pay attention will take longer than predicted, considering all the technical, practical and legal hurdles to be crossed the Google project might just linger and linger while Tesla gradually improves to fill the role while saying "Well it could drive by itself, but the law won't let it" or at least pretending their 95% solution could, as long as they don't have to prove it. From a safety and PR perspective it seems to work out for Tesla so far, the main concern have been the reckless and the reckless have mainly taken the blame. There still haven't been any big crash and media case where it did something horribly wrong.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditched that smartphone of yours already?

    13. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars. I certainly wish him luck, I love his bravado for sure; but me thinks NOT.

      You are one of the few people that gets it.

    14. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon is apparently still riding the high of Falcon 9 success, a feat which while absolutely amazing, pales in complexity to self-driving cars.

      Ummm...I kinda doubt that. One of their engineers did the math and found that it was just like trying to launch a really fragile pencil over the empire state building and then have it land on a moving shoe box in heavy wind. NOT a trivial thing to do. Hell, most people couldn't even figure out how to make the pencil actually launch.

      I think the really, truly, absolutely hardest part of making self driving cars a reality is the politics. Why? Because people worry about everything from skynet to "think of the children" when there isn't a person driving a car. Their fears are horribly misplaced though, and if you want an example, go read what happened in Las Vegas last night. Scary shit, but believe it or not, people would readily trust the person driving that over a computer.

      You miss the point. Almost all the variables in the Falcon 9 launch are known, predictable, and measurable. Not so with hundreds of millions of cars on 4 million miles of roads in the U.S. The permutations are almost infinite. You can never program for all of them, you need human level A.I.

    15. Re:Still riding the high by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Someone has finally touched on the crux of the problem! I've been snickering while reading. You all are very smart people and I respect that. However, modeling traffic is like working with a chaotic system (climate is a good example of a similar type of system). You can throw all the algorithms you want at it but you will always find the one drunk guy who's driving backwards down a one way street.

      I'll skip the novella today. I've typed it all before. Good luck with that. It's gonna be a while.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Still riding the high by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't throw an immature technology on the market.
      You are something like 15 - 20 years behind "state of the art".

      Basically every majour car company already has self driving cars. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Toyota ... no idea about that backward country that proudly proclaims itself "gods own country".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Still riding the high by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It won't be mature technology before it has lots of real world testing and a lot of developers have worked on it for a long time to work out the bugs,
      the self driving cars where I was involved in making automated tests for the software: already have over a million miles of autonomous driving on public roads! So what do you want more? Which bugs?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Still riding the high by rch7 · · Score: 1

      It is not that easy to replicate Google approach as as far as I heard they try to map every rock on the street in advance. To replicate it nationwide it would take a lot of resources only Google has so far.
      Insurance companies may be willing to underwrite liability insurance though anyway if it is not perfect but incident rate matches average driver on the street including drunks and raging & racing idiots.

    19. Re:Still riding the high by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't throw an immature technology on the market. You are something like 15 - 20 years behind "state of the art".

      Basically every majour car company already has self driving cars. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Toyota ... no idea about that backward country that proudly proclaims itself "gods own country".

      The cars available now are only self driving up to a point. You can't sit in one, tell it to take you to work, and fall asleep, unless your home and work are connected by a clear motorway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:Still riding the high by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't have those concerns, but I will not drive a car that reports back my location at all times. When a fully automated vehicle exists that works without the constant phoning home then I'll be interested. If that never happens so help me I'll walk before I give up my liberty. I trust the computers to get me there safely, but I don't trust the people behind them with that level of surveillance.

      It must be a nightmare working with you, as you'll obviously be constantly on the move, never stay in the office for more than a few minutes at a time and refuse to reveal your home address or phone number to anyone.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Still riding the high by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can throw all the algorithms you want at it but you will always find the one drunk guy who's driving backwards down a one way street.

      Although I don't believe we're anywhere near having autonomous cars, in this example you'd probably get just as much damage with human-driven as computer-driven cars.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Still riding the high by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You can't sit in one, tell it to take you to work ...
      Yes, you can.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Still riding the high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >already have over a million miles of autonomous driving on public roads!

      Oh, they've driven in a decade a distance less than Americans drive in a single day? And they've done this only in prime conditions? Well, certainly that's enough testing for full-scale deployment.

