Slashdot Mirror
Cringely Pans Self-Driving Car Hype, Says They're Years Away (cringely.com)
In what may be his final year of technology predictions, columnist Robert X. Cringely argues "I can't say that we're going to see anything beyond more beta tests of self-driving cars in 2019... We simply aren't ready and probably won't be for years to come...."
"The problem isn't with the self-driving cars, it's with the cars that aren't self-driving, cars that are driven by idiots like me." It will eventually happen. Once half the fleet has been replaced with cars that could be self-drivers if we allowed them to be, then there will be a huge financial incentive to get the other half off the street. This will be especially the case if climate change is still accelerating. I'm guessing that most cars from 2020-on could be self-driving with only a software upgrade, which is why Elon Musk is predicting Tesla will have full autonomy by the end of 2019. But notice that Elon isn't predicting Tesla will be allowed to have its cars drive themselves everywhere...
So why is the world talking so much about self-driving cars and full autonomy? Some of it is Tesla hype, some of it is marketing as the car companies try to get us to buy cars that will eventually be self-driving, but probably not until their second owners. And the other reason why we're talking so much about self-driving cars is because Uber is planning to go public later this year...an IPO that will go smoother if the driving public thinks autonomous cars are something that we'll be seeing soon. Uber has a labor problem. If it can spin a story that surly and expensive human drivers are soon to be replaced with electrons, that will be very reassuring to Wall Street. But as I explained, it also isn't true.
The world isn't yet ready -- something Uber and Tesla and all the others will suddenly admit in about a year (post-IPO).
Cringely also argues that the problem isn't just the "millions of drivers who are still controlling their vehicles the old fashion way, which is often in a barely competent fashion..."
"We keep our cars longer because they don't rust and we can't afford to replace them so often. The result is that while we could expect a complete turnover in car technology every decade, now it takes closer to two decades."
"The problem isn't with the self-driving cars, it's with the cars that aren't self-driving, cars that are driven by idiots like me." It will eventually happen. Once half the fleet has been replaced with cars that could be self-drivers if we allowed them to be, then there will be a huge financial incentive to get the other half off the street. This will be especially the case if climate change is still accelerating. I'm guessing that most cars from 2020-on could be self-driving with only a software upgrade, which is why Elon Musk is predicting Tesla will have full autonomy by the end of 2019. But notice that Elon isn't predicting Tesla will be allowed to have its cars drive themselves everywhere...
So why is the world talking so much about self-driving cars and full autonomy? Some of it is Tesla hype, some of it is marketing as the car companies try to get us to buy cars that will eventually be self-driving, but probably not until their second owners. And the other reason why we're talking so much about self-driving cars is because Uber is planning to go public later this year...an IPO that will go smoother if the driving public thinks autonomous cars are something that we'll be seeing soon. Uber has a labor problem. If it can spin a story that surly and expensive human drivers are soon to be replaced with electrons, that will be very reassuring to Wall Street. But as I explained, it also isn't true.
The world isn't yet ready -- something Uber and Tesla and all the others will suddenly admit in about a year (post-IPO).
Cringely also argues that the problem isn't just the "millions of drivers who are still controlling their vehicles the old fashion way, which is often in a barely competent fashion..."
"We keep our cars longer because they don't rust and we can't afford to replace them so often. The result is that while we could expect a complete turnover in car technology every decade, now it takes closer to two decades."
Is he still alive?
And deterministic systems don't handle chaos very well. Even if all the cars are automated, you have people, dogs, deer running into the street. You have blowout tires. You have road damage, debris, snow. Given that understanding a left-hand exit is problematic today, how does it handle a deer dashing on to the road? Or snow covering all lane markings - and heavy enough to block GPS signals?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
it all has to start somewhere sometime. Might as well start now as the hardest part seems mindsets not electromechanical elements.
What does it add to the mix if we consider the vast number of intoxicated drivers removed from the roadway if autonomous vehicles become ubiquitous?
