Slashdot Mirror
Ford Just Invested $1 Billion In Self-Driving Cars (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quote USA Today:
Ford Motor is betting $1 billion on the world's self-driving car future. The Detroit automaker announced Friday that it would allocate that sum over five years to a new autonomous car startup called Argo AI, which is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., and will have offices in Michigan and California. Ford's financial outlay is part of a continuing investment strategy anchored to transforming the car and truck seller into a mobility company with a hand in ride-hailing, ride-sharing and even bicycle rentals.
Lucas123 writes: Argo AI founders CEO Bryan Salesky, and COO Peter Rander are alumni of Carnegie Mellon National Robotics Engineering Center and former leaders on the self-driving car teams of Google and Uber, respectively. Argo AI's team will include roboticists and engineers from inside and outside of Ford working to develop a new software platform for Ford's fully autonomous vehicle, expected in 2021. Ford said it could also license the software to other carmakers.
Lucas123 writes: Argo AI founders CEO Bryan Salesky, and COO Peter Rander are alumni of Carnegie Mellon National Robotics Engineering Center and former leaders on the self-driving car teams of Google and Uber, respectively. Argo AI's team will include roboticists and engineers from inside and outside of Ford working to develop a new software platform for Ford's fully autonomous vehicle, expected in 2021. Ford said it could also license the software to other carmakers.
And this is why. Several companies are set to invade their space.
It's great to see where this technology is going. You've got so many players now in the self-driving vehicles as well as hybrid and electric vehicles. I'm happy to see Ford jump in on this with both feet even if they are a little late to the game. Riding in a vehicle will be a much safer experience when humans aren't the ones driving.
Ford is late to the game, but still expects others to license their tech.
The technology behind self-driving cars has come up in a number of episodes of the O'Reilly Data Show hosted by Ben Lorica. Ben knows his stuff well enough to perform this role, but to my taste, he's pretty softball most of the time; his show is more of a polite survey than a contest of minds.
Here is one link I could quickly find:
* The technology behind self-driving vehicles
The guest is Shaoshan Liu, "co-founder of PerceptIn and previously the senior architect (autonomous driving) at Baidu USA".
As I recall it, Liu says that the instrument package for a fully autonomous self-driving car—in the not too-distant past—costs around $100,000 and requires 3000 W to post-process (heterogeneous algorithms, including some neural networks).
The "cheaper" self-driving cars require that the road network is completely pre-programmed, such that the car is almost more of a trail running on data rails than a fully autonomous vehicle.
It didn't sound like even the most expensive car can handle all conditions of day/night and heavy weather.
Some vain, vainglorious, or just plain glorious startup was mentioned with the goal of driving the cost of the LIDAR unit down to $200, probably with some fancy chip (the audio is not always well-balanced on this show; even with buds, I miss a lot unless I'm in a quiet room).
I personally wouldn't invest this kind of money at this time scale unless I thought "just plain glorious" was rounding the bend with mini-Craig Venter hard on the lash.
Do they know something we don't know? Or is this just another fifth-generation-AI industrial drum bang?
Once automatic driving becomes required - when the safety advantages are recognised - there will be a need for small manufacturers to offer it. And they won't be able to start from scratch....
All those companies spending such amounts of money on a technology only a few people really want.
In Star Wars, only Obi-One believes that. Anakin and Han Solo disagree.
I really rather they invest the billion dollars in making electric cars instead. They are chasing the wrong technology.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And now Ford is wasting it as well.
I think right now it kind of looks like a sham and a lot of hype, but the danger for a company like Ford is that someone actually will make a breakthrough and then they will be left in the dust.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I thought the same thing. I'm probably a curmudgeon as well, but just to let you know you're not alone. It's like an attempt to get every bit of sensationalism one can out of an article. I think we get so inundated with current news on the internet people try to use language to make it seem like this is MORE current news.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Dual clutch automatics are more or less manual transmissions with the clutching and gear movement automated.
Exactly. Other than being automated, they aren't really automatic.
