Slashdot Mirror


Ford CEO Says the Company 'Overestimated' Self-Driving Cars (engadget.com)

Ford CEO Jim Hackett scaled back hopes about the company's plans for self-driving cars this week, admitting that the first vehicles will have limits. From a report: "We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles," said Hackett, who once headed the company's autonomous vehicle division, at a Detroit Economic Club event on Tuesday. While Ford still plans on launching its self-driving car fleet in 2021, Hackett added that "its applications will be narrow, what we call geo-fenced, because the problem is so complex." Hackett's announcement comes nearly six months after its CEO of autonomous vehicles, Sherif Markaby, detailed plans for the company's self-driving car service in a Medium post. The company has invested over $4 billion in the technology's development through 2023, including over $1 billion in Argo AI, an artificial intelligence company that is creating a virtual driver system. Ford is currently testing its self-driving vehicles in Miami, Washington, D.C. and Detroit.

150 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Or more accurately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Overestimated the ability of the company to work on self-driving cars

    1. Re:Or more accurately by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Overestimated the ability of the company to work on self-driving cars

      Bingo... those that can't do, hire lobbyists and pay for press to try and stop others that can.

    2. Re:Or more accurately by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 2

      Considering thier build quality you probably won't be seeing it driving, but rusting on the side of said road.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    3. Re:Or more accurately by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Nope. They'll never really work right and people will die needlessly and in utter horror being totally incapable of stopping the vehicle from killing them.
      The whole approach is wrong. 'Deep learning algorithms' CANNOT 'THINK'. Never will either. Wrong approach. To drive a car you need a brain that THINKS.

    4. Re: Or more accurately by illiac_1962 · · Score: 2

      Nah. Ford knows how to build tech that can scale to the idiot population behind the wheel and that won't spin out of control from a supportability standpoint. I asked about a remote video technology for towed trailers and was told that the tech was not mature enough to work the way people expect it to. I trust them. When they deliver, it just works.

  2. Who's overselling this technology?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty sure the people creating the self driving technology are overselling its capabilities to car makers. Not to mention the real world accidents from Tesla's and the Uber incident has to place some fear of liability in car makers these days. Even with a human behind the steering wheel doesn't mean they can recover when the technology has a brain fart.

    1. Re:Who's overselling this technology?? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 2

      And you're overselling what Yang is saying about self-driving cars. The cornerstone of his campaign is Universal Basic Income; anything he says about cars is secondary.

  3. Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many, including me, have said it is not going to be that easy to make a fully autimatic car. These dreams of most new sold cars being fully automatic within 5 or even 10 years etc. are not realistic.

    I really don't want to be babysitting some semi-automatic car, so i won't touch the tech until it is completely and fully automatic, so i can sleep in the car while it's driving.

    1. Re:Not surprised by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Amen and well-said! I don't think we'll be sleeping in fully self-driving cars for at least 10 years, if then.

      In the US the most consistent roads are the interstates, but if you've driven in enough states, you know that the interstates aren't exactly uniform from place to place. We need to see how self-driving cars handle construction zones, rain, snow, and fog on interstates first.

    2. Re:Not surprised by fluffernutter · · Score: 3

      I'm shocked that Ford actually cares about people enough not to subject the public to half-baked technology like the other automakers.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Not surprised by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And then there's Canada.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Not surprised by byteherder · · Score: 1

      Ford> Hey, were not Uber!

    5. Re:Not surprised by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Anonymous Coward is from Finland, got it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Not surprised by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      We don't even have lane markings all year. Is it the same way in Finland?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Not surprised by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      The cars are autonomous not "autimatic". perhaps you are overestimating what you bring to the table vs autonomous vehicles.

    8. Re:Not surprised by Hillie · · Score: 1

      I'm not shocked. Ford is a car company that has been around a century or so, and they're not a tech company.

      It is the tech companies that think they're God and that they are soo advanced and more intelligent that they should make the rules for everybody else.

      What happened in Arizona is an outrage. You should not be testing alpha level software on public roads with real people on them, but coders tend to be super arrogant about their ability, when nowadays they are writing god-awful code.

      I mean there was an article last year about how app developers today are suffering from all the same problems that the previous generation of developers faced and solved..

      I mean nowadays people are saying that C is a low-level programming language. in my day C was considered high level.

      So like if you think C is the equivalent of assembler and machine language today something is wrong.

      Java, Javascript and like ReactJS etc. are cool. but they're not a replacement for good programming skills, and the existence of unlimited RAM and processor speed is not a replacement for actually writing efficient code.

      --
      - Alex
    9. Re:Not surprised by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      This is the exact argument that I've been making since I first heard about self driving cars. The technology isn't there. Using markers on the roads will not work because they are not constant. GPS isn't accurate enough and computer maps are not 100% accurate.

      With the current technology of today we could make self driving cars but it would require billions to overhaul the existing infrastructure to make this happen.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny thing. There's an election going on now and the candidates have numbers on the billboards. Many cars with speed limit detection have been fooled by the numbers and detected them as speed limits.

    11. Re:Not surprised by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The thing most people do not understand is that the respective research has been going on for > 30 years. I remember a fellow student doing their CS graduation thesis on how to get a car over a 2-lane left turn autonomously about 30 years ago. It may well take another 30 years to get there.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Not surprised by Hillie · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I am familiar with this too. I am sure there are a lot of talented developers that are forced to not be able to do the things they should be doing because of idiots in product management that don't know wtf they are doing.

      Virtually almost every product I've used that is super popular seems to be complete garbage but super popular and making tons of $$$.

      --
      - Alex
    13. Re:Not surprised by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      This is the industry that was lambasted for their 'calculating the cost of a recall' a-la FIght Club. Now just 10 years later, they are the good guys.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Not surprised by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Then you'll have to wait until we figure out how a biological brain actually 'thinks' because that's what's necessary for this to work, and we're nowhere NEAR knowing how 'thinking' works -- and so-called 'deep learning algorithms' are NOT 'thinking' and never will be. Total fantasy.

    15. Re:Not surprised by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Using markers on the roads will not work because they are not constant.

      Until they install new ones. If they focused on the Interstates, this would only take a few months and would provide a uniform marker across all of the states. While this wouldn't make end-to-end self-driving possible, it would allow a LOT of trucking to be self-driving - drive truck to the Flying J outside of Los Angeles; tell it to drive the Interstates to the Flying J outside of Chicago, Dallas, Memphis, or wherever; then have a driver meet it there and drive it into the city.

      If you are worried about damage or vandalism, you could have the vehicles report in if they don't see a sign that should be there and a crew can be dispatched. Heck you could also put grooves in the pavement itself and have the vehicles use that as a guide.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    16. Re:Not surprised by Sark666 · · Score: 2

      Well, it looks like waymo is way ahead of everyone else, so if google gives an update that they were also overly optimistic, I would take that as the indicator of where the industry is at.

      http://infographic.statista.co...

    17. Re:Not surprised by Hillie · · Score: 1

      1. Post this under a username
      2. Meet me somewhere and tell me "Your days are over" in person. Without pissing your pants.
      3.

      Well.. I will omit 3. I will be nice-ish.

      --
      - Alex
    18. Re: Not surprised by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This isn't hobby tech. Going from prototype to something that "just works" is a monumental leap of mind numbing, soul crushing details. The fun gets sucked out real quick when you have make it consumable by the simpletons.

    19. Re:Not surprised by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I don't mind a self driving car, as long as it is on rails.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    20. Re:Not surprised by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Then you'll have to wait until we figure out how a biological brain actually 'thinks' because that's what's necessary for this to work

      If by "work" you mean "work as well as a good driver in all conditions" then I agree.
      But there are simpler cases (like freeway driving) that probably don't need anything that sophisticated.

