Autonomous vehicles

[EgonSpengler]

There's a really great Richard Feynman quote where he talks about how utterly awesome it is that the brain can build such a rich-seeming model of the world based on a relatively very small number of photons, and such tiny variation in how they reach the eye. It really is mind-boggling if you think about it.

Yeah, out brain is a marvel, but the whole animal world laughs at our eyes, ears, and noses, and the machines may laugh harder still, once they develop a sense of humor.

I think our brains use context to sort it out. So, the image will move differently depending on where it is and our brains quickly pick up on that. But that is a complete guess

That's possible. I know of another project a tthe vision lab that is trying to teach computers to sort images by their content and context, to understand the components of an image to understand the image as a whole. For example, we look at a table, some chairs, a microwave, a refrigerator, and a stove, in a recognizable configuration, and we say "this is a kitchen." Change the configuration of the very same items and we say, "this is a storage locker."

 

[Lexicus]

That's possible.

It's a truism. The eye doesn't take in near enough photons to actually "see" everything that you have an image of as you look around. It uses "context" to build the model of everything you see. It's that process of building a model from the few actual sensory cues that, as you note, we are having trouble teaching our computers to match. But it has taken hundreds of millions of years of evolution for animals to do this, so we shouldn't feel that bad.

 

[Moriarte]

One other thing that fascinates me was in the article I read a short while ago, don't remember where. The author was basically discussing part time taxi freelancing for your vehicle. You drive the AI car to work in the morning (or let it drive itself, I guess?), then you let the car loose to work as an automated taxi, coming back to pick you up in the evening earning some amount of money in fares while you're at work. Some people would mind letting strangers use their car, I suppose, but personally I think it's a slick idea if you happen to work in huge metropolis.

 

[civvver]

The thing is autonomous cars will get in accidents and hurt and kill people, many of them will even be due to human programming error. And people will be outraged. But they will get to a state before they are released to the masses where they are safer statistically than your own driving. It's just a matter of responsibility. Do you want to be responsible for your own accidents at a much higher rate of failure or accept that it's out of your hands but your generally be much safer?

It's kind of like flying. Flying is statistically very safe yet people get so much more freaked out about it than driving cus they aren't in control anymore. Driving is probably the most dangerous activity a person engages in on a regular basis. I'm pretty certain it's the leading cause of mortality for people under a certain age like 40 or something.

I personally welcome it cus cars are very expensive (between insurance, the price of the cars, gas and maintenance, I spend at least half as much on our cars as I do on our housing) and I don't really value my freedom/autonomy to go anywhere at any time anymore. Probably cus I have kids, a job, a pretty defined schedule. We buy a ton of stuff online now so going to the store is more like a chore. If there as a ride service where an automated car picks you up that would be awesome, as long as it was like way cheaper than owning a car yourself. Taking uber every day is not for me.

One other thing that fascinates me was in the article I read a short while ago, don't remember where. The author was basically discussing part time taxi freelancing for your vehicle. You drive the AI car to work in the morning (or let it drive itself, I guess?), then you let the car loose to work as an automated taxi, coming back to pick you up in the evening earning some amount of money in fares while you're at work. Some people would mind letting strangers use their car, I suppose, but personally I think it's a slick idea if you happen to work in huge metropolis.

Yup, and there will be entire fleets of these cars solely dedicated to this as well I'm sure.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Would this qualify?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

CAVs (Connected and Autonomous Vehicles) are coming and they are coming sooner than many of us expect. Just this week we had Waymo (ie Google) cars driving around Phoenix with no one in the front of the car. Cars have driven from the east coast to the west coast of the USA without driver intervention. A truck has delivered a big load of beers from the brewery to the depot 120 miles away also with no human intervention (only overseeing).

Two things are going to ‘drive’ this forward: Costs and safety.
Trucking companies are going to save millions in their wage bills, as will taxi firms. Future CAV taxis will be a lot, lot, lot cheaper per mile if you eliminate the driver’s salary and remember these cars will be able to work virtually 24/7. Insurance will be much, much cheaper too because they will cause far fewer accidents. People reckon these ‘uber-type’ taxis will be so cheap and plentiful that many people will simply give up owning a car.
Most cars sit for 90+% of the time doing nothing except depreciate and many will do the maths and ask themselves why should they own a car when they can just hop into a cheap, easily available ‘uber-type’ taxi.

Something like 95% of accidents are caused by humans. About 100 people are killed on the roads of the US every single day (In he UK it takes us about 17 days for 100 deaths). Apparently 35 per cent of teeenage deaths in the US are from road accidents!
CAVs will not be speeding, drunk, drugged up, asleep, texting, just not concentrating etc. etc. Once CAVs are properly up and running I predict statistics are going to be produced that show, something like: For the last 100 deaths on the road, 95 were caused by human error; 4 from other factors like deer, burst tyres etc, and one caused by a not quite perfect AI.
And this will begin to change people’s minds. Indeed it will make people begin to demand that the boy-racers, the 20mph oldies, the road-ragers, the texters, the drunks and the drugged up are all banned from driving. And the only way to do that is to ban all humans from driving.

