Slashdot Mirror


BMW, Intel, Mobileye Partner On Self-Driving Cars, 'Turning Point For Automotive Industry': Reports (bloomberg.com)

BMW, Intel, and Mobileye NV are working to develop autonomous-car technology, reports Bloomberg, citing multiple sources. Senior executives from each company will hold an event on Friday to discuss the driverless-vehicle initiative, the report adds. From the article:Jerusalem-based Mobileye has been an early leader in providing cameras, software and other components that allow vehicles to see the world around them. BMW has been a client of Mobileye, along with General Motors Co. and Tesla Motors Inc. As automakers and their suppliers race to create systems to replace human drivers, most companies are betting on some form of artificial intelligence, which requires powerful processing.Reuters, citing one source, reports the same thing. The announcement will be a "turning point for the automotive industry," Amnon Shashua, the chairman and co-founder of Mobileye.

59 comments

  1. self-driving cars will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The dumb fat Americans will never give up driving their cars and the supposed freedom. Europe will finally get around to banning all cars since they're moving in that direction. Both are terrible ideas economically. However, it will further the already imminent collapses of the US and EU, ad evidenced by the Brexit and the bankruptcy of Puerto Rico. To fill this economic and political void, Canada will become the world's next dominant superpower. O Canada!

    1. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, Anonymous Coward.

    2. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      How much were you paid to spread this silliness? Because everything you said demonstrates either immense ignorance or a willingness to troll on line for money.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vive le quebec libre!

    4. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're even dumber than the OP, since you're actually entertaining the idea that anyone would have a reason to pay him to post that drivel.

    5. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Who would pay for that troll?

    6. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to write Anonymous Canadian

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:self-driving cars will never happen by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The dumb fat Americans will never give up driving their cars and the supposed freedom.

      Bollocks.

      The change will be OVERNIGHT.

      It's game over as soon as the dumb fat Americans figure out they can watch pron or play Candy Crush on the way to work. Dealers will probably have to ban trade-ins because they'll be unsaleable.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re: self-driving cars will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing.

  2. Mobileye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't microsoft buy the technology for the kinect from them?

  3. Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

          This stuff does not work in real world conditions because AI is still not even in infancy (infants are orders and orders of magnitude smarter than best current AI). Even the relatively simple lane watching stuff has tons of problems. Google is largely responsible for the BS, but you can search high and low for a _single_ repeatable bit of evidence of a vehicle truly doing anything as complicated as driving a novel route on it's own.

    1. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. We are 5-10 years at least. Probably 20 before this tech is anywhere near ready. Then we it deploys it will run in to obstacles that the engineers never saw coming like animals, trees, dogs, people, potholes, bad weather, curbs, speed bumps, non-driver-less cars and all the lawsuits that will follow. Not to mention these cars will need good cell coverage everywhere are they will be useless.

      This all started as a masturbatory fantasy of Google and interest in it will be lost as soon as reality finds it.

    2. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Self driving cars are easy and here because you don't need AI to beat the average driver.

    3. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we it deploys it will run in to obstacles that the engineers never saw coming like animals, trees, dogs, people, potholes, bad weather, curbs, speed bumps, non-driver-less cars

      None of those are obstacles that engineers never saw coming. They've already seen them coming, and have either solved or are currently working to solve the problems that each of them (and many more that YOU have never considered) pose.

      You will never, ever succeed in thinking of an obstacle to autonomous cars that the engineers who design them missed. They're smarter than you, they have more domain-relevant knowledge than you, and they spend more time thinking about these problems than you.

    4. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So these are different engineers than the ones that designed for Tesla? https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
      Or does Google have smarter engineers. Seems to me Google couldn't get around a sand bag without running into a bus just a few months ago. Were they able to enter all the perceived obstacles that they thought of since then? Because surely if they had thought of everything they would have thought of a sandbag. Are they could to skip testing on ice altogether? If it can make it down a sunny California road, it can make it through six inches of blowing snow with three inches of rutted ice underneath?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Legal liability is more of a motivator than safety. If Google doesn't want to get sued for a faulty product, they had better be almost perfect.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by metac0rtex · · Score: 1

      They'll just make you agree to a EULA that frees them of liability like virtually every other product on sale today.