    21. Re:Not surprised by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      "Autonomous miles" don't mean crap unless you know where these miles were taken, and under what driving conditions.

  4. Like reusing rockets? by Drethon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I think self driving cars is in fact another level of complexity entirely, this kind of makes me think NASA/ULA vs SpaceX. How much complexity is the problem that needs to be solved, and how much is the sheer inertia of a company that has been going one direction for a very long time?

    1. Re:Like reusing rockets? by flippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.

    2. Re:Like reusing rockets? by byteherder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.

      The difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets is physics and engineering.

      The difference between human drivers and self-driving cars is hundreds of millions of lines of code that all have to work perfectly.

      Trust me, physics is easier.

    3. Re:Like reusing rockets? by flippy · · Score: 1

      Yep!

    4. Re:Like reusing rockets? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And you don't write the code directly, you have to write a program that writes the code. And then they all have to work 100%.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Like reusing rockets? by flippy · · Score: 1

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers.

      While the complexity is immense, it wouldn't surprise me at all if autonomous vehicles are already safer than human drivers. There are two problems, though: (1) there are still many bad human drivers on the road, and (2) the general public and regulators aren't just expecting the autonomous vehicles to be safer than humans, they're unrealistically expecting them to be perfect drivers while being forced to share the road with human drivers.

      That's kinda what I meant. It's more about perception than reality. It wouldn't surprise me either if they were already safer. But the perception is that unless they're perfect, they're not safer.

    6. Re:Like reusing rockets? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Waymo has to intervene every 11k miles and humans drive 450k without even a fender-bender.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Like reusing rockets? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      It's more than that -- it's about intelligent interaction not just with the road but with other "brains" so to speak where the rules and modes of interaction are infinite -- vs. the extremely limited rules of interaction with other "brains" as in Go and chess. I guess they'll have to limit the problem to make it closer to Go/chess.

    8. Re:Like reusing rockets? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.

      It depends on how much driving is about being smart and how much it is about being consistent. While I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass I really can't think of many situations where some extraordinary foresight on my part prevented a crash. But I know many situations where I fucked up and could have caused a collision and a few where I did. Some 87% of the adult population had a driver's license at its peak and the reminder mostly felt it was too expensive or hadn't gotten around to it, something like 5% claimed health reasons (7% of those without a license, who was 75% of the questioned group). Of those, many would be vision problems, epilepsy or some other non-IQ conditions that made them unfit to drive. The TL;DR version: Unless you're really mentally challenged you're capable of driving a car.

      Then you have the fact that a machine is never drunk, high, tired, angry, lost in thought, distracted, in a hurry, showing off etc. and it's got 360 degree vision with LIDAR and IR and whatnot. It's not going to rear end anyone because it doesn't pay attention or any of the other stupid stuff that's caused basically every collision I've got some personal knowledge of. I'm sure that being a machine it'll have its own set of problems but it's already a better driver in many, many ways. So it's not so much that it needs to beat humans further, they have to tighten the defense where people can say "anybody could see that" because sometimes a computer program can't.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Like reusing rockets? by flippy · · Score: 1

      As I said in a previous response, it's more about perception and acceptance than reality.

      If an autonomous vehicle has a 1 incident in 10k miles driven rate, and the average human driver has that exact same rate, the autonomous system is going to get way more press, and knee-jerk reactions will occur. That's just the nature of the press and human nature.

      The general public doesn't seem to care about comparing incident rates between autonomous vehicles and human-controlled vehicles.

    10. Re:Like reusing rockets? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      It's more than that -- it's about intelligent interaction not just with the road but with other "brains" so to speak where the rules and modes of interaction are infinite

      Intelligent Design?
      ha, ha, hahahahah

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    11. Re:Like reusing rockets? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.

      It seems Waymo at least has figured out how to make them safer than human drivers overall.

      No, they haven't. They haven't even reached the level of a drunk driver.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    12. Re:Like reusing rockets? by byteherder · · Score: 1

      The difference between human drivers and self-driving cars is hundreds of millions of lines of code that all have to work perfectly.

      Hundreds of millions of lines of code? My brain does it like this: f(current situation) -> best action

      AI is the same. That's one line of code.

      The problem is: 1) deciding what f to use, which is an optimization problem. Easy. 2) what data comprises the "current situation" (cameras, LIDAR, etc.). Hard, and prone to human bias. 3) what do you mean by best (minimize accidents, minimize accidents involving casualties, minimize number of deaths, etc.?). Very Hard.

      When you can define 2 and 3 well enough, 1 is easy. That is why AI can be useful.

      SFD

      One line of code except for the library call.

      "f(current situation)" is a couple hundred million lines right there.
      "best action" is another couple hundred million lines.

      Don't forget the OS. You are not going to run this on Windows. You don't want the blue screen of death right as you are heading for a sharp curve.

    13. Re:Like reusing rockets? by greythax · · Score: 1

      I pretty sure I could code a computer to pull out in front of me while doing worthless stuff on a cell phone in way under a million lines of code.

    14. Re:Like reusing rockets? by byteherder · · Score: 1

      Could you code a computer to avoid a child running in the road?
      Could you code a computer to stay in it's lane during a blizzard when the lane lines are obscured?
      Could you code a computer to steer out of a skid on black ice?
      Could you code a computer to drive in pea soup fog when the sensors are blinded?

    15. Re:Like reusing rockets? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Could you code a computer to avoid a child running in the road?

      Its called Computer Vision. You just need to make sure these types of hazards are in the training set. And then you need to make the system works better (has a lower error rate) than a human could in the same situation.

      Could you code a computer to stay in it's lane during a blizzard when the lane lines are obscured?

      Its called radar. Its better than your eyes. There is also lidar but that doesn't work as well in the snow.

      Could you code a computer to steer out of a skid on black ice?

      Can you? I would bet even Uber's shitty system could do it better than most humans. And again, that's the standard, not perfection.

      Could you code a computer to drive in pea soup fog when the sensors are blinded?

      Again, its called radar. And the car would do it better than a human in such a situation. Also, clearly you don't understand how these systems are constructed. Its not a bunch of biz logic deployed in your shitty web framework, its a sophisticated ML and computer vision system. Just because you can code a website doesn't mean you understand how these types of AI systems work.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    16. Re:Like reusing rockets? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers.

      While the complexity is immense, it wouldn't surprise me at all if autonomous vehicles are already safer than human drivers. There are two problems, though: (1) there are still many bad human drivers on the road, and (2) the general public and regulators aren't just expecting the autonomous vehicles to be safer than humans, they're unrealistically expecting them to be perfect drivers while being forced to share the road with human drivers.

      That's kinda what I meant. It's more about perception than reality. It wouldn't surprise me either if they were already safer. But the perception is that unless they're perfect, they're not safer.

      The insurance companies will disagree and they will get their way. They have lobbyists, you don't. As long as it lowers the accident rate (and more importantly the total amount of claims), the technology will get pushed.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    17. Re: Like reusing rockets? by greythax · · Score: 1

      Could a computer recognize the whoosh sound as the joke flies over your head?

    18. Re:Like reusing rockets? by byteherder · · Score: 1

      I wanted to illustrate situations that humans deal with all the time but can be difficult for computers. Can we train AI to handle adverse conditions, unexpected obstructs, and untimely situation? Sure we can. But it take time and data, with for unlikely events is scarce.

      I worked in ML field. I know the limitations of it. Take Computer Vision, it didn't seem to help Uber's self-driving car that ran over and killed that person. Both radar and lidar are great but have their limits. What if they feed conflicting data to the computer? How does it decide?

      I never implied this was on the level of biz logic on a web framework. I have coded some of the most sophisticated ML code and know that it still not ready to drive my car.

