Slashdot Mirror
Ford Charts Cautious Path Toward Self Driving, Shared Vehicles (reuters.com)
Ford Motor Chief Executive Mark Fields is looking for more deals to advance the automaker's expansion into ride services and autonomous vehicles, but will not rush to match big spending by auto industry rivals, he told Reuters. Investors comparing the size of Ford's investments to what other automakers have announced are "looking at the wrong scoreboard," Fields said in an interview at Ford headquarters on Tuesday, ahead of the company's annual late-summer investor meeting. From the report: "Don't confuse activity for progress," Fields said in response to questions about why Ford's future 'mobility' investments appear to lag those of competitors such as General Motors, Daimler AG and Toyota Motor Corp. Mobility is the term auto companies and investors use to describe the next wave of personal transportation, which is still largely car-based but includes a wide range of services from ride sharing to automated driving and parking.
Bet against a technology, give it a little lip service. While Lobby to make sure these things never make it on the road. Thus having your competors waste money, while you have the next generation of car without that expensive to make feature. Perhaps a truck with a larger Grill in front.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
and then drive people away from the polling place if you are a voter that does not vote their way.
Millennials cannot afford cars because they are broke.
(Don't worry, we'll join them once the TPP kicks in.)
In the near future, only the rich will own cars, much like only the rich owns planes today.
fewer owners == fewer cars == fewer car MFRs
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Let their competitors do all the hard work.
If self-driving primarily needs software to control off-the-shelf sensors and motors, there is less that can be patented compared to other areas of automotive engineering.
Algorithms cannot be patented, so advances can be "acquired" by hiring people who understand how it works---you can get the knowledge without paying to discover it yourself.
With physical products, you protect that research investment with a patent. Since software is copyrighted rather than patented in the US, you can only protect a single instance of the solution, not the entire method for solving the problem.
In a few years when self-driving vehicles start selling, Ford can pick up talent and catch up on a decade of research in a few years.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
.. when other companies will take the risk and expense for you?
But at least Ford knows that they better jump on the train (by not concentrating on individual car sales) or risk getting run over.
I'm tired of this one. It's not gonna happen on a massive scale. Not unless you build special roads for the self driving cars. Sure, I've heard all the arguments about how AI driven cars will be safer, better drivers than humans. And overall, perhaps so. But overall isn't the standard this will be judged on.
Simple example: Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit? Should it hit the old lady since she's already lived a full life? Should it hit the kid because they bounce better than old ladies, and the overall chance of saving them both is higher?
Who programs the heuristics here? And what does the spec say? And what happens when the expected results are not what we expect? Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?
And this is only the really big one. Can I tell my AI to speed? Can I tell it I'm in a hurry and will it respond by acceding to my wishes? Can I tell it to go past the oil changes? Can I tell it that I want to drive on bald tires? Can I tell it I don't want it to phone home?
And you don't get to say, "Well, you have to be there to take over if the AI gets confused. BZZZZZZT. That is not a self driving car. That is some version of driver assist and I'm still the pilot in command. If you want a true "driverless" car, I have to be able to sit in the "driver's seat", spin it around, and play yahtzee with my kids. Short of this, you just have more and more of driver assist.
Besides, if I don't like driving, why am I buying a car? Asshats that want a driverless car should take the bus
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
They don't want to appear to be non-progressive technologically-speaking, so they spend a little money 'researching' it, even if it seems like it's going to be non-viable anytime in the next 20 years or so. Of course at best this will be a sophisticated 'cruise control' and never anything you could actually trust to not kill people by accident if you let it loose all by itself, but even a sophisticated cruise-control would make for a nicely profitable option on expensive luxury vehicles, so I'm sure they'll be more than happy to have that to sell. But despite the two-digit IQ crowd insisting that they'll have robotic overlords to drive them around while they snooze, it's not going to happen anytime within decades. Meanwhile I just laugh at the foolishness of some people, and their inability to distinguish stuff they see in movies from reality.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
They're lying. You're not allowed to talk about widening income inequality and the fact that the next two or three generations will be worse off than their parents. As long as we refuse to acknowledge it Millennials will keep blaming themselves for their lower income instead of a system rigged against them. It's been working to transfer wealth from the working class for 40 years now, it's not going to stop now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What a tiresome argument. Human drivers aren't capable of quickly and ethically trolley problems while controlling a vehicle, and we don't expect them to be. Sure, you may think to yourself "Well I know what one *I'd* pick," but in an emergency you're not gonna react the way you imagine your super-rational brain to.