I am reluctant to drink much when out at social gatherings because I feel the need to remain coherent enough to pass a random LEO roadside interview when called upon to do so. I would certainly consume an additional adult beverage or two if the task of driving home safely was out of my hands. Perhaps we could we get the powerful alcohol lobby behind the implementation of inhuman vehicle piloting.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"buy cars that will eventually be self-driving, but probably not until their second owners."
;)
In the future most cars won't have second owners. They will just be tech trash after their initial owner.The tech will be obsolete, no parts available to fix, no right to repair even if one can and want to.
Convenient transportation will just become one of those things only the elites that can afford to have. Everyone else will be required to live with sub standard/inconvenient public/private transportation providers
But I am not worried. I am 63 and I might see a full scale deployment, Maybe!
And I am a target audience, but one thing I know, it will be more expensive and much less convenient than having your own vehicle. And it will not happen in the next 5 years, except maybe small test runs in a few urban areas.
Just my 2 cents
There are fully autonomous vehicles in both heavy industry (Caterpillar) and farming (John Deere). Those vehicles run at top speeds in autonomous modes of around 25mph....
The people who want to sell AI driving in all vehicles however just want you to believe they have or will get the bugs worked out....after they get enough data to impliment really-really-no-I-swear-really good machine learning algos.
They are morons who don't actually understand how moronic they are. Or maybe they just don't care and they are jusf trying to sell the next big (fake) overhyped thing in order to fill time between now and when they get laid off for not being needed by anyone, aka retired....
He's hyping so-called 'technology' that will never really truly be up to the task, he's clearly been taken in by the hype (which has little to do with the reality of so-called half-assed 'AI' that can't even actually 'think'). How much is this know-nothing pundit being paid to shill for this shit, anyway? Does it pay well to sell out humanity like this?
Don't you mean "old fashioned way"? Silly old fart.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This shit will never happen. I hope they are enjoying all the money they are flushing down the toilets.
Here is my argument for why cars on the street won't be driverless for a long time, even after the technology makes this feasible: We don't even have a driverless metro system in the US. And you would think that with no steering, driverless underground trains would be a no-brainer. But if we can't even have that, we're not getting driverless cars that will share the road with cyclists, children staring at phones, me, and all the rest of you idiots.
There will probably never be fully autonomous cars, it requires too much spontaneous decision making, of the sort that software simply isn't capable. Unless someone can break mathematics, it isn't ever going to be possible.
Segways, OTOH, are poised to make a BIG comeback!
My car is 21 years old, still under 100K miles and runs great. There are a lot of older cars out there. The rich tend to forget that most people aren't on 3 year leases.
The only way I can see every car on the road being self-driving before 2050 is if the tech to retrofit an existing car with self-driving features gets so cheap that it can be subsidized for the poor. If it costs say $500, then some equivalent of the cash for clunkers program could pay people to go self-driving. If we can't cheaply retrofit existing vehicles, then we're going to have to wait at least 30 years.
This space intentionally left blank
It's important that distinctions be made when referring to self-driving cars. There are five levels of autonomy and I can only say that this claim that it's "years away" only applies to level five because Waymo has already demonstrated a level four autonomous vehicle.
While it may or may not be true that level five autonomy is still be years off, that doesn't negate the fact that we have level three already deployed and level four in development.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
After listening to an hour of Andrew Yang's alarmist claptrap on the Joe Rogan show, I am fucking sick of anyone "sounding the alarm" about supposedly impending self-driving cars. When I was in college 20 years ago, electric cars were supposed to be a thing in 5 years. Now electric cars are on sale, but you only actually see one on the road about once a day at most. Self-driving cars will be the same.
Cringly is a familiar old idiot.
Watson & Crick predicted it was going to take 30 years to sequence the human genome. Venter did it in a fraction of that time, because he thought outside the box.