    7. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then I really don't see them catching on in the market place.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We already have laws that protect makers of certain products. We'll just "regulate" the auto industry in a manner than limits their liability to no more than the cost of the vehicle. That'll end all those pesky lawsuits.

    9. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause? The onus is on industry to make their products realistically safe. The owner is only liable in the case of misuse. Other than not maintaining it properly, there is no way to misuse a car you literally sit in and point to a direction. There may not even be anyone in the car. If the industry doesn't make these safe enough then insurance will be prohibitively expensive anyway.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said engineers have thought of everything. I said they've thought of everything YOU'VE thought of, and more besides.

      There's not a single person working on autonomous cars who hasn't thought about how to handle icy roads. It's safe to assume they haven't solved that problem, but it's fucking moronic to act like it's never occurred to them.

      As for the two stories you reference, neither of them were the fault of the autonomous car. The Tesla's logs indicate the owner caused that accident himself (claim Tesla's lying if you want but then it's on you to prove that), and the Google car was hit BY the bus.

      I realize you find it comforting somehow to imagine that all those eggheads with their fancy book learnin' are really just a bunch of dopes who lack your abundance of Real-Wold Experience And Common Sense (TM), but deep down you KNOW that's not the case.

      But take heart, someone apparently was killed in an Model S yesterday when the autopilot failed to see a jacknifed tractor-trailer. You've certainly heard about it by now, and you are definitely happy it happened since you're so emotionally invested against SDC's for whatever reason (as a casual glance at your posting history will show). And it does look like a legitimate failure of the technology based on what we know. But that's still a far cry from what you and the OP are claiming - that there is any such thing as a road hazard that you instantly thought of but a team of engineers somehow never did.

    11. Re:Self Driving Car tech is vapourware by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Really? Someone is going to make a 'this product may drive through the side of a house if a cat runs in front of it' clause?

      There are lots that are worse than that, and if you think that's how a self-driving car works, you are too dumb to use a computer. Please put it back in the box and return it where you got it.

  4. they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Driverless cars = OK!

    Driverless cars that exist to report on every place I travel and when I travel there back to the company that sold me the car, their "family of partner companies", the ad agencies thosefirms "partner" with, the FBI, the NSA, and whoever else = NOT OK!

    Driverless cars with "license agreements" that can be revoked at any future point when it's decided my car is no longer "supported", in effect giving a 3rd party veto power over whether I can use my car = NOT OK!

    They'll get it wrong. You'll see.

  5. Boot loader by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    1. Check braking and steering systems.
    2. Check GPS and vision systems.
    3. Check occupants for warrants and debt payments; lock out manual overrides, door handles, and re-route final destination as necessary.

    1. Re:Boot loader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Please wait, checking for updates...
      5. Updates in progress. DO NOT TURN OFF YOUR CAR DURING THIS TIME!
      6. Microsoft AutoRoute packages previously installed have been discontinued by Microsoft. In order to continue to your destination, please subscribe to one of the following services, available from $13.95/mo!:
            A) Microsoft Interstate Explorer
            B) Apple iDrive
            C) Google SkyNet

    2. Re:Boot loader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      7. Microsoft Interstate Explorer installed. Estimated time to your destination:
            47 minutes...
            8 hours and 10 minutes...
            11 seconds...
            1 hour 5 minutes...
            9 days 4 hours...
            47 days 14 hours 55 minutes...
            1 second...
            1 second...
            1 second...
            1 second...

    3. Re:Boot loader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recalculating...

      That's pretty accurate.

      Reminds me of the Novell days when you apply a Novell service pack... 1% complete, 13%, 48%, 100%, then sits on 100% for an hour "copying files"

      I also say a file copy progress screen on Windows95 that was in seconds with this big number. I calculated it out and it was ~7 years.

    4. Re:Boot loader by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you prefer the Office Space progress bar? 100 individual progress bars, 1 for each operation.

  6. Previous Slashdot stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the tipping point for electric cars?

    Is this the turning point for self driving cars?

    No, and no. It's all bullshit.

  7. It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The first "jobs" casualty will be truck drivers.

    Fleets of long-haul cargo trucks, going between a limited number of specialized terminals or loading docks, on major roadways and well-maintained commercial access roads, under lowered speed limits and other tightly-constrained legal behavior requirements, without tight constraints on transit time, are easier to automate than herds of passenger cars, and have an economy-of-scale at the owner level.