    19. Re:Like reusing rockets? by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      But Waymo doesn't have an accident every 11k miles, it has a human intervention. I'd like to know how many of these interventions are "the car has fucked up - try to fix it NOW!" and how many "we're nearing a situation the car isn't sure it's capable of handling, please take over within 20 seconds". The latter is just fine for the first generation, and even if only on highways.

      I agree that full autonomy, as in not needing to have a driver present at all, is unlikely for quite some time.

    20. Re:Like reusing rockets? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You are creating some sort of a strawman by *demanding* that driver-less cars have a God-like driving AI before they can even be allowed on public roads. Top causes of road incidents are distracted driving and DUI. Just by eliminating drunks and drivers distracted by talking on the mobile or just talking to passengers or reaching for the glove compartment we will eliminate 80% of the accidents. You are also way overestimating driving kill of an average human driver who will have no clue which way to turn the wheel if the car starts to skid on an icy road. The reason modern cars have ABS and all kind of assists is because you average human has no clue how to drive.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    21. Re:Like reusing rockets? by byteherder · · Score: 1

      I think there are times that AI will do better than humans. One of them is braking. A computer can detect when one of the tires is locking up. It can then decrease brake pressure to just that wheel. And it can do this hundreds of times a second. Another is detecting when a car is starting to hydroplane. Another time is when a car starts to skid. Onboard accelerometers could detect differences between steering input and change in car direction. And if there is a mismatch, take corrective action. The challenge is to marry them all into a system that can replace what humans do all so well.

      And I am not expecting the AI to be perfect but I do expect it to be better than what it is replacing. Just eliminating the drunk drivers on the road would halve the accident fatalities. That in itself would be a good thing.

    22. Re: Like reusing rockets? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the people riding in thier vehicals are OK with not making it home.

  5. No Biggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles"

    That's fine. We didn't believe you anyway.

  6. Please don't buy Tesla by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    First press release: Don't buy a Tesla. We're about to release a self-driving car done right. Second press release. Don't buy a Tesla. It's not actually possible to produce a self-driving car.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Are you insinuating that a Tesla is anywhere close to a self-driving car?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Are you insinuating that a Tesla is anywhere close to a self-driving car?

      No, he seems to be insinuating that people might think that Tesla is close to a self-driving car and so not buy a Ford....

      The "not buy a Ford" being the critical part.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'd say the Uber car that hit the pedestrian was closer to self-driving than a Tesla.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I'd say the Uber car that hit the pedestrian was closer to self-driving than a Tesla.

      Right, because the Tesla would have missed.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    5. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Because the Uber car had probably been driving itself for a lot longer and in more difficult conditions than Autopilot ever would.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 1

      Im sure the person who got nailed by that car would disagree if they could.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    7. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We might be decades away from cars being able to drive to arbitrary destinations under wildly-varying road conditions, but if you constrain the problem's scope to "limited-access highways with grade-separation in relatively sane weather and driving conditions" or "bumper-to-bumper gridlock just about anywhere, where the car is basically creeping ahead a few inches at a time", current technology is STILL better than an average extraordinarily-distracted driver... and absolutely useful.

      People who bitch about Tesla drivers on freeways (or bumper to bumper gridlock) not remaining fully alert to their surroundings are missing a very important key point... at least the Teslas have SOMETHING paying close attention to their surroundings, which is far more than you can say for at least 40-60% of the cars within 100 feet of them.

      Anybody who thinks the overwhelming majority, let alone "all", of the drivers stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic traffic are vigilantly paying attention is delusional & living in a fantasy world that hasn't existed for at least 5-10 years. Limited autonomy that covers the freeway+gridlock scenarios might not be 100% perfect, but it's still a net improvement over the real-world status quo that exists today.

    8. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the more people who have died in Teslas?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'm getting real tired of the argument that people are shit drivers. No one seems to have to prove it, everyone is just supposed to take it for granted. The truth is, driving is pretty safe as it is. If drivers were that bad, then human driving just wouldn't work. There would be pileups every day. Do you see 60% of the cars running into other cars? What is your basis for that statistic?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      I'm getting real tired of the argument that people are shit drivers. No one seems to have to prove it, everyone is just supposed to take it for granted. The truth is, driving is pretty safe as it is. If drivers were that bad, then human driving just wouldn't work. There would be pileups every day.

      From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration via Wikipedia:

      For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.

      So ummm ... there are pileups every day. Any other objections?

      --
      Nope, no sig
    11. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Humans drive 3.22 trillion miles a year. Your 102 'bad miles' pale in comparison to the 450 thousand successfully driven miles that proceeded that event. Also, more accidents happen where it is cold and automated cars don't work and may never work.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Humans drive 3.22 trillion miles a year. Your 102 'bad miles' pale in comparison to the 450 thousand successfully driven miles that proceeded that event.

      I listed U.S. accident rates, you quote worldwide mileage. You realize the worldwide accident rate is significantly higher? I used U.S. because it was your stronger argument. (But still weak.)

      Also, more accidents happen where it is cold and automated cars don't work and may never work.

      Ah, so you admit that automated cars are already better than humans in clear, dry conditions. Good, that's progress.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    13. Re:Please don't buy Tesla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No that's American miles per year; people drive 3.22 trillion miles per year in the US. No, I'm saying we can't know how safe automated cars really are with respect to the average because they don't go in the real dangerous conditions yet, which is where automation is supposed to provide the best benefit.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. No kidding! by flippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone besides the CEOs themselves surprised that the corporate-types vastly underestimated the complexity of a problem they didn't truly understand in the first place?

    1. Re:No kidding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding. Anyone who is both an experienced driver and experienced programmer could see that car companies, including Tesla, were grossly overselling autonomous vehicles. The fact that anyone was seriously talking about fully autonomous vehicles and projecting a timeline for their availability was a bad joke.

      As I keep pointing out, think of all the situations you've encountered on the road in the last year that no computer could handle without a vast increase in the capability of embedded AI. Weather, emergency vehicles, detours, mismarked roads, etc. all make fully autonomous vehicle a fantasy, at least in 2019 and the near future.

    2. Re:No kidding! by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To me the question isn't why they they are underestimating the problem, but instead why are they concentrating on self driving cars?

      Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

      Things where slower speed is acceptable whose route is mostly pre-planned, where companies are paying a man to drive rather than someone is driving themselves.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:No kidding! by v1s10nary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

      Those would indeed be the most logical applications of self-driving vehicles... but they would also cause the biggest economic disruptions. Bus/truck drivers & garbage men are notorious for aggressive union activity; imagine the outcry if they feel like their professions will be threatened by autonomy?

      It would be the "NYC taxi drivers vs. Uber" situation on a much larger scale.

      --
      "The cause of fear is ignorance."
    4. Re:No kidding! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      To me the question isn't why they they are underestimating the problem, but instead why are they concentrating on self driving cars?

      Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

      Things where slower speed is acceptable whose route is mostly pre-planned, where companies are paying a man to drive rather than someone is driving themselves.

      But people are working on autonomous trucks and also trying other things such as platoon driving. Also check out Self-Driving Trucks: Are Truck Drivers Out Of A Job?. However I think that these are being underreported because self driving cars are seen as "sexy" but a truck isn't.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:No kidding! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      "Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc."
      Those vehicles have so much more mass than a passenger car so they'll do so much more damage and kill so many more people when (not if, when) they fuck up. A 'self driving bus' full of people when it fucks up will kill dozens.
      Also the market for those is much smaller. Less profit to be made.