Just a few years ago I had the pleasure of being surrounded by crusty old defense contractor types who prattled on about how Elon Musk and his stupid little rockets were literally nothing but a flash-in-the -pan publicity stunt. They insisted that self-landing re-usable rockets were not feasible or we'd already be doing it....
Same argument here. Self driving cars are stupid, they don't work well enough, they'll get people killed, they are years away from being practical, Tesla sucks, blah blah blah.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Tesla, by their own admission, is not a car company. They are in the business of profiting from people's obsession over climate change. Solar panels, electric cars, power banks, etc are all tools for people that want to minimize their carbon emissions at any cost.
Getting all the bugs worked out of AI driving vehicles is not important. Killing a few folks with berserk AI helps reduce carbon emissions since dead people can't breathe out CO2 any more. It's a no-brainer! Think of it as, "technology assisted suicide." People are actually paying extra for it.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'd argue that a "strong" level 4, something that can handle something like 90% of the tasks a human driver would be expected to be able to handle, but 99%+ of daily tasks, would still be useful for taxi and similar services. It's more for personal owners that you need full capability. Even a city is an artificial construct, and could handle some modification to better suit self driving cars.
For professional services, if the taxi runs into a problem it can't handle, there could be a central office with trained drivers to get the car out of any sticky situations.
I don't read AC A human right
Those three are: 1) Legal Liability. 2) Fear of the new, and 3) AI not correctly predicting human stupidity.
Issue 1 is a political lobby away from being removed. Some company, like Tesla, develops the technology and pays a political lobby to get Congress to allow the company to self insure all the vehicles they sell - either in the new market or the 2nd hand market - if Tesla sells the used car. Boom, that issue vanishes.
Issue 2 is irrelevant. The first AI vehicles will be commercial vehicles, not cars. Long Haul trucking, Garbage Trucks, Public Buses, will be the innovators. Their companies will all pay attention to long term cost - including the cost to hire drivers, and ignore the human fear. Or they will be beaten in the market by companies that do.
Issue 3 is the only problem without an obvious solution, but technology is ALREADY better than a human in almost everything except this issue. The benefits of slower driving and fewer stupid human first hand drivers already outweigh the lessened ability to predict what a stupid human in the other car will do.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or some large Western Chinese city, or Japan maybe. What Cringely doesn't appear to consider is that the USA will not be the market that does it first. It used to be that you couldn't introduce a new scheme unless USA the "world's biggest market" adapts first. That's kinda 1990s. He's not using metric.
Gently reply
You also have the Sam Vines boot theory. A good set of boots that will last you for life might cost as much as 5 sets of boots that each last a year, especially if you take care of them, but it's the rich people who will buy the good boots, while the poor stay in the hole buying a new pair of boots every year or less, despite it costing more over the long run.
It's expensive to be poor.
In this case there's a good chance that Gava bought a good car, though I'd argue his car is lasting mostly because he doesn't drive it much. Less than 100k miles on a car that old is extremely low mileage, less than 5k/year, when the average is 12-15k.
I don't read AC A human right
And deterministic systems don't handle chaos very well.
That is why we hadn't been close to getting anything like a self driving car until the re-emergence of practical neural networks.
Neural networks are up to the task because they are fusing info from dozens of sensors and models to determine every second where the car should be moved. The people working on self driving car tech today are building systems can handle any surprise because fundamentally the car is going to try (A) not to hit anything, and (B) go somewhere else if it has to override some laws of the road to do so, in an emergency.
It can basically make a car do anything within the ream of physical ability which is way, way better than 99% of human drivers can do.
how does it handle a deer dashing on to the road?
About a billion times better than a human can, that's for sure. It can see in infra-red, radar and sonar - in 360 degrees, not just straight ahead. It can react and brake quicker. It can steer off the road almost a billion times better than any human would, since it would also be continually considering that semi truck behind you that you totally forgot about when you saw the deer and that cannot possibly avoid hitting you if you stay where you are...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only way I can see every car on the road being self-driving before 2050 is if the tech to retrofit an existing car with self-driving features gets so cheap
It's pretty easy to get to a point where 99% of cars on roads are self-driving - you just reach the point where it's cheaper to subscribe to and use a low end car service that takes you door to door, than it costs to maintain and gas a beater car.