And the really good news – that one AI accident I referred to above will be analysed and analysed and (hopefully) a patch will stop it ever happening again – in all cars with that particular software, anyway. Just about nothing however will have been learned by the rest of humanity regarding the 95, and the things that caused those 95 accidents will be destined to be repeated over and over again.

The spread of CAVs will start in the cities, where the safety of pedestrians and cyclists will virtually demand ‘driverless only zones’. And it will spread out from there.

I have seen various estimates that there is going to be a massive drop in car ownership in the USA in the coming years as more people realise the cost savings.

I work in the motor trade and it is going to absolutely decimate it. Most motor dealers will disappear because most carsmodules will be sold direct from the manufacturer to the ‘uber-type’ taxi services. Most CAVs will, almost certainly be electric or hydrogen-electric which will require a lot less maintenance too.

I have been concerned about the future of my industry for a while and then this below by Bob Lutz (a former GM boss) is one of the scariest things I have ever read.
Unfortunately I think he is right. Earlier this year I would have said it was all going to happen much later than he reckons. But the CAV stuff that has been going on in the last few months suggest to me he could be right.


http://www.autonews.com/article/201...1109944/bob-lutz:-kiss-the-good-times-goodbye

 

[Bugfatty300]

I know from hard experience that mixing cars and computers can be both a heaven and a hell. CPUs and sensors means proprietary specialized dealership mechanics and equipment that isn't always available or affordable, especially for my circumstances. It's not a problem for me as long as the car can run without them.

That said, I'm all for autonomous cars as well as gradually mandating there use. My only required features for any autonomous car would be a switch for instant and total human control, preferably something that physically separates the controlling CPU from the machine.

Also if it's illegal for me snooze or watch a movie while my car drives, then nope...I'll just have to pass on autonomous driving for as long as I can if that turns out to be the case. But that would be a problem with dumb laws, it shouldn't count against the tech itself.

 

[Samson]

Once CAVs are properly up and running I predict statistics are going to be produced that show, something like: For the last 100 deaths on the road, 95 were caused by human error; 4 from other factors like deer, burst tyres etc, and one caused by a not quite perfect AI.

This is likely to be the case, until that ISIS over-the-air update of 2030 that crashes all cars driving at the time into any pedestrians around, and we all go back to the bangers that are still lying around.

 

[Bugfatty300]

This is likely to be the case, until that ISIS over-the-air update of 2030 that crashes all cars driving at the time into any pedestrians around, and we all go back to the bangers that are still lying around.

If that's a realistic scenario then why aren't electronically hijacked ships, trains, airliners, etc crashing into stuff all the time?

 

[Samson]

If that's a realistic scenario then why aren't electronically hijacked ships, trains, airliners, etc crashing into stuff all the time?

I am not aware of legally mandated, automated, over the air updates of software that controls direction in those vehicles. This is what is proposed for cars, the AEV Bill in the UK as discussed by El Reg lots.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I am not aware of legally mandated, automated, over the air updates of software that controls direction in those vehicles. This is what is proposed for cars, the AEV Bill in the UK as discussed by El Reg lots.

I don't know about that specifically but I'm pretty sure all modern automated navigation systems on planes/ships/trains require constant radio data updates in order for them to accurately go from point A to B and do it without smashing into one another. All you'd have to is put B where it's not supposed to be and presto: you got planes flying into the ground, containers ships taking out levees and bridges, etc.

But all of it is tightly encrypted and very safe. I don't see why cars would be any different.

 

[Samson]

I don't know about that specifically but I'm pretty sure all modern automated navigation systems on planes/ships/trains require constant radio data updates in order for them to accurately go from point A to B and do it without smashing into one another. All you'd have to is put B where it's not supposed to be and presto: you got planes flying into the ground, containers ships taking out levees and bridges, etc.

But all of it is tightly encrypted and very safe. I don't see why cars would be any different.

Well, they have already hacked cars, so there is that. I do not know enough about any of this but if you could really over the air tell an airliner to land in Manhattan not JFK I would be a bit surprised.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Also if it's illegal for me snooze or watch a movie while my car drives, then nope...I'll just have to pass on autonomous driving for as long as I can if that turns out to be the case. But that would be a problem with dumb laws, it shouldn't count against the tech itself.

Once the steering wheel and pedals are taken away, you will be able to get drunk in the car, send your kids in the car etc. Indeed the car will need to be able to get around with no-one in it.