    6. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As I keep pointing out, think of all the situations you've encountered on the road in the last year that no computer could handle without a vast increase in the capability of embedded AI. Weather, emergency vehicles, detours, mismarked roads, etc. all make fully autonomous vehicle a fantasy, at least in 2019 and the near future.

      Weather? Maybe. It kind of depends on the nature of the weather, the type of self-driving tech, what they're doing to de-noise the data, etc. But it causes problems for human drivers, too, so that isn't *necessarily* a show-stopper, so long as it can at least detect when things are getting bad.

      Emergency vehicles? If you mean avoiding them, that's a mostly solved problem. If you mean pulling over when chased by a police car, that's still probably pretty easy, at least in relative terms.

      Detours? On major roads in most states, this has been a solved problem for many years. The relevant road agency posts a closure notice on their website, some bot scrapes that website and converts the road closure data into a form suitable for algorithmic routing, and the routing algorithm in the navigation system or app guides you around it.

      Mismarked roads? Assuming somebody is keeping the maps up-to-date, this usually isn't a problem, either. Of course, if the map data is wrong, that's a different problem. Either way, the right answer is to take the more conservative choice of the two; if the map says you can go, but the signs say no, you find a different route, and vice versa. This should not be a hard problem except to the extent that the underlying sign reading is (and AFAIK, that really isn't).

      The hard problems, IMO, are things like:

      • Noticing that a driver ahead of you is driving erratically and slowing down just in case he or she does something stupid.
      • Noticing kids playing near the road and slowing down just in case they do something stupid.
      • Judging the intention of pedestrians.
      • Interpreting the hand gestures of cyclists.
      • Interpreting the hand gestures of traffic cops, flagmen, and other similar personnel.

      Compared with those things, everything on your list except possibly WX is easy. Then again, Tesla's Nav-on-AutoPilot still hasn't figured out that on a road with six or more lanes, the second lane from the right is the "don't merge into me" lane, not the passing lane, so I guess we shouldn't assume that any given car company will solve even the easy problems. :-/

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:No kidding! by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      If you can create a long haul tractor trailer, that can drive with little/no human intervention, major shipping companies would likely shovel cash in your direction. A quick Google search suggests that the average semi is driven about 45,000 miles per year. If the driver is earning $0.40 per mile, that's a savings of $18,000 per year per truck. FedEx has 20,000 semi trucks in its fleet, Walmart has 6,000. As an aside, I read that the US had a shortage of 50,000 drivers in 2017.

      The market might be smaller than passenger vehicles, but the impacts on labor costs are significant. The savings to your average home/consumer are the loss of time while driving, this really doesn't hit your wallet. It's not like you are loosing money by driving the car yourself. For shipping companies the driver is an added expense that needs managers to schedule drivers, and people in HR to manage benefits.

    8. Re: No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Humans drive 3.22 trillion miles a year. How many deaths? 32,000? 100,625,000 miles per death. Also keep in mind it will be weighted almost 50% towards cold states with winter weather, so for California driving is probably safer than that average.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:No kidding! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Detours? On major roads in most states, this has been a solved problem for many years. The relevant road agency posts a closure notice on their website, some bot scrapes that website and converts the road closure data into a form suitable for algorithmic routing, and the routing algorithm in the navigation system or app guides you around it.

      Wrong scale of "Detour". The ones you describe are easy.

      The hard ones are the ones where a guy with a stop/slow sign directs you to drive on the wrong side of the road. Or sometimes he's just using his hands instead of a sign.

      Those are very easy for a human to navigate. We're easily able to suspend the rules and drive the wrong way because we understand what's going on. That's not true of an autonomous vehicle.

    10. Re:No kidding! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      why are they concentrating on self driving cars

      There are "inefficiencies" to rape and pillage.

    11. Re:No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      If pulling over is so easy, why does a Tesla keep driving even when it knows the driver is not responding as required for being in the car?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:No kidding! by ledow · · Score: 1

      Golf carts.
      Shopping trolleys.
      Fairground rides.

      All kinds of things operate in geo-fenced areas, can be made to run in a very constrained environment, where computer vision is easy, speeds are low, decisions are few, obstacles are few, and the end-result of a mistake is a bruised ankle not a dead kid.

      But they ALL skipped such stages.

    13. Re:No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      With trains, the geofence is built in!

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:No kidding! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Is anyone besides the CEOs themselves surprised that the corporate-types vastly underestimated the complexity of a problem they didn't truly understand in the first place?

      It's really hard to estimate future progress of this type of thing. If anyone were good at it, they'd be rich as Warren Buffett on their tech stock picks. (Warren tends to avoid tech stocks.)

      Progress was being made rather quickly. If one extrapolated the progress curve based on the past early pace, it's not unreasonable to conclude that practical products/service was just around the corner. If you want to estimate future progress, extrapolating the past but recent progress pace curve is a rational course of action, perhaps with some mild dampening to provide a margin of error.

      The final obstacles just happened to turn out to be the trickier than estimated. The progress just curve started flattening out of the blue.

      For example, I know some spots in town with very confusing and/or faded lines painted on the road. If they confuse humans, they'd likely trip up bots at least as much.

      But I also reasoned that at first the routes would be pre-vetted so that there would be no such surprises because the tricky spots would be already mapped and given human-produced guidance coordinates*. This would limit routes and choices, but at least it could start the ball rolling in some areas. You don't need the optimal route, just at least one working route between two points to get somewhere. Therefore, human-like intelligence wouldn't necessarily be needed to launch the service.

      But, this is apparently not a good enough work-around.

      * If the bot detected that road markings changed significantly from the vetted version, such as new paint, then the car could take the easiest turn, or a human remote driver could take over.

    15. Re:No kidding! by edi_guy · · Score: 1

      I'll just add that as someone who inhabits an area where these things are currently in the wild, and seems them all the time. The Cruze, Waymo, etc are still only 50 percent successful at navigating a basic four way stop. Especially with the ubiquitous 'California stop' methods of the other human drivers. Bicyclists, pedestrians, double parked UPS trucks. There is such a long way to go on this.

    16. Re:No kidding! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obviously the first applications should be self driving Buses, Long Haul 18 wheelers, Garbage Trucks, etc. etc.

      Ford is a minor player in heavy trucks. The biggest trucks they make are class 7. Hotel buses, airport shuttles, dump trucks, box trucks, school buses (I don't think anyone is still making a Ford or GMC school bus, but I could be wrong), etc. The big players in heavy trucks in the US are Freightliner (Mercedes), Peterbilt and Kenworth (both owned by Paccar), International-Navistar, Volvo (Geely), and Mack (also Volvo/Geely). Ford worked with what they had, which is to say minivans (Transit). Autonomous minivans have the potential to absolutely destroy the city bus, as well as completely dominate medical and disabled transport. But as Ford has figured out, Class 5 AVs are still some way off.

      Daimler, the world's largest truck manufacturer, is doing the long-haul trucking research, and has been. They have level 2 trucks now, and are working their way up. I predict that they'll be at level 3 for a long time, but I suppose that remains to be seen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The hard ones are the ones where a guy with a stop/slow sign directs you to drive on the wrong side of the road. Or sometimes he's just using his hands instead of a sign.

      That's really not a detour, though. The word "detour" (from French détour: n. a turn or other change of direction) is typically defined as taking a different route that is significantly longer than the normal route (whether because of a road closure, heavy traffic, or just rerouting through town because of a Big Mac attack). If you stay on the same road, you aren't turning, so it isn't a detour.

      In the interest of terminology precision, if you're just using a different lane on the same road, that's a lane shift. If a lane shift requires a flagman or a traffic light, that's one-way traffic control. Either also could be called a construction zone, ostensibly (though around here, some one-way traffic control seems to be semi-permanent, so maybe not).