Unlike others though I don't see a future where most people use a car service like that, it's nice having your own car with its known interior and stuff you always keep with you. But we'll see how it pans out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But I agree with this guy. I'll add that electric cars en mass are a non-starter. For several reasons, one being we'll still be going to war for oil. We're stupid that way.
Humans after 100 or so years are incapable of driving safely, so why would one expect said humans to be able to build a self-driving car that drives safely?
Considering his experience with Mineserver.
"The problem isn't with the self-driving cars, it's with the cars that aren't self-driving, cars that are driven by idiots like me."
I've been saying for a while now that real adoption of self-driving cars will not be driven by early adopters, or even legislation. If Google/Waymo is even half right about the reduced accident rate of self-driving cars, the watershed will be driven by actuaries. Because a reduced accident rate also means a reduced insurance payout rate. Once enough of the data are in, the insurance companies will do the math and start raising the rates on human-driven cars. Once that drives a few more people to self-drivers, they'll have even more supporting data. And the insurance premiums will wind up set such that it will be prohibitively expensive for humans to drive their own cars; except, perhaps as a weekend hobby. But certainly, once the actuaries do their thing, none of us will be manually driving for our daily commute or errands.
Imagine all the people...
Bullshit. Tesla's customers by and large buy their products because they are the best option. E.g. they buy a model 3 because it is the best car for any money or they buy a powerwall because it will save them money in the long term.
The benefits of slower driving and fewer stupid human first hand drivers already outweigh the lessened ability to predict what a stupid human in the other car will do.
Or the stupid human cyclists. Or pedestrians. We get those off the roads and maybe autonomous cars will have a chance.
Have gnu, will travel.
Or at least the huge numbers we have today. Everyone knows at least one person who has died in a car accident and three times that many people who have been seriously hurt. We accept this stupidly high number of deaths and injuries because we don't see an easy way out. Worse, in most countries we put most of the expense of the accident on the victim for rehab and loss of enjoyment of life. To do otherwise would make insurance rates affordable. As soon as a couple of percent of the cars on the road are self driving cars with better driving records than the average public driver that attitude will change. It won't take long after that until human driven cars are banned.
No. The problem is not the human operated cars. I've been in a Tesla on autopilot, and it would be fucking road armageddon if that was all cars.
Some government agency financed the DC-X rocket, and did some test flights. It was later handed over to NASA, and did more test flights, until it fell over, and blew up. NASA probably could have talked Congress into financing a successor to the DC-X, with more test flights, but they didn't.
That he even needs to point this fact out just speaks to the general climate of stupid cheering for things people do not understand. Full self-driving is still at least 10 years in the future and general availability more like 15...20 years. May also take quite a bit longer.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That only means we are 80% away from the real solution.
Remember the 80/20 rule which applies to tech? You are 80% there to the solution but you still have 80% of the work before you when you are at level 4 of 5.
I'm a fan of SDCs. That said, live on a gravel / dirt road (40 mins west of Dulles Airport), part of over 300 miles of gravelroads in the county. In a lot of places, including on the road I call home, the road narrows to one lane, and especially with lots of rain, drops off a foot at the edge, which my 4x4 F250 can sort. Not so much for my prius. A road which, BTW, Google maps didn't even drive down.
So is 300 miles of road effectively inaccessible by SDCs, in a county an edge case? Relative to the population centers, or new, flat, sunny, dry Arizona, yep, it's an edge case.
I suspect if folks mapped roads in the USofA, there'd be a LOT of edge case.
As I said. I'm a fan. And if you're employed by a SDC creator, good for you, love it. But as Cringley said, gonna be a while.