  12. Time to buy Tesla stock by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Time to purchase some Tesla stock.

    Every time Musk says something positive about Tesla in a public forum, the stock jumps higher, usually in the $12 to $15 range. Then slowly goes down again over the subsequent 2 weeks.

    Look to see a big jump around Monday, after everyone has done with the holidays and logs into their stock accounts over the weekend.

    Just 'sayin...

    1. Re:Time to buy Tesla stock by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Musk is proof of the modern phenomenon that you don't actually need to build a better mousetrap to get the world beating a path to your door. You just have to be able to promise a better mousetrap tomorrow, once the government stop interfering.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. In line with Google's plans by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I recall, Google has been saying for while that they'd have something ready by 2017. On the one hand it seems like it should be surprising if Tesla manages to make it to market at the same time, since they got a much later start. On the other hand, it probably shouldn't surprise us if multiple companies get there at about the same time, since it's less about the cleverness in building the system than it is about having all of the fundamental technological pieces to do it. In particular, I think deep learning neural networks are the core technology that will make effective fully-autonomous cars feasible (plus the sensors, but those have been available for years), and to a large degree the whole world got access to that theory and practice at about the same time.

    What is surprising to me is that we haven't heard more from the likes of Freightliner. IMO, that is the first really major market for self-driving vehicles, and those don't even need to be fully autonomous. If tractor-trailer rigs can just drive themselves on the freeway, freight companies can immediately get rid of 90% of their drivers and massively reduce their costs, by having a human drive the truck to the freeway then hop out and let it travel to the destination city, where another human will drive it through town to its destination. Plus, given the price of a semi tractor, adding $50K or even $100K for an automation suite is a relatively small incremental cost, while it's a rather large chunk of change for a passenger vehicle.

    (Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on self-driving vehicles and I don't know any more about the status of Google's system than what is in the public press.)

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:In line with Google's plans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is surprising to me is that we haven't heard more from the likes of Freightliner.

      Mercedes has always been risk-averse. They're not afraid to cram a lot of fancy technology into their S-Class cars, but most of it is well-proven long before they shove it in there anyway. Meanwhile, they mostly do things the old way and let other companies take the risks. Freightliner has only announced plans for driver assistance so far, and no full autonomy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:In line with Google's plans by swillden · · Score: 1

      What is surprising to me is that we haven't heard more from the likes of Freightliner.

      Mercedes has always been risk-averse. They're not afraid to cram a lot of fancy technology into their S-Class cars, but most of it is well-proven long before they shove it in there anyway. Meanwhile, they mostly do things the old way and let other companies take the risks. Freightliner has only announced plans for driver assistance so far, and no full autonomy.

      Well, whichever of the truck manufacturers gets there first -- Mack, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Volvo, etc. -- is going to do a great business. Long haul trucking is just begging for automation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:In line with Google's plans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, whichever of the truck manufacturers gets there first -- Mack, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Volvo, etc. -- is going to do a great business. Long haul trucking is just begging for automation.

      I agree, but the problem is the states. Unless the Federal government forces them to fall in line somehow, each one is going to regulate self-driving vehicles differently (as they are now) and make it basically impossible for fully automated long-haul trucking. That's one reason why Freightliner hasn't gone all in. (I watch Autoline This Week... if you're interested in this stuff they're probably the best English-language source for industry discussion, and it's free.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:In line with Google's plans by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Even a 'Tesla Auto Pilot' like feature would probably be a huge win for long haul trucking. Its just a fact long hours on the interstate means most of our minds wonder to thing that are not driving. Now that the technology exists it should be reasonably in expensive to implement and deploy on new vehicles. Seems like for a firm operating even a moderate number of rigs the added cost of having the feature would pay for itself if it prevents even a few highway accidents related to inattentiveness or a drowsy driver; given how big those legal settlements tend to be.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:In line with Google's plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Freightliner put it's first self-driving rig on the road this May in Nevada, licensed and everything. So far it only handles the highway portion, but considering it's long-haul trucking, that's huge.

    6. Re:In line with Google's plans by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, whichever of the truck manufacturers gets there first -- Mack, Peterbilt, Kenworth, Volvo, etc. -- is going to do a great business.
      They are all there already. Especially as they buy equipment from the same providers. It is basically just a few years till legislations are adapted and then off hey go.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:In line with Google's plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit. Trucking companies have more lobbying influence than you could possibly believe. If the problem was laws, they'd have those corrected by now. Or, at the very least, you'd be hearing commercials advertising the benefits of self-driving trucks just like those pro-fracking ads that are all over the place.