You are a delusional fool if you think the tech is even close to being ready. That coupled with the networked nature of these things will cause a privacy and hacking nightmare.
They're different beasts.
The end user probably doesn't care about the details, only the results.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Two vans is more agile in servicing the needs travelers than one bus. And a bus is more than twice as expensive as a van. (about 10x).It's also safer to be strapped into a seat and it is more convenient to enter and exit through a van door than to walk to either end of a bus.
I agree 100% that the number of cars will decrease. I think vehicle ownership will decrease dramatically in the next two decades, while the utilization will increase for cars, vans and buses because they are automated.
Why would someone in an urban area own a car if a door-to-door service is affordable and perhaps more convenient. Even commuting can be taken care of for those of us that live in the suburbs, it's becomes a more convenient form of car pooling. My wife can still pick up groceries without having to drive herself and without us having to own two cars.
We'll see a lot more suburban single car households almost immediately, and more zero car urban households over time.
And now that my driveway is free of cars, and I don't have a bunch of insurance and registration on my head. I can get a big RV and ride in style on vacations instead of cramming in the family's grocery-getter. But seriously, I don't think I'll save any money switching to car services, but I don't think auto companies like Ford are going to be making much money either. It's more like the Uber's and Lyft's of the world are going to get the money I would have otherwise spent on a car.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There are use cases that automatics just can't do. Downshifting in anticipation of a corner is the main one.
That is because the transmission doesn't know about the corner. But a SDC will know, so it can pre-shift just like a human can.
It's more like the Uber's and Lyft's of the world are going to get the money I would have otherwise spent on a car.
In a world of self driving cars, Uber and Lyft do little more than provide a fancy app and capital. What people management and logistics is left to take care of is more akin to a car rental company than a taxi firm. Why wouldn't Budget and Avis trounce Uber and Lyft at that game? At the very least there will be some healthy competition, and with Uber and Lyft not being the only game in town, they will not be able to fleece the public.
That's why Uber is investing in self-driving tech as well.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
They'll wait to destroy Uber until they make as much progress as possible at killing taxi companies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In a world of self driving cars, Uber and Lyft do little more than provide a fancy app and capital.
That's already true. Uber and Lyft don't care what lies beneath their app. Right now, it's Joe Schmoe. Tomorrow, it could include a handful of self-driving cars owned by anyone, whether it's Uber or Lyft themselves, or Ford, or Joe Schmoe. Or Ford (or someone) who has a whole bunch of self-driving cars could buy them out in order to get the name.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If car rental companies can arrange for competitive pricing, then they certainly could be a contender as they have car fleets and mechanics to service them. But mostly I suspect that car rental companies are too broken to adapt to new markets. Most of them rely on junk like Orbitz rather than keeping the 30% cut for themselves (or passing the savings along to the customer). These car rental companies are too busy organizing their franchises to realize that the next generation are not rushing out to get drivers licenses.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Over the life of a car, that's a big gain. Similarly your medical insurance will be lower if you don't drive yourself.
I think it will be a case of city and suburban dwellers will take to it pretty rapidly as the financial advantage dawn on people and on the governments. It's not the answer for every situation, but it will make massively safer roads rapidly. The ability to give mobility to kids and old people who would otherwise be stuck without it will be worth a LOT.
Agreed!!!
Let's just stop making the cars and do whatever is possible to kill the enthusiasm that has convinced Ford to make a huge investment in this technology. I think we should just give up and all become naysayers and just keep doing it the same way we always have.
Agreed,
... NO!!!!
First of all, I like that Ford decided to do this outside of their company. Ford has always been piss-poor at technology. I've rented many of their "better cars" and have been horrified by how poorly they work from a technical aspect. Even the door locks always feel like the "budget model". Every time they try to build technology in-house they fail. For example, when they used Microsoft's car system for the stereo and then made it impossible to update the software without bringing it to the factory. As a result, they released a version and thought "wow, that's shipped... next product" and when bug reports came in, they were confused... actually outright clueless.