Acknowledging that I'm one AC agreeing with another, agreed. I'm looking at folks buying high end BMW, audis and Lexus, and think 'ICE powered cars, how quaint, those folks must be nostalgic for the smell of gas.' I'm not joking. And actually curious. If you're spending $70K on a car, why would you spend it on a slower, polluting, less cool vehicle? My question isn't meant to be rhetorical.
I'm waiting for the combo of the production issues with the model 3s to be sorted. And also a job payout. But then I'm getting in queue for a model 3.
You can fucking keep it. I don't want to die in utter terror because some half-assed excuse for an AI fucked up and killed me, and I had ZERO ways to save myself. Fuck that shit, I'd rather take my chances on my own.
you are already doing all of this every day when you go out on the road with today's vehicles, but you're too stupid to realize
They're turning them loose in crowded areas near me!
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/20...
The areas described here are both several city-block "town square" type of deals,
bustling with pedestrians on small streets and sidewalks, with restaurants, shopping,
movies, and (at the onewith the subway stop) also apartments. Street and garage
parking, random double-parking and curb pickup. Traffic is normally about 10-15 MPH
and is signed for 25 MPH; these two areas are about 2 miles from each other and are
connected directly by a busy commuter highway that's supposed to be 35 MPH but the
crazy drivers weave and swerve at 45 MPH when they can.
It's amazing that there are not more accidents, with people constantly running all over
the streets and crazy/inattentive drivers; it will be interesting to see how the robots do.
I believe that other cities are already ahead on this... https://www.theverge.com/2019/...
But so far, they can't handle a parking lot
Wrong as of now
or a divider in the road or heavy rain.
There are more incidents with humans being unable to handle dividers than Teslas, so already you are wrong there.
As for heavy rain that also causes problems for humans, again self driving cars have more sensors so in the end they will handle heavy rain lots better than humans mostly do.
Unlike a human, self driving cars will also be much more inclined to drive at a reasonable speed for conditions, because they fundamentally know what that is in a way most humans do not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How can a $120K vehicle that needs to be charged 300km away from home EVER be the best chioce? Seems like every ICE in the market blows that away. Charging at home (if you are able to install a charger) is not enough convenience to make up for it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Fair enough you mentioned a model 3, but they are still incredibly expensive given the utility you get out of them. And also the use of them is subsidized right now. Eventually EV owners will need to chip in for the same tax that there is on gas.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If you really want to do what is good for the environment, take a bus. EVs aren't really helping that much and it's just annoying to hear people tell me how they can work for me when they can't. If you live that close to home that an EV works for you, you can also take a bus.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This. We don't know how the human brain works fully, yet here's Kendall to weigh in claiming computers are smarter than humans.
Let me ask you this question Kendall fag, who programs the AI and computers and NN that you speak of? Humans? Yea thought so. Kindly stfu.
He has logic in his name yet he doesn't grok what you are saying. Kinda ironic wouldn't ya say?
"Neural Network", "Deap Learning", "Watson" etc. are just vacuous marketing terms. Very few people on slash dot let alone the wider population have a clue how AI systems are built.
But as to the levels, remember that if the system can only drive down the freeway, that means that the last 20% of a long journey can be driven remotely by someone that is not in the car. That does require the car to have enough brains to stop safely if the remote linkage is cut for any reason. But it is a much lower bar than complete autonomy.
Part of my daily commute (in the summer) is a back-country dirt road. Any sensors the autopilot needed would be covered in dirt/mud/leaves/possums by the time I'm two miles in. Until they get LIDAR that can see through 5mm of caked-on East Texas red clay, I'm going to have to drive my own damn self.
I'd tend to say that we aren't seeing proposals for self driving buses because of:
1. Lower market share - lots of cars, fewer busses. Less profit potential.
2. Bus drivers do more than drive. They also monitor payment for passengers and oversee passenger behavior, etc... you would need to deploy additional automation, expensive.
3. Unions
Long haul trucking, without #2 and less #3, is seeing more interest.
I don't read AC A human right