The car is programmed "Go the speed limit," "maintain a safe following distance," "obey laws," and "Avoid hitting people," and that's about as far as it goes.
You don't need to rank human life to have a car that avoids collisions.
Simple example: Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit? Should it hit the old lady since she's already lived a full life? Should it hit the kid because they bounce better than old ladies, and the overall chance of saving them both is higher?
But what if the kid has late stage terminal Leukemia? And the old lady has just come back from winning the gold medal in the triathlon at the World Masters games?
Which one should the AI choose to mow down? How can it tell? Think about the poor AI, don't put it in this position!!! It's all too hard!!!!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's not smart at all. It's dumb. Activity leads to patents.
Too late. Most of the important patents are already locked down. Anyone building SDCs will be paying a lot of licensing fees to Google. Patents mean that there is a big advantage in starting early.
I mean, don't most people leave stuff in their car they like to have with them on travels? Music? Radio tuned to certain stations, EQ settings? After market audio systems?
Registration and insurance papers, etc.?
I couldn't imagine having an auto I share with people not even in my family.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Because it'll reduce the cost of transportation, freeing up people's money for other things? I use a car maybe 1 hour out of my day; That means it sits, unused, 23 hours a day, but I still pay full price for it. If I can share the same vehicle with 3 other people, then we can split the costs, and save a lot of money.
I don't, really. I have some loose change that accumulates in my car, that's it.
You see no way that those things could be made portable? "The new iPhone 15 and Samsung Galaxy Note 12 both support Portable Tunes, the exciting new standard that allows you to temporarily pair with, and control, a vehicle's radio, making your audio presets and music your constant companions!"
As for after-market audio systems, if you care THAT much about a particular listening experience, you're better off getting a pair of headphones to listen with while you travel, OR:
1) Buy your own car;
2) pay more for a premium car-sharing service that stocks all its cars with high-quality audio systems;
For me, the idea of a shared car isn't problematic, but I can even see uses for autonomous vehicles even if everybody owns their own. Imagine: drive to work, instead of parking, send your car out on some pre-programmed errands - go pick up a package at the post office, go pick up dry cleaning, go pick up some groceries, find someplace free to park and wait for me until I'm ready to leave, and then pick my up at the front door of my office when I'm ready to leave. Oh, and after you drop me at home, the car will spin by the pharmacy to pick up some Nyquil for my wife, and maybe then just get a takeout pizza to eliminate the hassle of cooking everything while I spend an hour with my kids.
Take-out restaurants already do "curbside" service - you pull up, they bring your food out to you. This is a simple extension of that model to pretty much any other type of business, and it frees me up to do things that are more valuable to me, or that only I can do. Sure, there's some technological challenges to figure out - how do you make sure that the business doesn't put your dry cleaning or your prescription for dick ointment in the wrong car? - but none of these should be all that particularly difficult to figure out - just pick a convention that works, and implement it.
Basically, the idea of having a robotic assistant that can do some of these things is very attractive. Couple that with a system that lets me actually work, read, have a meeting, etc. while my car drives me to work, and I'd be happy to have a bunch of free time suddenly arrive in my schedule.
Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit?
Current sensors can't determine age. This isn't a problem because in an emergency situation most human drivers can't make that distinction either.
The best answer is: whichever human it would strike with the lowest impact energy. This minimizes the trauma, and it is a factor that normal drivers cannot consider consciously in an emergency.
Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?
As long as it's the manufacturer or your insurance company, who cares? Let the courts sort it out.