    Imagine a truck on a roadway, going from one loading dock to another, as an elevator car, or a "people-mover" style unmanned train.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the truck has a blowout (Which happens regularly), a mechanical fault happens (also happens regualrly), a senosor fucks up (happens even more), there' rain, fog, snow or dirt (Basically daily) to start.

      Got a solution to the above? Let me answer for you - no you dont. Autonomus trucks are a bigger fucking pipedream than autonomous cars - it isnt going to happen fo 30 years at least.

    2. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only thing better than a 2 ton mindless robot piloted battering ram is....a 25 ton one!

    3. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong & he's right. Autonomous commercial vehicles will be among the soonest to arrive but I think companies will be careful as to which jobs & routes they get.

      "it isnt going to happen fo 30 years at least." - nope, disagree. In 30 yrs time, there'll be only very few that *won't* be autonomous

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Until the truck has a blowout (Which happens regularly), a mechanical fault happens (also happens regualrly), a senosor fucks up (happens even more), there' rain, fog, snow or dirt (Basically daily) to start.

      Got a solution to the above? Let me answer for you - no you dont. Autonomus trucks are a bigger fucking pipedream than autonomous cars - it isnt going to happen fo 30 years at least.

      Try 5 years, highly likely. Blowouts will be less common, because, get ready for it, automated service on tires and brakes will generally catch the problems. Also, not having drivers fall asleep and skim jersey walls or wake up driving in the median and rolling over a bunch of tire damaging junk will also reduce potential tire damage. Lower speeds will also lower tire blow out risk and brake issues. In fact, because the autonomous vehicle can't be hurried, isn't impatient, and won't fall asleep, truck accidents will likely drop significantly. Oh, and lower speed will also allow for much shorter stopping distances in case something goes wrong.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a naive comment.

      The reason tire and brake problems aren't caught now aren't due to insufficient automation or human error, it's because humans make compromises in order to save money by exploiting uncertainties and unknowns. They decide to skip the inspection because it will shave off time and mean extra money for everyone. If there's no blowout, they're right.

      Automated systems will be like an entire organization of people who only know how to do everything exactly by-the-book. Because they have to be. The freedom to innovate and capitalize is gone.

    6. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If there's no blowout, they're right.

      It means they were lucky.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:It's also a turning point for truck drivers. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Got a solution ...?

      I don't have to have a solution. The army of engineers designing this, and executives designing the deployment logistics, have to come up with a solution. But it only needs to be no worse than "a driver notices it and does something effective about it".

      Having said that, I DO have some experience in the auto industry, industrial automation, remote sensing, and computer science. So let me supply a few possible solutions, just off the top of my head:

      a blowout (Which happens regularly)

      All a driver does is (maybe) notice it, pull over and get it fixed. We now have battery and radio-based tire pressure sensors built into tire valves, reporting to a computer in the cab.
        - Insure they're present and reporting on all wheels on all trailers hauled by an auto-driven tractor (which can be programmed to refuse to leave until matched to the new trailer - and go right back to the starting point if it was somehow misconfigured - as soon as it goes out of range of the transmitter that fooled it.)
        - When one reports a pressure drop to unsafe levels - pull over at at the nearest service point. If it reports a sudden drop to zero, pull over and radio for road service.

      a mechanical fault happens (also happens regualrly), a senosor fucks up (happens even more),

      How does a driver detect this? Why can't an algorithm in a control computer detect the same thing? Maybe even better?

      What does a driver do about it? Change behavior? There are rules for that. Include them in the progrms. Hands-on tweaking? Pull over and call a service truck.

      there' rain, fog, snow or dirt (Basically daily)

      And if they require a change in driving procedures that you can teach a human, why can't you teach a computer? If they require sensor and light cleaning, we already have windshield wipers, defrosters, and the like both on windows and (on high-end cars) headlamps. Why can't that approach be adapted to cameras and truck headlights.

      For big, immediate, stuff requiring hands, pull over and wait it out - or call road service in extremity. For more gradual stuff, pull into a service point and wait it out or have the service guys handle it. (I'm sure truck stops can easily add the equivalent of cleaning the windshield and knocking the ice off the marker lamps for auto-trucks to their services - in return for actually getting to service the trucks. They already go as far as providing showers for humans, after all.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. No Thanks by lazarus · · Score: 1

    I will continue to drive my own car thank you very much. I spend the entire rest of the day staring at some damn screen or another, and the last thing I need is a self driving car so I can read Slashdot comments on my way home from the office.