      BTW, you'll note that I mentioned the flagman case as a hard case. One-way traffic control by traffic light could, I suppose, also be slightly problematic, but it shouldn't be that much harder than any other properly marked lane shift. Mainly, the software just has to know how to go to the correct side of the center stripe on the other side as soon as it is possible to do so, with the details depending on the country.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If pulling over is so easy, why does a Tesla keep driving even when it knows the driver is not responding as required for being in the car?

      If Tesla AP were anywhere approaching full autonomy, pulling over and stopping would be relatively easy to add — far easier than driving on residential streets with no lane markings and pedestrian dangers. However, the Tesla AutoPilot feature isn't anywhere near self-driving yet, and their AP computers are running at the limits of their hardware capabilities even without all the features that we'd like for them to add. They probably don't even have the spare cycles for speed limit sign interpretation (brain-dead simple by comparison), much less pulling over.

      To support pulling over, Tesla would have to add AP support for:

      • Deciding whether a shoulder is safe to stop on, including:
        • Verifying that it is wide enough.
        • Verifying that it is clear for at least the required stopping distance.
        • Dealing with the possibility that the car in front of you might make the same decision).
      • Identifying (on city streets) whether street parking is available and:
        • Determining if that street parking is available to the general public, reserved, temporarily a no parking area, etc.
        • Determining if that street parking costs money.
      • Identifying (on city streets) whether a parking lot is nearby and:
        • Determining if that parking lot allows public parking.
        • Determining if that parking lot costs money.
      • On highways:
        • Determining whether is safe to stop based on prevailing traffic conditions.
        • Determining whether is legal to pull over at a given location.

      And so on. None of those are hopelessly hard problems, but each one is something that would have to be created and tested/validated before they could roll out such a feature. Also, bear in mind that until a couple of weeks ago, AutoPilot didn't even have support for changing lanes without human confirmation, which would also be an absolute requirement for any sort of pulling over, obviously.

      So again, if Tesla AP were anywhere approaching full autonomy, pulling over and stopping would be relatively easy to add, but it does require explicit code support, and right now, they almost certainly don't have the GPU power to do it until they roll out HW3. And even if they did, there are far more critical things for them to add first (e.g. stop signs and traffic lights), along with far more low-hanging fruit that they'll probably add just because it is easy to do so (e.g. speed limit sign reading).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:No kidding! by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      For police cars, they'll eventually do something like this:

      * Police officer wants car in front of him to pull over. Hits button signaling this intent.

      * Police car computer reads the license plate (or otherwise determines the car's unique ID), creates a "pull over" request, and signs it with a certificate derived from the police department's certificate. It then gets communicated to the car through various means... probably multiple, including somewhere on a network that the car itself polls every few seconds, as well as encoding it into the light's flash pattern, and probably RF as well.

      * Car being pursued sees the "pull over" request, verifies the certificate's legitimacy, and pulls over (or, if added as a retrofit safety feature to people worried about carjackers or others trying to trick them into pulling over, notifies the driver that the police officer is legit).

      The certificate is important, because it's a safeguard to ensure that someone like carjackers, random hackers, etc. can't spoof "pull over" requests. In fact, I'd expect this to be something that gets implemented fairly quickly, since it's something that could easily be added to existing police cars and would be a fairly important safety feature. If autonomous vehicles react to something like flashing lights without validation, you're creating a MAJOR opportunity for bad guys to exploit it. I'd go so far as to predict that once someone comes up with a viable standard for this, it'll quickly become a popular retrofit feature (and required safety feature for new cars).

      Personally, I'd expect something like this to become nearly universal among police cars within 3-5 years of becoming available as a standard retrofit product for existing police cars... a year to raise awareness of its existence, a year to get it put into next year's budget, a year to get it deployed, a year for remaining police departments that initially held out to realize their mistake & get it put into next year's budget, and a year for them to get it deployed as well. The technology all exists, and is relatively cheap & non-controversial... someone just needs to bake it into a viable standard and make it available as an off-the-shelf product, and it'll pretty much sell itself to police departments.

    20. Re:No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Apparently I pushed a button. :-)

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re:No kidding! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That's really not a detour, though.

      I've seen plenty of "Detour" signs that involved driving the wrong way down a street.

      Also, pedantic adherence to one definition of a word does not make a problem go away.

      Mainly, the software just has to know how to go to the correct side of the center stripe on the other side as soon as it is possible to do so

      Except the software also has to know when not do to do this. That's as hard as teaching it when to do this.

      Your example is also only the simplest way a construction zone could be laid out. It might not be a full lane shift. It might involve crossing a lot of lines that are now perpendicular to your direction of travel. It might involve ignoring traffic control devices, or maybe not. Also those traffic control devices are now in the "wrong" place.

      Your description is a very, very small bit of the problems to solve with this.

    22. Re:No kidding! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No. And since this is an IT problem, even less so.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:No kidding! by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      For buses, 18-wheelers, and garbage trucks, the driver is probably the cheapest part of the daily operating expenses ANYWAY.

      Automation is definitely coming to 18-wheelers, but it'll mostly be as a safety feature & way to reduce the training and skill necessary to safely drive one. Today, driving an 18-wheeler is HARD. If they can lower the bar to the point where anybody qualified to drive a 20-foot U-haul truck could safely drive an 18-wheeler across the country, that alone would be a huge cost-savings for the industry (not to mention, reduce the number of expensive accidents). At most, 18-wheelers MIGHT get to the point where they could have a single cross-country driver on board with a sleeper cab whose job is to babysit it over the long-haul, but who doesn't have to actively pay attention most of the time (with the truck automatically pulling over alongside the road if it decides it needs the driver & he/she can't take control in time). And even THAT would be a huge cost-savings for trucking companies, because it would allow regulators to relax the limits on how many hours any single driver can drive. It's one thing to say you can only drive {n} hours per day if you're sitting behind the wheel actively driving and have to keep it safe. It's another matter entirely if you're "working" for 30 hours (in the sense of, "you have to be on board the truck while it's in motion"), but only 2-4 of those hours involve actually sitting behind the wheel or doing anything besides sleep, read, play games on your Xbox One, etc.

      Likewise, even if a bus didn't literally need a DRIVER, you'd almost certainly still need a human ATTENDANT on board. A bus like the ones used by big cities is UNGODLY expensive to buy and operate, and the savings from replacing a $30-50/hour driver with a $15-20/hour attendant is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of damage people could -- and WOULD -- do to an unattended expensive bus. Not to mention the lawsuits and social cost of having people get mugged or raped because the mugger/rapist and the victim were the only ones on board.

      The only kind of transit-type vehicles for which unattended driverless operation really makes sense is something like an extended golf cart, like you'd find carrying people around a resort, or between a building and some off-site parking lot a block or two away. Maybe it would be different in other countries, but if a city like Miami or Atlanta had a $400,000 bus running unattended at 3am, it would be vandalized into oblivion within a matter of DAYS. You'd have homeless people using the rear section as a toilet, and anyone who had other transportation options would refuse to go anywhere NEAR those buses because they'd be disgusting, destroyed, and perceived (rightfully or not) as being dangerous.

      Garbage trucks... maybe. But even then, you're talking about what would be an expensive, unattended vehicle that would probably be covered in graffiti within days. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of paying someone to sit behind the wheel of a big can-emptying robot as it crawls down the street is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the vehicle he's driving. Once again, you're talking -- at best -- about replacing a $30-50/hour driver with a $15-20/hour security guard.

      Also... commercial vehicles tend to have relatively long service lives compared to passenger cars. In any given year, the total number of new 18-wheeler cabs, garbage trucks, and city buses that get sold is probably less than the number of new cars sold by a random Ford dealer in a medium-sized city in Iowa. Sure, commercial vehicles have bigger profit margins... but when you're talking about merely being able to use cheaper drivers instead of eliminate them entirely, and vehicles whose acquisition, maintenance, and operating costs completely dwarf the cost of their drivers (and the potential cost of things like vandalism), you rapidly get to the point where it's cheaper to just keep using human drivers.