      The reason you haven't heard more about self-driving trucks is because they're almost fully developed and they're really just into the testing stages at this point. It's going to take several years of testing to get these trucks released to market. Trucks drive hundreds of thousands of miles per day, so no company would release a truck to market without driving millions of miles in testing. That takes time. A lot of very repetitive, boring, time.

    8. Re:In line with Google's plans by Cthulhu's+Physicist · · Score: 1

      " In particular, I think deep learning neural networks are the core technology that will make effective fully-autonomous cars feasible (plus the sensors, but those have been available for years), and to a large degree the whole world got access to that theory and practice at about the same time."
      Jeremy Howard has a TED talk on deep learning algorithms and he has a slide of a self driving Google vehicle with a caption claiming it had driven over a million miles on standard roads without incident. That talk was posted in 2014.

  14. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://xkcd.com/678/

  15. The title is an over simplification by Gimric · · Score: 4, Informative

    More context:

    “We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years.” That doesn’t mean city streets will be overflowing with driverless Tesla vehicles by 2018 (coincidentally, the company’s Model 3 should be on roads by then). Musk expects regulators will lag behind the technology. He predicts it will take an additional year for regulators to determine that it’s safe and to go through an approval process. In some jurisdictions, it may take five years or more, he says.

    1. Re:The title is an over simplification by bazorg · · Score: 1

      yep. Adding lobbying power and helping new regulations come into place is the other reason why Tesla wants to cooperate with the established motor industry players. Selling batteries is just one part of the story.

  16. I want to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold fusion, nano-bots, jet packs, flying cars, etc.

    BECAUSE THERE'S TROUBLE, RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY!

  17. When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Model E or whatever he called it, an electric car with some 200+ mile range under 40K. When did he say it would ship?

    Anyway congrats on landing Falcon rocket. So yeah, he over promises and under delivers. But even his under delivered stuff is way too awesome.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by swillden · · Score: 3

      Model E or whatever he called it, an electric car with some 200+ mile range under 40K. When did he say it would ship?

      Model 3. Late 2017. I really doubt it will be self-driving, though. I'm sure they'll start with the high end for the new features.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      My point was, that model has slipped a lot in the promised delivery date. 2017, eh? Advance booking open?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My point was, that model has slipped a lot in the promised delivery date. 2017, eh? Advance booking open?

      Even if it comes by 2018 it'll likely still beat everyone else to market. And if he's full of shit but he spurs someone else on, then good on 'im I say.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Model 3 reveal is promised for Mar 2016 with immediate reservations. How much money you'll have to put down hasn't been stated but it's probably ~$2k

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:When did he say the 40K car will be shipped? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      GM Bolt will be 1st to market since it's supposed to be on sale Q4 2016

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  18. And they'll fly! by unencode200x · · Score: 2

    We'll having flying Teslas in three years! Finally, our childhood dreams embodied.

    --

    Chance favors the prepared mind.
    Perfect is the enemy of good.
  19. In 200 years . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self driving cars will only be 2 years away.

  20. ...or maybe its not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk said, "and it's just about refining those pieces, putting them in place, and making sure they work across a huge number of environments—and then we're done. It's a much easier problem than people think it is."

    On the other hand, perhaps it is at LEAST as difficult as people think it is.

  21. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Let's get all the drunks/crazies/women out from behind the wheel.

    This is what Saudi Arabia gets RIGHT. Woman are in the back seat, blindfolded with ball gags in their mouths. That's the only way a woman should be riding in a car.

    Screw that goddam Lexus SUV thing with the inevitable texting blonde woman behind the wheel. You know, that one with the "people" stickers on the back window? You see this thing, get the fuck out the way, bro.

  22. Making humans worse drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One concern I have is if the car drives 99% of the time my driving ability will get worse due to lack of practice. So if I ever need or want to take control my chance of an accident will be higher than if I just drove all the time.

  23. That's enough, Elon. Take a break. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Can someone please give Elon Musk a smack? He's just trolling us now.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. You mean 1 month ago ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't the self driving upate in the November patch !