If self-driving cars are actually safer, insurance rates should drop anyway.
Can I tell it to go past the oil changes? Can I tell it that I want to drive on bald tires? Can I tell it I don't want it to phone home?
I don't understand what this has to do with self-driving cars.
Newer cars already have phone-home functionality. There are dash alerts for oil/tires/gas, but nothing shuts down.
I'd rather like to have one for maintenance purposes. I can tell it to drive to the shop after I get to work and pick me up afterward.
Can I tell my AI to speed? Can I tell it I'm in a hurry and will it respond by acceding to my wishes?
I assume you'll enjoy some personal liability if an accident happens in that situation.
If you really need to speed, choose a car that allows the operator to set the speed when they come to market.
if I don't like driving, why am I buying a car?
Maybe you like to come and go on your schedule, not whatever public transit dictates. Or maybe you'd like public transit, but it's not an option where you live and work. Maybe public transit is dirty, noisy, or otherwise unpleasant where you live.
So, there are a lot of reasons to want a car even if you don't want to drive one all the time.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Yes because governments over the last century have never lied or bullshat their peoples for the sake of ideology..
They would if they could. less nth-degree regulation and a greater acceptance that nothing in life is certain would be best..
..and you trust computers to do that safely while it is obvious they can't even fill the corner cases for much simpler problems (eg: fully automated trains)? Old farts have experience with life that you lack.. You may want to reconsider what you consider reality.
What a tiresome argument. Human drivers aren't capable of quickly and ethically trolley problems while controlling a vehicle, and we don't expect them to be. Sure, you may think to yourself "Well I know what one *I'd* pick," but in an emergency you're not gonna react the way you imagine your super-rational brain to.
The car is programmed "Go the speed limit," "maintain a safe following distance," "obey laws," and "Avoid hitting people," and that's about as far as it goes.
You don't need to rank human life to have a car that avoids collisions.
The problem with SDCs isn't going to be the hardware, it's the software. The problem is, software advances are very deceptive. People who don't write software don't get this. Most of the Musk/Tesla/SDC hopers don't get this either. Either their experience is with electrical/electronic engineering or something similar. Most people who've read Horrowitz and Hill don't get this. Most people who've read things like Abelson and Sussman *do* get this. Software progress is deceptive, hardware progress is visible and clear.
The ability to drive a car in perfect traffic conditions with a human hand on the wheel is easily done with software. The ability to drive the car in unknown, unexpected or never-before-seen traffic conditions, without a human hand on the wheel requires strong general-purpose AI. To be honest, if we have that, then we have reached the singularity and have better things to do and probably better methods of transportation.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I disagree. I have a Tesla Model S and it drives perfectly fine for me every day in stop and go traffic. At higher speeds it works well too but it is prudent to keep a close eye on it. I think autonomous driving in limited situations is still helpful even if it doesn't work everywhere.
I think within a year or two, Tesla will be able to drive long distances on major freeways with little or no human intervention. That's a huge value to me as a driver.
If my car can handle both stop-and-go traffic and long-distance boring driving, I can handle the rest no problem.
You are the first one to actually answer my questions. Perhaps because they were loaded questions. I want to be able to speed. So does the government. They make money on speeding tickets. (Ironically, I usually DO NOT speed). I'm wondering in my questions whether or not the government will mess with speed limits in the case that I am still allowed to drive. They will lower them as they need to make more money on those cars still with drivers. And the SDCs will go those lower speed limits. The questions about the bald tires, oil changes, and phoning home all relate to liability. If I don't change my tires on the manufacturer's schedule, I am personally liable. What happens when those manufactures decide that half the tire life we have today is good, as they also either own or are in kahoots with tire manufacturers. What happens when they decide oil changes at 3000 miles and requirements for synthetic oil are to be standard. They feed their dealerships that way. The phoning home is to keep track of all this. And if I don't concede their demands, I become liable in an accident, not them. Bottom line is that I don't want SDC's. Give me assists, but don't force me to become passive in my own car. If that happens, I'll end up as part of the sheeple.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!