US plans $4bn for self-driving rules

[Saber_Mom]

I don’t like this one bit. I LOVE to drive. Feeling the power of the vehicle in my hands is freeing. I would hate having an automated car.

Will it do donuts in the snow of unplowed parking lots?

 

[Patavium]

Even software requires a specification and requirement. If the problem is not defined, then the costs cannot be controlled. At this point I don’t even see a FAA CAST analog in place.

My perception informs me that it is not ready for deployment, for reasons already articulated, as well as others.

The judgement on whether the resources are wasted or not will come when performance verification occurs. As far as “bringing the technology to civilians”, it’s not as easy as that might sound. The Galvin Report authors had the notion that the DoE was some kind of national technology treasure chest, ready to be bestowed upon private industry. It did not work out that way. I plan to observe events as they occur instead of writing history proactively.

I appreciate your value call with the information you have. However, I hope you are not underestimating us scientists and our significant experience in developing this technology. We have been doing these for years now, whether it is DARPA challenges, DOE pilots, and now DOT Smart Cities… It will happen, and just like any other new technology it will receive opposition, and that’s fine. It is simply the way of progress.

 

[Patavium]

Indeed.
I just drove past a red light camera that was snapping pictures of every car going through.
And this is tech that has been tested for years and supposedly is reliable.

And we want to turn over a 2 ton vehicle over to this intelligence??

No, the “tech” in the red light camera is not the “tech” in the CAVs…

 

[Patavium]

I don’t like this one bit. I LOVE to drive. Feeling the power of the vehicle in my hands is freeing. I would hate having an automated car.

Will it do donuts in the snow of unplowed parking lots?

That’s fine. You can keep your car. I would leave that to Economists and other behavioral scientists to persuade you to cash your future clunker

 

[Patavium]

Cost, liability and software failure/malfunction. The current auto industry has recall after recall for parts not working correctly. This is not impressive at all, and the cost for such a car or a retrofit? Not fully thought out and not fully tested, plus if a part fails, then what?

I’ll be impressed after the first year and 100% no failures in any part of the car.

Ed

and to think that these days even robots are assisting surgeons do surgery and doing unassisted surgeries… imagine CAV, it is insane

 

[vz71]

No, the “tech” in the red light camera is not the “tech” in the CAVs…

Your right.
It is just a sensor pointing in one direction and a computer deciding if it should take a picture or not.
It had teams of developers that worked on it for years.
And the government was petitioned to let it do a job that affects many drivers on the road wether they want it or not.

The car on the other hand has many more sensors and a computer deciding one of several thousand possible actions.
It too has had teams of developers that have worked years on it and have not yet gotten it quite right.

I do see a real difference.
The traffic light Camara malfunctions and people laugh.
The vehicle malfunctioning however can cause injury and death.

 

[vz71]

and to think that these days even robots are assisting surgeons do surgery and doing unassisted surgeries… imagine CAV, it is insane

No robot performs sugery.
The robot in those instances assists the surgeon.

It does not make decisions that can cost lives.

 

[Patavium]

Your right.
It is just a sensor pointing in one direction and a computer deciding if it should take a picture or not.
It had teams of developers that worked on it for years.
And the government was petitioned to let it do a job that affects many drivers on the road wether they want it or not.

The car on the other hand has many more sensors and a computer deciding one of several thousand possible actions.
It too has had teams of developers that have worked years on it and have not yet gotten it quite right.

I do see a real difference.
The traffic light Camara malfunctions and people laugh.
The vehicle malfunctioning however can cause injury and death.

The Artificial Intelligence between the two is vastly different.

Equating them as the same is not helping the argument here, not to even mention the difference between developing a new technology (prototyping) vs manufacturing a current patent (or patents) of the technology. The latter may be minimizing costs that lead to issues in implementation, but I digress. Do not know why the red camera failed.

 

[Patavium]

No robot performs sugery.
The robot in those instances assists the surgeon.

It does not make decisions that can cost lives.

Oh yes, Robots do perform unassisted surgeries and they have been doing it successfully so far (phys.org/news/2006-05-robot.html, 10 years ago). Of course, it has not been widely implemented, but examples exist and continue to pop up. In addition, assisted robotic surgery continues to increase.

 

[vz71]

The Artificial Intelligence between the two is vastly different.

Equating them as the same is not helping the argument here, not to even mention the difference between developing a new technology (prototyping) vs manufacturing a current patent (or patents) of the technology. The latter may be minimizing costs that lead to issues in implementation, but I digress. Do not know why the red camera failed.

I don’t care why it failed.
But that isn’t the real point.

There is no simulation that will match life.
So the adequate testing necessary to prevent danger to human life simply isn’t there. You cannot test for every contingency.
There is not much of a choice but to put them on the roads and correct problems as they arise.

Of course, the problem could result in the car simply going in circles, or it could result in loss of life.

I see computer problems every day.
People have learned to live with it since the consequences are not that high.
For the most part computer problems create inconvenience…not loss of life.
But when we turn over controls of the cars on the road to the computer, well now the consequences for a bug are much higher.

 

[edwest2]

I appreciate your value call with the information you have. However, I hope you are not underestimating us scientists and our significant experience in developing this technology. We have been doing these for years now, whether it is DARPA challenges, DOE pilots, and now DOT Smart Cities… It will happen, and just like any other new technology it will receive opposition, and that’s fine. It is simply the way of progress.

If automakers do not have the ability to produce fault-free cars now, adding a computer will not solve that problem. I like technology but it is not fully tested. I’ve read enough military literature to know that “real world” testing needs to occur before I’m convinced of anything. It will happen? Not if I can’t afford it. Technology is not free.

Ed

 

[sps49]

I appreciate your value call with the information you have. However, I hope you are not underestimating us scientists and our significant experience in developing this technology. We have been doing these for years now, whether it is DARPA challenges, DOE pilots, and now DOT Smart Cities… It will happen, and just like any other new technology it will receive opposition, and that’s fine. It is simply the way of progress.

“Us scientists” eh? What exactly would I be underestimating, your problem solving abilities, successful time to market, specsmanship, goal shifting, or the ability to obtain new funding before the original project is completed? I have some experience with the agencies you mention, so a bit of hand waving will not go far with me.

In the narrow sense of success that is of course defined by the sponsor organizations (DARPA, DOE, DOT), there is of course some measure of “success,” but when compared to private venture capitalist metrics, it does not look so rosy. You are of course free to engage in cheer-leading your cause/profession/, but I too have been at this game for a long time, and winners and losers depend on much more than the “right answer.”

The problem of an integrated self driving vehicle system is a significant one, and simply saying “it is simply the way of progress” is about as helpful and informative as saying other useless idioms, such as “that ship has sailed” or “dead as a door nail.” It implies that you know what the outcome is, which you don’t. What you have is an expectation based on some mental model or belief or desire.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Well, isn’t that special? $4 Bill to help - help who? ISIS is planning to use them as bombs!

In terms of pointless internet appeals to emotion, ISIS is the new Hitler.