Slashdot Mirror


Apple Scientists Disclose Self-Driving Car Research (reuters.com)

Apple's first publicly disclosed paper on autonomous vehicles has been posted online by the company's computer scientists. The research describes a new software approach called "VoxelNet" that helps computers detect three-dimensional objects like cyclists and pedestrians while using fewer sensors. Reuters reports: The paper by Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel, submitted on Nov. 17 to independent online journal arXiv, is significant because Apple's famed corporate secrecy around future products has been seen as a drawback among artificial intelligence and machine learning researchers. The scientists proposed a new software approach called "VoxelNet" for helping computers detect three-dimensional objects.

Self-driving cars often use a combination of normal two-dimensional cameras and depth-sensing "LiDAR" units to recognize the world around them. While the units supply depth information, their low resolution makes it hard to detect small, faraway objects without help from a normal camera linked to it in real time. But with new software, the Apple researchers said they were able to get "highly encouraging results" in spotting pedestrians and cyclists with just LiDAR data. They also wrote they were able to beat other approaches for detecting three-dimensional objects that use only LiDAR. The experiments were computer simulations and did not involve road tests.

34 comments

  1. Hey Siri by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Please avoid that truck.

    "I'm sorry, but I don't understand 'a droid aruck.'"

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Hey Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My doctor Jesus Garcia wrote me a prescription. Does that count?

    2. Re: Hey Siri by youngone · · Score: 1

      So, he just copied Dr. John's Letters to the Pharmacists then?

    3. Re:Hey Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please avoid that truck.

      "I'm sorry, but I don't understand 'a droid aruck.'"

      Only when it's cold outside.

    4. Re:Hey Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold the phone... Apple... Scientist?.... What a JOKE! :-)

      They have NEVER INVENTED anything... EVER.... hence they have NO NEED for scientists!

      They have copied everybody else and claimed it as their own.... claiming they invented everything... but that does not a scientist make nor a scientist require!

      Unless an Apple Scientist is a scientist in the same way that as an Apple Store Genius is a genius!

      Look, I have a basic understanding of technology, I can be hired as an Apple Scientist!

      A SO-CALLED "Apple Scientist" is no more a god damn Scientist than a member of Scientology

      NOR is an Apple Store Genius no more a Genius than a SLOW first grader!

      Jesus Christ!
       

    5. Re:Hey Siri by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Your mother must regret not getting that abortion.

    6. Re:Hey Siri by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Reading their release it's no wonder they gave up on the technology. They are so far behind Google they had no chance of ever catching up. I guess Apple decided that the reality distortion field wasn't strong enough to sell the tech if it was late to the game.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Hey Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not any more than we regret your mother allowing you to go full term.

  2. Uhh... good job??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's interesting.. Apple is doing a computer simulation of a self-driving car while Google is testing self driving cars without safety drivers in Arizona.

    1. Re:Uhh... good job??? by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      this is typical mature corporate conglomerate behavior; poking their fingers into non core businesses, they cannot really take full time interest in, and thus truly develop and master, choking those smaller startups and specialists who really know and love this or that business.

      long history of this sort of behavior(with case studies aplenty at business schools). almost always ends badly for conglomerate(especially badly for its non core side business) when they are no longer able to waste money without consequences. big tech conglomerates still have that immunity from accountability, ... for now.

      if individual investors and beneficiaries of big tech corps want to invest in new ventures, they should do its separately from their corp. that would be good for both corp and new ventures.

    2. Re:Uhh... good job??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting.. Apple is doing a safe computer simulation of a self-driving car while Google unethically is testing testing their death machines without safety drivers in Arizona.

      Fixed that for you.

    3. Re:Uhh... good job??? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's interesting.. Apple is doing a computer simulation of a self-driving car while Google is testing self driving cars without safety drivers in Arizona.

      That's Apple's MO. Release a product years after everyone else, make it less functional than the competition and profit...

      There's no ??? because you're going to buy it no matter how bad it is because it's got an Apple logo. These things could crash (litterally as in into a tree) on a regular basis and fanboys would still buy them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re: Uhh... good job??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it look like in your world for Apple to actually get some respect? If they announced a full self driving car with an ironclad guarantee you would be bithing about them chasing fads and needing to stick to their core competencies.

      They actually stop chasing a fad, and all you can do is give us some Google ball washing. Thanks for nothing.

  3. A self-driving Apple car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, please. Daddy like, daddy like

  4. Hey Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    name one single Scripture that Jesus wrote.

  5. Hire John Carmack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The godking of 3D would solve this in 3 months.
     
      I'd feel a lot better if thr creator of quake did the autonomous driving.

    1. Re:Hire John Carmack by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What if there are more cyclists in your way than the number of BFG rounds?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Hire John Carmack by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Splash damage my good fellow, splash damage!

    3. Re:Hire John Carmack by azrael29a · · Score: 1

      The godking of 3D would solve this in 3 months. I'd feel a lot better if thr creator of quake did the autonomous driving.

      Yeah, and the bunnyhopping cars would get rid of all traffic jams.

  6. Might explain something that's bothered me... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    Tesla decided to forego the holy trinity of camera/radar/lidar for their system---in contrast with all of the established automakers.