    Wait.... Okay maybe...

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:No Thanks by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> I will continue to drive my own car thank you very much

      Fuck that. When we have self-driving cars I'm planning on picking up the highest-paying job I can find an hour away so I can game my ass off before and after work every day without any distractions from the wife and kids. :)

    2. Re:No Thanks by lazarus · · Score: 1

      When we have self-driving cars I'm planning on picking up the highest-paying job I can find an hour away so I can game my ass off before and after work every day without any distractions from the wife and kids. :)

      You obviously have a much better laptop and a much better data plan than I do. ;)

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    3. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try it now; they won't miss you and neither will we.

    4. Re:No Thanks by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Try it now; they won't miss you and neither will we.

      Ouch.. That was harsh... Not that I'm arguing with you...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:No Thanks by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I drive a BMW because I enjoy driving. I can't imagine owning one for any other reason.

      If I can't drive it then might as well buy a Prius.

  9. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> (thing) that exist to report on every place I travel and when I travel there back to the company that sold me the car, their "family of partner companies", the ad agencies thosefirms "partner" with, the FBI, the NSA, and whoever else = NOT OK!

    So...you'll be turning in your cell phone later today then?

  10. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So...you'll be turning in your cell phone later today then?

    No, I'm afraid that is not possible, because I do not own one. I have a landline. As far as I know it does not report my travels to anyone. My family knows my whereabouts at all times throughout the day, and that is everyone who needs to know.

    But even if I DID have one, adding even more parties to the list who have no reason to hold that data is undesirable. There is at least a nominal reason for the phone company to learn where you are: your phone must talk to the cell tower. There is NO reason for a car company to track all of your driving. For example, my current car works fine, and it does not do this. Neither does anything about the concept of "self driving car" require it. But you can bet it will get piggybacked on!

  11. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Driverless cars = OK!

    Driverless cars that exist to report on every place I travel and when I travel there back to the company that sold me the car, their "family of partner companies", the ad agencies thosefirms "partner" with, the FBI, the NSA, and whoever else = NOT OK!

    Driverless cars with "license agreements" that can be revoked at any future point when it's decided my car is no longer "supported", in effect giving a 3rd party veto power over whether I can use my car = NOT OK!

    They'll get it wrong. You'll see.

    Geez man..why not post with your name so I could give you some mod points? I don't generally give points to AC's.....but I'm spot on in agreement with your points here, you make some good ones!!

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  12. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That hardline may not report your travels, but it sure announces you are home when you pick it up to order that pizza from the couch in mom's basement. I'm guessing you don't get out much so there is nothing to report....

  13. Why do we always thing AI is resource hungry? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The best AI I've seen is stuff that uses techniques which are easy on resources.

    The holy grail of AI is something that can run with limited resources and give you reasonably good results and from what I've seen that's not beyond the state of the art today. In fact, I personally think the advancement in AI will only take place once we forget this foolish notion that we can field brut force algorithms for stuff like driving cars where the range of 'acceptable' solutions is pretty wide given a 6 foot wide car going down a 10 foot wide lane. We don't even do that for trains yet, and you don't have to manage the steering wheel, just the throttle and brakes on those things.

    Tell me, how do YOU drive a car? Do you have a better than HD set of cameras scanning the area around the car to 1/4" tolerances? Absolutely not. Why do we think we need to brute force this problem in order to do it on a computer? Something tells me we have over engineered this if Intel thinks they will be selling more processing power by being involved.

    I get the devil is in the details, but watching my 16 year old learn how to drive does not tell me this is problem takes huge amounts of processing power...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Why do we always thing AI is resource hungry? by Toshito · · Score: 1

      I get the devil is in the details

      Exactly.

      I'm betting that the first 80% of the problems of self driving cars are already solved. But solving the last 20% will be a bitch.

      And what will become of motorcycles? Will they be banned?

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    2. Re:Why do we always thing AI is resource hungry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time a computer gets involved in a solution, people tend to have very high expectations for the results. Errors and oversights that were acceptable when people were involved are considered intolerable when the computer solution is implemented. In fact, people will often insist on using their error-prone manual method while they wait for the already-better computer solution to be iterateratively improved to near-perfection.