    24. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I just figured most people who don't drive Teslas have no real concept of just how far away from full self driving Tesla's implementation currently is, and therefore don't realize that it can barely even stay between the lane lines consistently, much less pull off the road. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    25. Re: No kidding! by zawarski · · Score: 1

      10K of those are drunk drivers.

    26. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yes, in theory, construction zones can be a problem, but in practice, the problem is mostly political, not technological. Most of the problems you describe are actually caused by the various transit agencies not doing the necessary preparation for construction. In an era of self-driving cars, proper construction signage will likely be mandatory to avoid creating situations that require human intervention.

      For short-term lane shifts, safety cones work are unambiguous and easily followed. Transit agencies also need to grind off lane lines and bag any invalid WRONG WAY signs, STOP signs, speed limit signs, traffic lights, etc. so that self-driving cars won't be confused. That said, in most places, they already do those things to avoid confusing human drivers.

      So really, the hard part is interpreting traffic signals from a person. Everything else *can* be made unambiguous, given a willingness by the relevant government agencies to do so.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So who pays for that? Hopefully the cost of repairing the roads doesn't go up because many cities are struggling as it is. The US interstate system is crumbling and would take 60 years to fix if significant funds are allocated now (hows that for a national emergency?). In my area, construction workers won't even take the reduced speed limit sign down when there is no one there.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    28. Re:No kidding! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So who pays for that? Hopefully the cost of repairing the roads doesn't go up because many cities are struggling as it is.

      It shouldn't cost more, because they should already be doing those things, because they also reduce accidents caused by humans getting confused. But if they aren't, then yes, it will cost slightly more. It always costs more money to do things right than to do them half-a**ed. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:No kidding! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes that's exactly what a want. A car that refuses to work when the weather gets bad.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    30. Re:No kidding! by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      There's nothing to steal. This is all technology that has existed for years. Besides, posting it here is even better than patenting something I couldn't afford to pursue anyway... it'll help ensure that it becomes a free, open standard that NOBODY can successfully patent, and anybody can implement for free. Oh, sure... someone could TRY to patent it. They might even get a patent granted. But the moment they go to sue someone for infringement, the defendants' lawyer will find this post via Google & have credible evidence of prior art to argue for the patent's invalidation. I might not be able to become a millionaire, but I can at least enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that nobody ELSE got to become a millionaire based on the idea, either.

  8. geo-fenced by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    geo-fenced.. in other words it will run around a pre-defined circuit in a walled compound.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:geo-fenced by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No, that means "retirement community" and "corporate parks".

      But, walled in a sense.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:geo-fenced by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Or let one of the people from the community drive a golf cart. They'll probably get a big kick out of it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:geo-fenced by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      "retirement community" was actually what I was looking for.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:geo-fenced by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      They have walled communities that aren't age restricted in the Santa Barbara area, but an autonomous vehicle could easily crash through those walls, IMHO. I think they're called "planned communities" and, like retirement communities, they have restrictions on tons of stuff, so you could easily do something in a more desert-like or island-like area. Then anyone they mow down has "agreed" to the risk, other than the kids sacrificed on the alter of technology when they visit the rels.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  9. Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people died by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people died

  10. Uber killed someone by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Uber killed someone and got the cops to try to pin part of the on the low trained safety driver that as part of there tasks is to take there eyes off the road to look at logs.

  11. boeing 737 max 8 what happens when an sensor by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    boeing 737 max 8 what happens when an sensor mess ups and that could of been much worse.
    Just what is lots of cars that can fail in the same with people that have way less training as backups.

  12. More like 2040 at the earliest by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Internal engineers say this is pie in the sky (2023) and it's more like 2035 for dev and 5 more years for extensive real world testing.

    But that's reality.

    Face it, you're more likely to have working commercial (non-military) safe fusion reactors before you see self-driving cars.

    Let alone their security implications.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Road quality varies by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the US the most consistent roads are the interstates, but if you've driven in enough states, you know that the interstates aren't exactly uniform from place to place.

    That's putting it mildly. I can tell when I cross the border from Ohio to Michigan with my eyes closed. Michigan's roads suck and are badly underfunded (only Georgia spends less per capita - they need to raise taxes but the republicans control the legislature and break out in hives when they hear the words "raise taxes".

    We need to see how self-driving cars handle construction zones, rain, snow, and fog on interstates first.

    I think they will figure it out but it's just going to take a lot longer than many people (including Elon Musk) are proposing that they will. I figure even best case we are at least 15 years away from a truly self driving car that could be sold to the public. And that is probably being wildly optimistic. I think the technology will make it's way in to use fairly steadily and already has but full autonomy is quite a ways off yet. I think it's a worthy goal but it's just going to take a while because it's not an easy problem to solve.

  14. Expected by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've pretty much expected this for a while.

    Don't get me wrong the progress that has been made in this field is incredibly impressive, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll be there, but I've found it laughable when you have people with kids who are 8-9 years old stating that their kids won't have to learn how to drive.

    Autonomous driving is a VERY complex problem, and while it may be 90% solved, that last 10% will likely take us decades to perfect. I wouldn't expect fully autonomous cars to be the norm for probably 40-50 more years.

    Heck just look at the situation Boeing is in right now. Aviation is arguably a much easier task to automate, because there are fewer other vehicles around (and the ones that do typically have transponders announcing their location), and the environment is much more structured as to procedures, yet they've had multiple planes crash due to faulty sensors and autopilot related functions.

    Electric cars - sure, they'll be the norm in 10-15 years. Autonomous though? It'll be a while.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Expected by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      Autonomous driving is a VERY complex problem, and while it may be 90% solved, that last 10% will likely take us decades to perfect. I wouldn't expect fully autonomous cars to be the norm for probably 40-50 more years.

      Heck just look at the situation Boeing is in right now. Aviation is arguably a much easier task to automate, because there are fewer other vehicles around (and the ones that do typically have transponders announcing their location), and the environment is much more structured as to procedures, yet they've had multiple planes crash due to faulty sensors and autopilot related functions.

      Electric cars - sure, they'll be the norm in 10-15 years. Autonomous though? It'll be a while.

      Based on how airplane autopiolot has developed, I think the above is a much more realistic view of what self driving cars will look like.
      Auto pilot was invented in 1914 and has been in airplanes ever since in one form or another. And they can handle a lot of the day-to-day flying between point A and point B. But none of them do take offs. The most advanced ones can do landings to a degree, but when you start getting into low visibility they have problems. As a general rule landings are still done by pilots. And that is with 100+ years of development to date.

      Looking at cars, I could see self driving cars within 5 years doing much of the long distance driving as it usually involves constant speeds on dry well marked interstate roads. The human would be available to take over once the car has to exit to city streets or weather issues develop. Doing that would cover the vast majority of market needs and would probably keep car buyers relatively happy.

