Waymo, the Alphabet (GOOGL) autonomous-car unit, announced Tuesday at AutoMobility LA that it's ready to put passengers in self-driving cars — without an accompanying test or backup driver.
Tony told us where this leads!
Waymo, the Alphabet (GOOGL) autonomous-car unit, announced Tuesday at AutoMobility LA that it's ready to put passengers in self-driving cars — without an accompanying test or backup driver.
Sit back, put your feet up, and let the car do the work. This is the dream of self-driving cars for many, a nightmare for others, and a curiosity for most. Whatever you may feel, this is fast becoming reality as cars with no driver roll out on roads right now.
SeaGypsy wrote:There's nothing in that article about actually reshaping cities.
dirtyharry wrote:Bull shit 100% .
pstarr wrote:When is Tony Seba's 'disruption' going to happen? Or is that an article of faith as per a particular Techno Religion? If so, would you be willing to share the Original Text?
pstarr wrote:AdamB, as of late your response to critical analysis (such as that promoted by dirtyharry) seems always to return to several Tony Seba videos.
pstarr wrote: You owe us a direct and concise analysis and discussion of his data and model for 'disruptive'
systems.
pstarr wrote:
Disruption is best described as a rapid and chaotic change. To date, autonomous vehicle development has been anything but rapid or chaotic. It has been snail-pace slow.
pstarr wrote:Sensor technology and associated computer algorithms (at an intial cost of $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 LIDAR system) have not substantially improved in 12 years of development.
Pstarr wrote:When is Tony Seba's 'disruption' going to happen? Or is that an article of faith as per a particular Techno Religion? If so, would you be willing to share the Original Text?
pstarr wrote:Why would I watch his videos? Seba is a goofy clown and everything he says is an extrapolation of his own techtopian dreams. Without basis in real technology.
Siri is smarter then Seba lol
Outcast_Searcher wrote: However, a similar timeframe for solar disrupting the conventional FF powerplant business seems entirely realistic to me, if the cost curve he's pointed out for solar panels stays roughly intact.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:pstarr wrote:Why would I watch his videos? Seba is a goofy clown and everything he says is an extrapolation of his own techtopian dreams. Without basis in real technology.
Siri is smarter then Seba lol
But of course. You should learn NOTHING, never expose yourself to new ideas, and just post nonsense like a clown.
Just don't wonder why you're considered less and less credible around here as time goes on.
You calling Seba a clown when you can't even be bothered to know ANYTHING about what he's talking about pretty much says it all.
StarvingLion wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:pstarr wrote:Why would I watch his videos? Seba is a goofy clown and everything he says is an extrapolation of his own techtopian dreams. Without basis in real technology.
Siri is smarter then Seba lol
But of course. You should learn NOTHING, never expose yourself to new ideas, and just post nonsense like a clown.
Just don't wonder why you're considered less and less credible around here as time goes on.
You calling Seba a clown when you can't even be bothered to know ANYTHING about what he's talking about pretty much says it all.
Seba the Clown isn't worthy of participating in a 3rd rate circus.
Canonical Instabilities of Autonomous Vehicle Systems: The Unsettling Reality Behind the Dreams of Greed
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319699349
Any vehicle/road system is inherently unstable in the control theory sense as a consequence of the basic irregularities of the traffic stream, the road network, and their interactions, placing it in the realm of the Data Rate Theorem that mandates a minimum necessary rate of control information for stability. It appears that large-scale V2V/V2I systems will experience correspondingly large-scale failures analogous to the vast, propagating fronts of power network blackouts, and possibly less benign but more subtle patterns of individual vehicle, platoon, and mesoscale dysfunction.
What Uber’s fatal accident could mean for the autonomous-car industry
The first pedestrian death leads some to ask whether the industry is moving too fast to deploy the technology.
by Will Knight March 19, 2018
The autonomous-car industry faces closer scrutiny and criticism after a self-driving Uber killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, on Sunday evening.
Full details of the accident are unclear, but the local police department issued a statement saying that a woman was fatally struck after walking in front of an Uber car traveling in self-driving mode. Uber says it is cooperating with a police investigation and has suspended testing of its self-driving vehicles in Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Toronto.