    Maybe they do have better engineers. At least in this particular niche.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:Might explain something that's bothered me... by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Radar bad, it's called ionising radiation. Having a million ionising radiation units floating around a city, not that good an idea, unless you want a population that glows in the dark, well not really but cancers numbers will blow out quite extraordinarily. Clearly infrared lidar makes the most sense, you won't even notice that low level of warmth.

      The big problem, one that has been identified many times before, the more complex, the more often it breaks down. You will have a future where main roads are routinely lined with broken down automated vehicles. The second any sensor starts to fail the vehicle has to what, stop immediately where ever it is or pull over for a failing rather than failed sensor.

      Really need 3D vision which is actually a quite complex construction of visual differences, taken simultaneous from multiple view points (not just our two eyes but our two very twitchy eyes). Really they need a joint research model, else it will be real chaos on the road and greed driven stupidity is not the best model for traffic automation. Near enough will most definitely not be good enough but really quite bad.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Might explain something that's bothered me... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Radar bad, it's called ionising radiation.

      Sorry chap, but I think you've got it wrong on that one.

      Really need 3D vision

      Yes, this is exactly what all these systems are doing. Taking data from various sources to build an accurate 3D abstraction of the world, so that the job of programming how to drive around can be dealt with in a predictable manner.

      We've all played racing games, so we know how good computers can be at driving when they know the circuit down to the smallest detail. We just need to get the real world represented in the same kind of way. If that means lidar, radar, cameras, and everything else in between to build up that map, with those involved collaborating and sharing knowledge, then all the better.

    3. Re:Might explain something that's bothered me... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Radar isn't ionizing radiation, it'll also cut through precipitation a lot better than IR. There's no 'optics' per say with radar, just receiving antennae so getting the system dirty isn't as easy.

      What do you think wifi is? Cellular communications?

      Here's a chart to help you out:

      http://images.tutorvista.com/c...

    4. Re:Might explain something that's bothered me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they do have better engineers. At least in this particular niche.

      They have some real good engineers there alright.

    5. Re:Might explain something that's bothered me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is going to be the new "wifi panic", I'm calling it now. People demanding that they can feel the sensors and hiding away in "no Johnnycab" enclaves while the rest of the world tries not to giggle.

  7. late to the game as usual by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    Sounds like standard MO for Apple, get into the market that already has been tested, defined, and has promise of revenue. Hopefully they will do what we used are to - simplify and bring it to the people.

    1. Re:late to the game as usual by MouseR · · Score: 1

      As an evolution to CarPlay it makes sense.

      And since Project Titan was apparently pulled, maybe Apple is waiting for that other company to be ripe for the picking, since it can't seem to get a hold of it's spending.

  8. Do some research - you'll sleep better. by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    Microwave transmitters do not emit ionizing radiation. Early Klystron based generators did produce X-Rays, but they were largely superseded by designs which did not produce X-Rays as this is a loss of useful output power/transmission inefficiency.

    Regardless, in terms of danger; 25mW/cm^2 is where you start feeling heat on your skin after several minutes. Pain is at 1W/cm^2. Burning (ie skin temperature going above 42C) happens at 2.5W/cm^2 but that usually takes 5 minutes or more of exposure.

    Radar systems used in cars typically have an output level of 10mW at the source - this decreases as the square of the distance.

    A million cars != a million "ionising radiation units". Or maybe they do as I'm assuming "ionising" is a spelling mistake.

  9. Odd product for Apple by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how a self driving car could fit in Apple line of products.

    1. Re:Odd product for Apple by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      What they need to invent is a self-buying robot that can wait in line for you at the Apple store whenever a new product comes out.

    2. Re: Odd product for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a very easy question to answer: they don't make the car. They make the software, computer, sensors, and interface for the car systems and sell it to people that make cars. Much like CarPlay.

  10. It must be just killing apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to have to play nice with others. Especially after their failed car project.

  11. What about... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    ...near unidimensional targets^H^H^H^H^H^H objects ? What does Apple car do when this crosses a road ?

  12. The Apple way. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    In the usual Apple way.

    It will cost even more than a Tesla and be even more stylish and minimalist (probably looking like a giant round bubble of brushed aluminium and gorilla glass).
    But apple fan will flock to it and buy it anyway because the iCar has an apple logo on it.

    All the while the press will praise Apple for revolutionizing the transport industry completely, by being the inventors of self-driving pilotless cars. And of electric drive cars. And of cars all together.

    (Though they would still manage to get the thing simplified to the point that even your grand-ma can understand that "autopilot" mode doesn't mean "pilot-less" like some folk believe, but means exactly what it has always meant in naval and aeronautical context)

    After a while the fad passes, several bankrupted competitor of Apple will get bought by Huawei and a few other asian companies, who will flood the market with cheap cars (running the free but not quite open system by google - that google gives away to constructor as long as they include the closed binary "google car services" that earn a shit ton of advertising money to Google : "Okay, Google Car ! Let's drive to the cineplex. - Okay, Jack, driving to the cineplex. Do you know that the pizza restaurant there is having a rebate ?")

    Apple will sue the now Samsung-owned VW over "curves on automobile" pretending that they own an universal design patent due to their aluminium+gorilla glass bubble car.
    Then a few years later, they'll release the revolutionnary Apple iCar X which will look like the sedans that every single other company has been producing.

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