    2. Re:Expected by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see them handle highways covered with blowing snow.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Expected by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Actually autoland system used to be mandatory for low visibility landings. Nowadays low visibility landings are also allowed if the airplane is equipped with a HUD.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  15. Told you so. :-) by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Invest billions in what execs think is 'Just another new product R&D cycle'
    Get sold the idea that 'deep learning algorithms' are enough, just keep throwing more and more data at it!
    Discover you can't get it over the finish line because NO ONE has any fucking idea how a brain 'thinks'
    Legal department's analysis shows the risk/benefit ratio is so high that you'd be nuts to actually launch this hot mess

    Like I've been saying all along.
    The approach of the current crop of so-called, inaccurately named 'AI' is all wrong. You need a fully thinking brain behind the wheel, not just some shitty half-assed 'learning algorithm' that doesn't know the difference between a living being and a lamppost, or a real stop-sign from one painted on the back of a T-shirt, or that just because a stop-sign has some graffiti or a sticker on it doesn't mean it's not a stop-sign anymore.
    If your so-called 'self driving car' needs to pull over in the middle of a trip and 'phone home' so a remote HUMAN operator can 'guide it through' whatever it is that's making it vapor-lock on you, then it's not suitable 'technology' for public roads. Period.

    1. Re:Told you so. :-) by irreverentdiscourse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You need a fully thinking brain behind the wheel" We don't even require this of humans.

    2. Re:Told you so. :-) by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Get off it.

  16. Been saying it the whole time... by eepok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People like to say "everyone's stupid" and thus "if AVs are 10% better than human drivers, it will be worth it". But once you talk to the actual developers and technologists and ignore the futurists, they'll tell you that getting a machine to make decisions even half as good of humans is really, really, really difficult.

    We don't give "stupid" people enough credit. The innate base intelligence of someone that doesn't regularly kill others on the road is very difficult to emulate, regardless of how we consider them in relation to the more intelligent members of the species. They don't just follow lines in the road, they adjust to lighting conditions, curvature in the road, they know how people will swerve in advance of potholes. They can quickly decide if someone/thing is about to go into the road or even make subjective judgements on how another vehicle will move on a freeway based on minute experiences in the last 30 seconds.

    From a purely decision-based analysis, driving an automobile is extremely complex... still too complex for a computer to measure and judge appropriately to be autonomous. We'll get there... but it won't be quick, cheap, or easy.

    1. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      We don't need human level AI to drive a damn car. People are taking too long to react because they are thinking. Thinking takes time and we haven't evolved to drive cars so our thinking takes too long. We can create AI that doesn't think so much about the problems and can therefore react more quickly than human drivers.

      This is a situation replacing thoughtful drivers with dumb drivers is exactly what you want in order to save lives.

    2. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by zawarski · · Score: 1

      So let them be used to transport the people who would otherwise be the cause of more than 10K per year drunk driving.

    3. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Adrenaline makes the mind work a lot faster.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Adrenaline makes the mind work a lot faster.

      Not fast enough. And not reliably. And the mind is a funny thing... we put all these false memories around traumatic events because we relive the experience over and over because the brain is trying to put it into context and learn, but the truth is once you put a stop watch to people's reaction times in all those various scenarios people talk about there isn't even time for adrenaline to kick in let alone be useful for speeding anything up.

      You are using a false and faulty metric.

    5. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Define 'not fast enough'? What's the target? Humans drive 450K miles without an accident. Should it be more? What is the meter stick?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by eepok · · Score: 1

      I am actually amenable to this idea in a twisted philosophical way, but the complexities surrounding autonomous vehicles are multi-faceted. In my original post, I basically lambast those who ignore the current status of AI development (replacing it with their imagination of what it could be in the future) and those who presume that driving is "easy" because so many people do it.

      Beyond that is the actual financial issue. Let's say we can make a software system that could make decisions on the road at least as well as a 16 y/o driver with 3 months of driving experience. That hypothetical person is legally allowed to drive, right? So why wouldn't a similarly skilled AI? Let's also assume that this AI has similar observational skills (but using LIDAR, RADAR, video, sound, etc.), and has a similar reaction speed.

      16 y/o drivers are still fairly dangerous drivers. Take a look here: https://aaafoundation.org/rate...

      So, our "16y/o" AI still gets in crashes. Some people still die. But it's WAY BETTER than drunk drivers. Problem solved, right?

      Not really. Because now, all of those liability from that property damage and bodily harm is centralized to a few very deep pockets. Right now, if a loved one is killed by an indigent drunk driver, you could TRY to sue him/her for damages, loss of wages, pain and suffering, etc., but you're unlikely to get anything out of the person. But if Waymo/Google/Alphabet are named as defendants in the case, you best believe that that every death will cost millions.

      That alone is why companies don't actually expect to release and produce AVs in the mass market until they're not just "better than most humans" (which they're actually relenting as really, really difficult). What they know now is that they can't be released until they're nearly perfect or it just won't be worth the financial risk to the company.

    7. Re:Been saying it the whole time... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I can't count the number of accidents I have avoided by making eye contact
      with another driver, so that I know that he sees me and what I am doing.
      How the hell will a robocar do that?

      One solution may lie in having the robocars stay
      in constant radio communications with each other. But robocars
      will still have to deal with faulty human drivers for many decades.

    8. Re: Been saying it the whole time... by zawarski · · Score: 1

      Simple. We just emancipate the self driving cars, the same way you are no longer your parents responsibility after the earth travels around the sun 18 times following your spawning.

  17. Re:Nice spin! by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't get to blame the lack of "arrival" when you're at least partly responsible for that lack.

    What does Ford have to do with GM's failed efforts, Tesla's failed efforts, and Google's failed efforts?

    Ford may have done all the things you mention (except for being partly responsible for the failure of everyone else), but it's absolutely correct in arguing that it overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles. It did. It thought it was on the cusp of taking off, and in reality it's still years away from being practical.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. Important Fordy co. announcement: by Sqreater · · Score: 2

    Fordy co. CEO James Mackit scaled back hopes about the company's self-dancing bots this week, admitting that the first breakbots will have limits.
    From a report:
    “We overestimated the arrival of break-dancing bots," said Mackit, who once headed the company's dancebot division, at a Detroit Economics Club event on Tuesday. While Fordy still plans on launching its new self-dancing bot in 2021, Mackit added that "its dance selection will be narrow, what we call geo-fenced, because the problem is so complex." Mackit's announcement comes nearly six months after its CEO of autonomous dancebots, Sherry Makersmark, detailed plans for the company's new self-dancing bot in a Mediums post. The company has invested over $40 billion in the technology's development through 2023, including over $10 billion in Farrago AI, an artificial intelligence company that is creating a virtual dancer system. Fordy is currently testing its self-dancing bots in Miami, Washington, D.C. and Detroit. Fatalities have been minimal.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  19. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Do they build their long term plans from what, skimming the covers of the ALWAYS overoptimistic Popular Mechanics?

    No sober person who didn't have a dog in the hunt believed that autonomous vehicles were anywhere NEAR close to implementation. We still haven't solved fundamental problems with vision and processing on perfectly clear, dry days on sunny, empty California streets (where pretty nearly your dog could drive safely), to say NOTHING of the major effects of weather, night, redundancy, and the never-insignificant-in-American-contexts: LIABILITY.

    If you think one company is going to seriously put truly autonomous vehicles on the road before they're essentially held-harmless if/when it runs over a kid, you don't understand corporations.

    --
    -Styopa
  20. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Also far more people have died on airplanes than have died on flying cars.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  21. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by mspohr · · Score: 2

    Tesla releases a quarterly safety report on their cars. About one accident for every 2.87 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. As a contrast, for the general public, it's about one accident per 436,000 miles.
    So, much better but not perfect.
    As long as it's better than driving without assistance, it's a win.
    https://www.tesla.com/VehicleS...