Edit:

Well, they have already hacked cars, so there is that. I do not know enough about any of this but if you could really over the air tell an airliner to land in Manhattan not JFK I would be a bit surprised.

The cars rely on a variety of sensors, and whilst some of the following is over my head it is apparently not going to be easy to hack a driverless vehicle.

Assume self-driving cars are a hacker's dream? Think again

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/30/self-driving-cars-hackers-security

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think the answer, vis-a-vis a terrorist organization is, "It's not easy to do." That's essentially the reason we haven't had another 9/11-scale attack here. There are nations that could absolutely hack an entire network of driverless cars and shut down all traffic. Russia shut down Ukraine's power grid. Unlike terrorist groups, nations have a lot to lose, and hacking a whole system like that would constitute an act of war. In fact, our militaries are planning for it. For instance, the US Navy has reintroduced celestial navigation to the academy curriculum, in anticipation of the day an adversary disrupts or destroys their GPS and communications systems.

So, yes, Iran, North Korea, Russia or China probably have the capability to wreak physical havoc in western nations remotely (and vice-versa, as we did with Stuxnet), but they know that would be followed by a rain of cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs on their military bases and infrastructure.

The threat of reprisal (probably) isn't what's stopping ISIS or Boko Haram.

 

[Samson]

I think the answer, vis-a-vis a terrorist organization is, "It's not easy to do." That's essentially the reason we haven't had another 9/11-scale attack here.

The cars rely on a variety of sensors, and whilst some of the following is over my head it is apparently not going to be easy to hack a driverless vehicle.

Assume self-driving cars are a hacker's dream? Think again

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/30/self-driving-cars-hackers-security

These both seem to be saying the same thing, driverless cars will be so complicated the bad guys will not be able to hack them. I do not think that is a good assumption to make for the cornerstone of national transportation.

 

[EgonSpengler]

These both seem to be saying the same thing, driverless cars will be so complicated the bad guys will not be able to hack them. I do not think that is a good assumption to make for the cornerstone of national transportation.

You're right, it's not, which is why we have so many smart people working the problem. Terrorist organizations cannot possibly keep pace with our universities. I'm not sure ISIS can even make toilet paper.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

These both seem to be saying the same thing, driverless cars will be so complicated the bad guys will not be able to hack them. I do not think that is a good assumption to make for the cornerstone of national transportation.

I still think there will still be way, way, way less deaths due to ‘bad guys’ than drivers.

And of course, the latest terrorist weapon is to drive a car or van into a crowd. That is going to be a whole lot more difficult to do if there is no steering wheel or pedals.

Don’t forget – 100 people per day die on American roads, mostly due to driver error.
Some people think this can be down to near zero.

Well Toyota do, anyway, who want to save the 1.3million that die on the roads throughout the world:

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/gill-pratt-advanced-safety-seminar

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Who knows, maybe cars are obsolete/banned at that point.

 

[Samson]

I still think there will still be way, way, way less deaths due to ‘bad guys’ than drivers.

And of course, the latest terrorist weapon is to drive a car or van into a crowd. That is going to be a whole lot more difficult to do if there is no steering wheel or pedals.

Don’t forget – 100 people per day die on American roads, mostly due to driver error.
Some people think this can be down to near zero.

Well Toyota do, anyway, who want to save the 1.3million that die on the roads throughout the world:

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/gill-pratt-advanced-safety-seminar

If you can get your software onto the cars decision making hardware, you can turn ALL cars into psycho killing machines, not just the one owned by a psycho killer.

People get a lot more worked up about a small number killed by a terrorism than a large number killed by a "normal" thing.

I actually expect the autonomous car revolution to happen. I HOPE it will happen without letting the outside world (read: the internet) anywhere near the decision making hardware but that is going to hurt the corporate masters who stand to gain the most by this, so I expect we will all be held ransom to the same IT security experts that gave us Equifax, River City Media and all the rest and just have to cross our fingers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Common use of driverless cars are coming and coming soon. I told my daughter this weekend that her children, the first will be born in Feb., will probably never drive a car except as a novelty. I suspect that over the next couple of decades human driven cars will be be more and more restricted. In town/city driving will be the first to be restricted and highway, higher speed the last. Human driven cars will need all kinds of special additional software capabilities so that they can mix with the driverless ones safely. My niece lives in DC and she and her husband recently took uber and ended up in a driverless gull winged Tesla. They passed around photos of the uber driver facing them with no hands on the wheel. As soon as we have fleets of driverless taxis for in town errands, car sales will drop and the need for garages decline. Just like we got over our family attachment to horses and mules and shifted to automobile ownership instead, we will give up our love of cars too.

Investment speculating certainly could be profitable if you are willing to take the risks and do the research. NVIDIA would be a great place to start.