  25. Write your congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To ensure such vehicles never see the light of day

  26. Re:That's enough, Elon. Take a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smack your own self first, he's done more for the world than your bad comments will amount to in a lifetime.

  27. Re: That's enough, Elon. Take a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's done more trolling the world.

  28. my thought on this by raind · · Score: 0

    see sig....

    --
    Get up!
  29. and needs say at least 5-8 years free updates / ha by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and needs say at least 5-8 years free updates for software / hardware swaps if needed for the auto drive system / safety parts of it.

    We do not need after one year want X fixed buy a NEW CAR.

  30. Re:That's enough, Elon. Take a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT least he isn't spewing verbal cancerous diarrhea like you and your fellow cocksucking fanboys.

  31. Will they take on criminal liability as well? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will they take on criminal liability as well? and with that you can't hide under some EULA also a EULA will not cover a 3rd party victim.

    1. Re:Will they take on criminal liability as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal liability doesn't occur unless you can show intent.
      You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the software was programmed with the intent to kill for that to happen.
      I think it is pretty safe for them to take on criminal liability.

    2. Re:Will they take on criminal liability as well? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      criminal neglect and when that bus full of kids get's hit the local Sheriff's will want some one in jail.

    3. Re:Will they take on criminal liability as well? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      criminal neglect and when that bus full of kids get's hit the local Sheriff's will want some one in jail.

      Oh, I thought you meant if the car was used by a hitman to provide a deniable form of murder weapon.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  32. a much easier problem than people think it is by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:a much easier problem than people think it is by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.

      Thank you. The Musk fanboys here will, of course, say that we already have player-pianos, so human concert pianists are outdated.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. Quote for the Ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's a much easier problem than people think it is."

    Bwahahahha. When will people figure out that the self driving car isn't about the car, it's about the idiots around the car? I mean, I haven't seen 4 drivers correctly navigate a 4-way stop in years. Tesla will be stuck at the intersection, unable to break into the melee. And it'll only cost you a 911 Turbo for the privilege. ROFLMAO.

  34. Not the same by stooo · · Score: 1

    "Tesla Will Have Self-driving Cars" is very very very far from "Tesla Will Have Self-driving Cars that are approved to sell to the public"

    --
    aaaaaaa
  35. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them build a reliable and durable human-driven car first.

  36. Yeah sure by DrXym · · Score: 2
    "operate ably and safely in any kind of environment"?

    Can it to tell that the man in front is a cop giving hand signals (and obey those signals) as opposed to some crazy person? Can it know not to stop for a potential carjacker? Can it read road diversion signs? Can it read temporary speed restrictions and roadwork signs? Can it negotiate a crossroads where the lights are out in a way that gives priority and due consideration to other drivers? Can it navigate in a long tunnel, double decker road, multi story carpark or other areas that have no GPS signal? Can it tell the difference between a bus which has stopped to pick up passengers, as opposed to a bus which has broken down and needs to be passed? Can it operate when rain or snow are impeding its sensors? Can it tell the difference between a pothole and a puddle? Can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing by and a child running across the street and react appropriately? Can it tell the difference between pedestrians waiting to cross vs those standing with no intention of crossing?

    I bet there are a LOT of situation that neither Tesla vehicles or any others can be trusted to operate properly. I expect they'll do fine on motorways and certain predictable lengths of urban road. I expect they'll be so annoyingly bad in cities and towns that they'll be turned off or they'll be the cause of accidents.

    1. Re:Yeah sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some bonus things it will take decades for these vehicles to do:

        - Make a U-Turn (as directed by the police) across a grassy highway median because there's a tractor trailer on fire blocking your lane that's going to be there for hours, not to mention you and the other 1,000 cars behind you are blocking the firetruck.
        - Drive on a freshly snowed in road without any curbs (ie: The road and surrounding surfaces are just one big flat white spot). This is what driving is like for 3+ months of the year for many people. You get to know where the shoulder is partly through experience, or, if you've never been there, someone else's tire tracks. And if that doesn't exist, you drive in the center and feel for the gravel or rumble strips to determine you did it wrong.
        - Know when a school bus is stopping for a railway vs. when it's stopping to pick up children. In one case it's legal to pass (either direction). In the other case, it's a very large fine with almost the most demerit points possible. It also needs to know that if there's a strip of any size of differing material (grass, dirt, concrete for asphalt road, asphalt for concrete roads) it must not stop or it may be subjected to fines for impeding traffic.
        - Drive on a dirt road surrounded by more... dirt (A not insignificant number of people drive on one of these to work and back home every weekday).
        - Know the rules based on your location for pedestrian crossovers. For example, here it is a large fine for passing on any side of the street when a pedestrian steps into one, even when there is a median. It must also know when a pedestrian crossing is a crosswalk instead (a legal definition issue that will definitely vary by state/province/country/city/???) and thus stopping when a pedestrian is on the opposite side of a split median is illegally blocking traffic (a fineable offence).
        - Know in which locales giving extra space to cyclists is required and how much space to give in places requiring it.
        - Know if the owner has enough VIP status (ie: Cash) to drive in the HOT lane, and that the HOT lane is in fact an HOT lane and not just the fast lane.
        - Know when it is allowed to undertake and do so
        - Know which areas treat fast lanes as fast lanes and which areas treat them as passing only lanes, and more to that, which areas legally allow them to be fast lanes but the locals will be pissed off when you treat them as passing only lanes (and vice versa).

      Oh, I could go on. My expectation is I will be able to use this on the highway, except when there's an accident, which reduces the usefulness of it by about 25% even for that case. Outside of the highway, I'll be grabbing the wheel often enough I'll just drive the damn thing myself.

      Many of these issues end up being due to local laws, which you are going to tell me is going to be solved with a cell modem and GPS. Guess what, I was in Indiana last year and my damn phone couldn't figure out the correct timezone for where I was, despite it saying it should be able to (Indiana counties each approve their own time zones so apparently it's a pain in the ass for companies to figure out which time zone counts for the county you're in). How the hell is it going to download something this big and parse it fast enough (and it's missing the associated regulations which beefs it up about 3x in size)?

      http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08

      Hell, cars can't even figure out now something as simple as which states require you to turn your headlights on when you turn on your wipers. You know, something that literally only requires GPS on modern cars since the rest of it is controlled by the BCM.

    2. Re:Yeah sure by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Can it to tell that the man in front is a cop giving hand signals (and obey those signals) as opposed to some crazy person? Can it know not to stop for a potential carjacker?

      Can a human?

      Can it read road diversion signs? Can it read temporary speed restrictions and roadwork signs?

      yes and yes. can humans deploy them correctly?

      Can it negotiate a crossroads where the lights are out in a way that gives priority and due consideration to other drivers?

      Yes, probably better than humans. Odds are its major problem will be getting across the street, not giving consideration to others.

      Can it tell the difference between a bus which has stopped to pick up passengers, as opposed to a bus which has broken down and needs to be passed?

      There is no difference, unless it is a school bus, and then it has flashing red lights which are easy to detect. It would be nice if the human bus driver could use the signals correctly, though. Both lights flashing means "go around me" and the laneward light flashing means "I am about to make a turn" but many bus drivers begin moving before they switch the signal lights and then they cause accidents. A self-driving car will have the same problem with that as a human driver, only it will react faster when the bus driver makes an illegal maneuver.

      Can it operate when rain or snow are impeding its sensors?

      To a degree. When it can't, it will throw an error and make you drive. The assist features like ABS, traction control and yaw control will function for you just as they do for the self-driving system.

      Can it tell the difference between a pothole and a puddle?

      With the right sensors, it can do it better than you can.

      Can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing by and a child running across the street and react appropriately?

      Again, with the right sensors, it can do it better than you can... in the dark, anyway. You don't have any senses which measure density.

      Can it tell the difference between pedestrians waiting to cross vs those standing with no intention of crossing?

      Can a human?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Yeah sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can it tell the difference between a pothole and a puddle?

      With the right sensors, it can do it better than you can."

      With the right numbers, I can win the lottery...

    4. Re:Yeah sure by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The answer to all your questions is that in the vast number of intractable analogue scenarios that drivers face, yes a human can do better than a computer. There is no use pretending that they can't. Drinking the koolaid from the likes of Tesla and Google doesn't make these problems disappear.

      What humans are terrible at are reaction speeds and behaving to abnormal emergency events such as a skid or a tyre blowing out. A car equipped with monitoring and emergency collision avoidance would be a far more worthy and achievable goal than self driving vehicles.