It is the first time a self-driving vehicle has killed a pedestrian, and the event is already causing some to question the pace at which the technology is moving. Besides Uber, dozens of companies, including established car makers and small startups, are rushing to test experimental self-driving vehicles and autonomous systems on roads. These efforts have received blessing from local governments because the technology seems so promising and because a driver is usually behind the wheel as a backup. A safety driver was in the front seat when the accident in Tempe occurred.
Though automated driving could ultimately save countless lives on roads, some say the technology is being deployed too quickly.
At a time when many have lauded the technology as ready for large-scale deployment, “this is clear proof that is not yet the case,” says Bryan Reimer, a research scientist at MIT who studies automated driving. “Until we understand the testing and deployment of these systems further, we need to take our time and work through the evolution of the technology,” he says.
The accident is unlikely to set a legal precedent, says Ryan Calo, who is researching the legal implications of vehicle autonomy at the University of Washington. Even if the victim is found to have been partly responsible, the company may also be liable, and it will be keen to settle in order to avoid a test case, he says.
Calo calls on those developing AI-based vehicles to think very carefully about the potential impact of their systems on human lives, and consider the legal and ethical implications.
The ethical questions surrounding self-driving cars—and especially a conundrum known as the “trolley problem,” which requires that a car choose between two potential victims in an accident—have confused the issue, he adds: “I don’t think the trolley-problem conversation has been at all helpful.” Of the accident that killed the woman in Arizona, he says, “The sensors probably didn’t pick her up, or the algorithm didn’t understand what it’s seeing.”
Regulators will no doubt take a closer look at the technology after this latest setback. This morning both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said they have launched probes.
Subbarao Kambhampati, a professor at Arizona State University who specializes in AI, says the Uber accident raises questions about the ability of safety drivers to monitor systems effectively, especially after long hours of testing. Research conducted by Reimer and others reinforces this point. Other research has shown the challenge of establishing communications between self-driving systems and pedestrians.
The accident comes amid what seemed like rapid progress on self-driving technology and a push to loosen legal restrictions. Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet spun out of Google, announced late last year that it was taking the safety driver out of its vehicles and said it would launch a driverless taxi service in Phoenix later this year.
Just days ago, Waymo, Uber, and others had urged Congress to pass legislation that would pave the way for self-driving cars in the US. The accident will most likely slow the passage of that bill.
There have been a handful of accidents involving self-driving vehicles, including a crash in Florida in May 2016 involving a Tesla Model S in Autopilot mode that failed to see a truck across the road ahead. The Tesla’s driver was killed. Federal investigators have found the technology to be at fault in several of these accidents, but they have so far resisted the urge to implement stricter rules or halt testing altogether.
So far, the public has showed little sign of turning against the technology, even after such incidents. “I am not really sure this is going to lead to a public worry or backlash,” says Kambhampati. “Because honestly, I thought there would be more of a backlash after the Tesla accident.”
KaiserJeep wrote:
You may at this point believe that you never want to ride in, much less own an autonomous vehicle. My guess is that you won't be able to afford the insurance price penalty for manual control.
jawagord wrote:KaiserJeep wrote:
You may at this point believe that you never want to ride in, much less own an autonomous vehicle. My guess is that you won't be able to afford the insurance price penalty for manual control.
I have insurance for a manual controlled vehicle, been affording it for many years. People have been insuring manually controlled vehicles for a 100+ years now but in the future it will suddenly become unaffordable???? It may become a redundant option as people find there are better things to do than manually operate a vehicle, but if anything insurance will become more affordable, manual control will be like adding an "occasional driver" to your insurance policy.
One of these firsts occurred in 1897 when Gilbert L. Loomis, perhaps spurred by the legal hassles that recent car crashes seemed to be causing, bought an insurance policy from Travelers Insurance Company for his car.
This policy is widely considered the first car insurance policy even though it technically was written as a horse and carriage policy. It covered Loomis in case he hurt someone in an accident or damaged their property.
https://www.dmv.org/articles/history-of-car-insurance/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 204 guests