Ford can make engines and gears and seats. They sure as hell can't build computers. Need proof, show me a Ford which has an ignition computer which isn't utterly stupid. I actually found myself in a Mustang pulling to the side of the highway, shutting off the car, locking the doors and unlocking and starting it again to reboot computers. They can manufacture big metal things. As for making new technology
As such, as you said, Ford has to think about what to do in case self-driving happens and then we start getting rules which say "No human driven cars on main roads" which I personally will contribute to the lobbying effort for. I want human drivers off the roads I use ASAP. Driving sucks and it's mostly because of "good drivers". So, if self-driving cars work and even become mandatory, Ford needs a solution and they know they can't possibly do it themselves. So, throw a bunch of money at some people who can do it and then give them the cars they should do it in.
But would people actually want to OWN a self-driving car? It seems to me that they would be perfect for public transport: when you need to go somewhere, you attract one with your phone app, pay what amounts to a bus ticket, and go to your destination. No more buses running empty of with just one passenger, no car in your driveway taking up space and costing money. It would be great, IMO.
But would people actually want to OWN a self-driving car? It seems to me that they would be perfect for public transport: when you need to go somewhere, you attract one with your phone app, pay what amounts to a bus ticket, and go to your destination.
No. Just think what's going to happen -- you want to go to work at 8:00, your neighbors are going to their work (somewhere else) and suddenly there is serious shortage of self-driving taxis during rush hour. And today you were unlucky one and had to wait an hour or two. And now you are fired.
This alone is the reason to own self-driving car, just to be sure that you'll always have one.
Another reason is that public transport is always going to be neglected and filthy, while you can keep your car clean. Also you can keep a lot of necessary things in your car without ever forgetting them (like blood pressure meter). Etc, etc.
For city dwellers - especially ones not in the endless suburbia of the USA, the non-owning model is gaining a lot of traction, in conjunction with more and better quality public transport - many cities are taking active steps to discourage car ownership and use (such as congestion charges, high parking fees and outright bans on cars in some areas) - not just on pollution grounds but also because cars are a significant hazard on heavily used streets.
Public transportation is only filth and squalor (like many USA ones are) because people let it be like that. In many other parts of the world, public transport is clean, efficient and cheap - and even executives use it, or cycle to work (or both. Bikes on trains are a common sight in many countries)
The target for many european cities is a reduction in private ownership of at least 90% and a reduction of actual vehicles in cities by 80%
Regarding your scenario regarding work times, everyone being at a particular location at a particular time is becoming less and less necessary, even in factories. By spreading the ridership peak public transportation systems can avoid most of the stressfulness associated with the morning crush.
Disclosure: I drive. There's no public transport where I usually work, in a semi-rural environment. However if work requires I head into a city, picking arrival time even 25 minutes outside the peak means the public transport is uncrowded.
Except until such a day "force humans off roads" means something different than "force people who can't afford automation off roads", forcing humans off roads is discriminatory and would be proven such. They day where every person can afford their own automation is long off, if it ever happens and not much worth talking about.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
That's the issue we're disagreeing on. My expectation is that it won't add more than $10,000 dollars overall, and that's not dissimilar to the price of insurance over a 10 year period for a lot of people. Given that insurance will no longer be necessary for a lot of people - if they aren't planning to leave the areas that are fully automated - then this will pay for the upgrade
Of course this assumes that people will persist in having their own cars, when it is likely that the shift will enable people to rent cars more cheaply than buying.
The best reason for driverless cars is to reduce the massive death toll on the roads. The primary question is not whether the package will 'protect my family', but whether it will sufficient to ensure a substantial cut in road deaths. Given that the sensors will have a better view of the road than a human driver has atm, the only question is whether the software will be good enough to convert that data into safer driving than we get atm. This seems achievable.
Thought you might want to check out the daily/weekly newsletter from CognitionX with over 4K subscribers. We covered this story and many more. We provide you with the latest and greatest news related to AI. Subscribe to stay up-to-date: http://cognitionx.com/news-bri...