    5. Re:Yeah sure by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Exactly. A computer might be fine at measuring their distance from the car in front but they can't interpret some guy waving his arms to direct a lane of traffic, let alone know the guy is legally authorised to be directing traffic in the first place. Self driving vehicles is snake oil. Anyone who has any experience programming safety systems or even computers in general would recognise this.

    6. Re:Yeah sure by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Can it to tell that the man in front is a cop giving hand signals (and obey those signals) as opposed to some crazy person?
      What would be the difference? Would you run over the crazy person? On what legal base?

      Can it know not to stop for a potential carjacker?
      Likely not, can you?

      Can it read road diversion signs?
      Yes, why should it not?

      Can it read temporary speed restrictions and roadwork signs?
      Of course, that is state of the art, and all high end german cars already have that built in. I guess most other European and Japanese cars, too.

      Can it negotiate a crossroads where the lights are out in a way that gives priority and due consideration to other drivers?
      In Europe, yes, because we don't have that brain dead rule: "the first who might be able to cross, has right of way".

      Can it navigate in a long tunnel, double decker road, multi story carpark or other areas that have no GPS signal?
      Of course. The car does not use GPS to stay on the road. It uses GPS to figure its rough position, in case it has to exit a highway or something.

      Can it tell the difference between a bus which has stopped to pick up passengers, as opposed to a bus which has broken down and needs to be passed?
      Likely yes, here comes GPS in handy ;D, except the bus broke down on a bus stop. And if it has waited 2 minutes it likely decides by itself to slowly pass, or you give it a verbal command, so: what is your problem?
      A broken down bus should have a warning signal on the road, anyway, and his warning blinking lights activated, no? Simple to figure for an automatic car.

      Can it operate when rain or snow are impeding its sensors?
       Rain and snow does not impede its sensors ... wtf, how backyard are you?

      Can it tell the difference between a pothole and a puddle?
      No. Again: can you?

      Can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing by and a child running across the street and react appropriately?
       Yes, again: a no brainer.

      Can it tell the difference between pedestrians waiting to cross vs those standing with no intention of crossing?
      No. Again: can you? And what is the point of this silly question? The car stops, like you should have. Then it moves slowly forward and passes the "bystanders"

      I bet there are a LOT of situation that neither Tesla vehicles or any others can be trusted to operate properly. I expect they'll do fine on motorways and certain predictable lengths of urban road. I expect they'll be so annoyingly bad in cities and towns that they'll be turned off or they'll be the cause of accidents.
      Pfft ... why don't you simply google how many self driving cars we already have? You must have lived with your head up your arse the last 20 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Yeah sure by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing by and a child running across the street and react appropriately?

      Again, with the right sensors, it can do it better than you can... in the dark, anyway. You don't have any senses which measure density.

      Humans don't need senses to measure density. We can tell whether it's a plastic bag or a child quite easily. And in the dark, we tend to have our headlights on.

      Can it tell the difference between pedestrians waiting to cross vs those standing with no intention of crossing?

      Can a human?

      Er, yes. We can.

      Some of your answers read like an alien robot who is confused by us imperfect meatbags.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  37. Controlled access highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Autonomous on controlled access highways. That's all I want and hopefully will be the first thing to market and first to be gov't approved.

    Nap time on the interstate.

  38. How about volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about selling 100,000 Tesla's a year for $30k each, and not a pittance volume of luxury cars that don't justify Tesla's valuation or capital expenditures?

    Congrats to Musk on SpaceX landing a Falcon 9; he deserves that. But Tesla needs to turn into a consumer product before they roll out a whiz bang gizmo of questionable value or interest like a self-driving car.

    1. Re:How about volume by haruchai · · Score: 1

      They're doing both. See forthcoming Model 3.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  39. oh boy car sitting by thrig · · Score: 1

    Good. There have been too many glazed-eye douches in Tesla who have nearly run me down in crosswalks. This does not, alas, mean that American car sitters of other vehicle types are really any better at not running down pedestrians, but when you've built a mostly survivable car hell, what can one expect?

    1. Re:oh boy car sitting by haruchai · · Score: 1

      So you mean the Tesla drivers aren't paying attention because the car is too quiet or that YOU are not paying attention because you can't hear the car?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body