      In my line of work, I frequently see highly automated factory solutions that are rejected because they are not "perfect" while an error-prone manual solution continues and is accepted as "just the way it is".

      I believe this is particularly the case when humans are turning over to the computer a socially valued behavior (like driving) with a high-degree of safety implications. The human does not want a solution that they perceive to be less than a highly competent replacement, because, I think, they see that as taking away control from themselves in return for little reward.

  14. AI isn't science fiction any more. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's popular on Slashdot to loudly pronounce that strong AI is impossible. This is different from years past. I take the change to mean that it's coming very soon. As it seems more inevitable people who don't want change (whether out of fear, distrust, or sour grapes) will decry AI more.

    Now weak AI isn't just coming. It has arrived. And Moore's law was supposed to have stopped years ago but supercomputers and video cards are still on a logarithmic slope for performance and price. The human brain is estimated to calculate between 100 petaflops and 1 exaflop. I know that's not a good metric but for this purpose it suffices. But as performance keeps doubling and doubling it becomes more evident that even the highest estimates are a question of a few more doubling periods. And the highest estimates assume direct one-to-one simulation of each neuron. Consider how many neurons are used for breathing, processing vision, and other things that either aren't needed in a machine or have already been done at a much lower computational cost on silicon.

    It's true we don't know everything about how the human brain works. But recent progress is undeniable in terms of success stories. Jeopardy. Go. Commodity trading. Corporate resource balancing. Piloting. To keep shouting that strong AI is impossible is to only betray one's own insecurity. You are not special. Your brain doesn't run on quantum magic. You have no soul. Fucking deal with it.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:AI isn't science fiction any more. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that current results in AI are very impressive. However they are all achieved using supervised learning. Even reinforcement learning is a form of supervision. Strong AI requires mixes of semi-supervised and unsupervised learning, i.e. the system does not get all the clues before being able to generalize, and is able to learn by itself. We are not there yet.

  15. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your current car doesn't give away your location?

    Do you have remotely any idea how many orbital cameras, network-accessible cameras, aerial drone surveillance cameras you drive past in a given minute?

  16. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    orbital cameras

    [citation needed] (and a credible one) that orbital cameras are tracking the location of cars and selling this information to data-broker companies.

    Not a citation that orbital cameras can merely *see* cars. That is clear. A citation that supports the claim.

  17. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

    Why the fuck would they use orbital cameras? They just use standard cameras mounted on police cars and on the side of the road, read in your license plate and store your location in a database. If the man wants to know where you've been, he'll know.

    https://www.aclu.org/feature/y...

    --

    Enigma

  18. Re:they will get it wrong. i promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think those are legal in my jurisdiction.

  19. Different company by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Nope.
    Kinect is based on a technology by PrimeSense which couple 2 cameras.
    - one regular one for colors
    - one infrared one for depth

    Mobileye is a manufacturer of monoscopic cameras.
    Their software works on pure flat image that (apparently) where depth is infered from a projection.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  20. Casualty already done by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Imagine a truck on a roadway, going from one loading dock to another, as an elevator car, or a "people-mover" style unmanned train.

    Some countries (hello switzerland) have already replaced huge portions of the trucks traffic with actual trains.
    (Well manned train. With an operator paying close attention if anything goes wrong with the semi-automated high-speed train)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  21. Solutions by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Got a solution to the above? Let me answer for you - no you dont.

    - One already possible solution is to have the first truck in a convoy being still maned (a la Tesla: autopilot but with human supervisor) and the human can still be in charge of the whole convoy if anything happens.

    - Other possible solution would be to subcontracts handling of such problems to 3rd party companies operated by actual humans.
    If the robotruck notice anything bizare, it can summon an operator to come check at it.

    - More sensors, more redundancy, higher level of controls.
    such robotruck could detect anomalies very early and could automatically ask for a check at the next station they stop by.
    or could still operate with one blown tire until the next station.

    Autonomus trucks are a bigger fucking pipedream than autonomous cars - it isnt going to happen fo 30 years at least.

    Meanwhile, high speed european trains have seen lots of automation happen.
    It's a different use case (e.g.: trains don't have tires that can blow up), but it still an example of a serious commercial application where the necessary staff has progressively shrunk.

    There are strong advantages and economic incentives for robotruck, so it is bound to happen.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]