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  22. Re:Costs will be in the several trillions of dolla by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Not just edge cases, absolutely stupid darwin award cases. Yes a person can physically drive down a sidewalk so you had better prepare for it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  23. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by pezpunk · · Score: 1

    Tesla vehicles in Q4 2018 experienced accidents at a rate of 1 accident per 2.87 million miles driven with Autopilot engaged, and one accident every 1.76 million miles without Autopilot. The average car in America experiences 1 crash every 436,000 miles (these stats do not take fault into account). Effectively, a Tesla is 4 times less likely than the average car to get into an accident, and that number jumps to 6 times less likely when using Autopilot (which is constantly improving).

    https://www.teslarati.com/tesl...

    people die every day in car accidents from every manufacturer. take a look at the numbers next time before making baseless, misleading accusations.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
  24. Not towing the unicorn line? by edi_guy · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Hackett. I fear your automotive start-up will never succeed unless you are able to excite 'investors' into pouring money into your scheme with outlandish self driving claims. This whole truth thing will spell doom for your small firm.

  25. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by bigpat · · Score: 2

    Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people died

    Again, nobody gives a shit about the tens of thousands of people dying from today's defective driving technology, but one person dies from an autonomous vehicle and the specific problem is fixed and suddenly the problems are intractable?

    Whole planes full of people fell out of the sky in what is supposedly the safest industry because a sensor failed and Boeing is taking a few weeks to fix the problem and yet we haven't grounded all aircraft even when the sky is literally falling.

    Tesla and to an even greater extent Waymo should be applauded for pushing forward with this life saving technology.

    Airbags killed people too. We just have to fix the problems and move forward.

  26. (corrections) Re:No kidding! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Reworked paragraph:

    The final obstacles just happened to turn out to be trickier than estimated. The progress curve just started flattening out of the blue.

    (A robot fouled it up, not me :-)

  27. Re:50+ Years Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dont worry Millennials, your futures are just as rosey!

    In 1919, we were still learning how to land aircraft on the ground. 50+ years later, we were landing spacecraft on the fucking moon.

    No human predicted that progression. Not even close.

    Don't worry humans. You'll still suck at predicting the future 50+ years from now just as bad as you do today, so feel free to ignore this bullshit.

  28. MBAs by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    MBAs enhancing shareholder value are doing exactly what they should, that is their legal duty as office holders in a publicly traded company.

    1. Re:MBAs by Hillie · · Score: 1

      How they do this is the key.

      For instance. Making a piece of GDFPOSGDMFFFFFFFFF software but you're making a truck ton of money by selling off everyone's data.. That is complete garbage.

      --
      - Alex
  29. Re:Nice spin! by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    You forgot Apple, which seems to have abandoned most of its AV plans, or at least reduced their emphasis on it. My personal opinion is that L4 is probably doable, but only in some places, and L5 is way off in the future.

  30. Managing expectations by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

    Well, good for Ford. GM and others are plunging headlong into this and creating a race of lemmings. Perhaps Ford looked at this and has decided to "pump the brakes" (haha) on the technology. It takes leadership to go against the herd and ask questions like that.

    Now "leadership" doesn't necessarily equate to a correct assessment. He could be mis-evaluating the state of the technology and be flat-ass wrong. Or he could have saved the company billions of lost dollars trying to keep up with the other sheep in the herd. Only time will tell.

  31. TOTAL BULLSHIT STATISTIC ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah just ignore that the accident rate for the general public is across ALL driving conditions, while Autopilot miles are self selected as the easiest freeway type conditions in clear weather.

    This kind of thing is why I lost all respect for Elon Musk, he really touts this kind of thing as if it means something.

  32. Re:50+ Years Out by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    You're still impressed by landing on the moon? That's so 20th century.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  33. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    If you take the automated car deaths so far and apply the ratio of regular cars on the road, adjusting for real world randomness/weather, self-driving cars wouldn't look so good.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  34. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by bigpat · · Score: 1

    If you take the automated car deaths so far and apply the ratio of regular cars on the road, adjusting for real world randomness/weather, self-driving cars wouldn't look so good.

    No fatalities for Waymo. If you compare accident rates just for Waymo it is looking pretty good so far.

    The Uber fatality shouldn't count... they aren't in the same league as Waymo. Tesla wasn't fully autonomous so you are comparing apples and oranges.

  35. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's so impressive that a car with a safety driver hasn't killed anyone.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  36. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by pezpunk · · Score: 1

    if you REALLY believe that, and weren't just trolling with an agenda, you wouldn't have ignored the fact that NON-autopilot accidents in a Tesla are still 4 times less likely than the average car. This is likely because of its advanced warning and automatic braking features -- Autopilot technology that is always active on the car, whether the driver is using autopilot or not, or even paid for the autopilot upgrade.

    but haha you and i both know you're not here to have an honest discussion.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
  37. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Tesla owners aren't average representatives of the population. Tesla cars are highly unlikely owned by teens or by very old people.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  38. autonomy by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    What we really need is millions and millions of two ton autonomous networked robots rolling around our cities. What could possibly go wrong?!?!?

  39. Lines of code isn't the problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets is physics and engineering. The difference between human drivers and self-driving cars is hundreds of millions of lines of code that all have to work perfectly. Trust me, physics is easier.

    Umm, how many lines of code do you think go into a rocket launch? The space shuttle had about 2 BILLION lines of code that all had to work approximately perfectly. Any rocket launched today, especially one that plans to remain reusable, is going to have a LOT of code made to a very high standard of reliability.

    And if you think physics and engineering don't play a big role in self driving cars you don't understand the problem adequately.

    Now it might be fair to say that launching a rocket is easier but it certainly isn't because of the number of lines of code. The challenge with autonomous vehicles isn't doing reliable code but in figuring out exactly what the code should do. Provided a company is willing to spend the money to do it, we know how to make reliable code. (we're just not used to companies actually going to the trouble) We haven't figured out how to design software that can recognize and react sanely to all the various inputs that occur in real world driving situations. The algorithms are just super difficult to figure out. The progress that has been made has been remarkable but the corner cases still unsolved remain fairly intimidating.

    1. Re:Lines of code isn't the problem by byteherder · · Score: 1

      Umm, how many lines of code do you think go into a rocket launch? The space shuttle had about 2 BILLION lines of code that all had to work approximately perfectly. Any rocket launched today, especially one that plans to remain reusable, is going to have a LOT of code made to a very high standard of reliability.

      The space shuttle had a lot of code and NASA paid a huge amount each year to enhance and maintain it. It worked very reliably and the few bugs that were found never affected the shuttle. I have not seen any of the companies stepping up to that level and spending the same amount in dollars per line of code.

      And if you think physics and engineering don't play a big role in self driving cars you don't understand the problem adequately.

      Physics and engineering does play a major role in self-driving cars. The car has to have a physical model of itself (does that make it self-aware) in order to know how inputs to the car's systems, brakes, engine, steering will effect the vehicle. I am just saying that working out the physics and engineering problems are going to be easier than making sure all the code is working correctly.

      Now it might be fair to say that launching a rocket is easier but it certainly isn't because of the number of lines of code. The challenge with autonomous vehicles isn't doing reliable code but in figuring out exactly what the code should do. Provided a company is willing to spend the money to do it, we know how to make reliable code. (we're just not used to companies actually going to the trouble) We haven't figured out how to design software that can recognize and react sanely to all the various inputs that occur in real world driving situations. The algorithms are just super difficult to figure out. The progress that has been made has been remarkable but the corner cases still unsolved remain fairly intimidating.

      I agree with you. Figuring out exactly what to do, in all situations, and then responding appropriately is a very challenging task. The task is to make sure all the corner cases are covered. The next task is to develop code that covers all those situations, corner cases and responses without any defects being introduced that would harm someone.

  40. Re:Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people die by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    The average car in America experiences 1 crash every 436,000 miles

    Under all driving conditions.

    Tesla vehicles in Q4 2018 experienced accidents at a rate of 1 accident per 2.87 million miles driven with Autopilot engaged, and one accident every 1.76 million miles without Autopilot.

    Only on freeway conditions.
    Not comparable.