▲ 22 points
back
49 comments
I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending there's a smooth continuum: "He says they contain GM’s road map to autonomy, starting with “Driver in charge” in 2010, progressing to “Driver mostly in charge” this year, to “Car mostly in charge” in 2020, and finally “Car in charge” in 2025."
That just doesn't make sense. To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in an emergency is just crazy.
> To my mind, there's "cruise control" as it exists today, and "car drives itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Pretending that it's safe to suddenly hand over to the human in an emergency is just crazy.
Fine but where do you draw the line? Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking? As far as safety today, when I'm on the highway, I'd rather have a Telsa on autopilot than a human driving behind me.
Pretending that it's safe or not is an issue for 2025 cars technology as there are no cars on the road that "drive itself completely and safely even in adverse conditions". Not even Google's self-driving cars are there yet. They still don't drive on in inclement weather and have a professional driver monitoring them at all times.
> Is it still safe if "cruise control" adds speed matching, steering, lane changing, or braking?
That ship sailed years ago. Even in the 2015 model year (mid-2014 release) all of those features are available.
My car does speed matching, minor steering to keep you in the lane (at highway speeds), and auto-braking (both for auto cruise control and for collision avoidance). It works fine.
and on your car, if it does any of those things wrong, and you don't correct it (because you are paying less attention, and reacting quick enough would be an impossibility), who is to blame?
We're rapidly heading toward this very "interesting" time where cars will have (indeed, some high-end cars are very close today) assistive systems, especially for highway driving, that really don't require drivers to pay much attention. It is absolutely guaranteed that people will start reading books and watching movies when they're nominally driving even though they're legally responsible.
The manufacturers will fall back on the "these are only assistive systems." It says so in bold type in the user manual.
Legally me. But I suppose I could sue the manufacturer.
I have tried the Tesla autopilot and completely agree with you. The tesla cruise control is very good at controlling the speed and the brakes, but once you give it control of the wheel it gets very dangerous.
The car is prone to making a sharp turn towards the curb and then beeping and handing control back over to you.
Honestly, I think it's because the auto makers are completely out of their depth when it comes to machine learning, and are either pretending they're not while they get their act together, or pretending they're not while the ship slowly sinks…
Why wouldn't a GM, VW, Toyota work as they always have and work with partners with experience in that space? Google gets the eyeballs because it's the darling, but there are lots of companies working on lots of advanced and dull things under the radar. There is no reason why these behemoth multinationals can't use third party tech just as google, apple and amazon do for many of their products.
It's not as if all these new entrants are taking Ford's erstwhile philosophy of building everything inhouse. Rather tbey cobble lots of things from different sources together.
Well with technology available as it is today I think Google is going to find building the car is more difficult than creating the technology.
See its not just GM looking to do this, almost every make of components for cars is into this space so a solution is already in the pipe. however when it comes to delivering cars that people want; not what government agencies might be coerced into buying; google doesn't stand a chance.
Alphabet's market cap is 490B, Fiat Chrysler is 19B. Toyota is (afaict) 150B. GM is roughly 50B.
I don't think Google's gotta worry about building cars. They can just buy someone who does.
Ugh Google just buy Tesla already /s
They said somebody who can build cars. I assume that means on a large scale. Much as I like Tesla, they are not currently up to the task and their market cap makes then undesirable for anyone looking to buy a company that can make cars.
They could license the tech. Car manufacturing isn't really an exciting business to be in.
I fear the day that google has broken the political barriers and car manufacturers release different software that turns into headlines of automated car crashes. I sincerely hope that google's software is licensed at a reasonable rate such that every car manufacturer will use it.
I've never trusted Google's technology with my life. (Never had occasion to.) I've trusted every car manufacturer's technology with my life at one point or another. I'm not betting on Google having a better safety record. They can learn, but dealing with physically dangerous situations is a new area for them.
I think politically that the driver assist systems that are in millions of cars already are at least as big a contribution as the research projects.
I agree.
Supply chain management, government, warranty, unions (UAW), this is not an easy industry to operate within.
Where does Tesla's autopilot fit "in your mind?" I doubt if Telsa is done. More hardware and software will be in future cars, but we probably won't have your final vision for several years.
Detroit is a little more willing to build killing people into its business model.
Hence the 30,000+ death toll on the roads for the past century, their big push in the 1990s to replace lightweight cars with big heavy SUVs, and their present push to build big automated distraction screens into the middle of cars.
Are you saying the US car industry is more willing than European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian auto manufacturers in producing cars which are marginally more dangerous, on the whole?
I think you are overstating your case. They all provide as much as their market demand. So, in some markets you see fewer safety features (see south African auto market)
SUVs probably do a better job of protecting the driver and passengers in a collision, and are no more efficient at killing non-motorists than "light weight". You can easily be mowed down by a Smart Fortwo.
Detroit being the first to market here is possibly one of the worst things that can happen. The last thing that this area of tech needs is Detroit ruining its reputation before it even really kicks off.
US auto manufacturers are worse than laggards when it comes to the electronic systems they embed in their vehicles -- things like Ford MyTouch are borderline hostile to the user, and Jeep has definitely demonstrated a dangerous level of malfeasance when it comes to such things. US manufacturers also arguably lag behind when it comes to core automotive technologies as well.
It's an industry thing; even the Honda nav software I just got loaded on a brand new vehicle is user hostile. It's firmly 2005 tech and not a moment later.
Their whole development process is glacial and hardware focused. A ten year feature cycle, between conception and release, seems normal.
Tesla using actual software people is going to wipe their floor in this regard.
This is one think I don't understand. Dear automakers, it's 2015, please just leave a big hole in the middle of the front panel with USB-C connector and don't force your obsolete technology on me. Any half decent tablet with Android is vastly superior to whatever "computer" you designed into the car in 2007.
It's complicated by two factors: 1) The head unit controls far more than maps and entertainment; it's also wired into climate controls, seat positioning, etc. that require direct access to other vehicle hardware. 2) Head units and associated services are a profit center for OEMs. Switching to a "bring your own tablet" model would cost them a fair amount of profit.
I'm very skeptical of anyone who develops AVs. Obviously GM, Chrysler, and Ford wouldn't be the best to develop such software. But even Google causes me to get a little scared. After using Google services and products for so long, I've noticed they tend to go with an innovate now, refine later method. Which can be good for some industries that are very light-hearted so to speak, but for cars, this scares me. Maybe Google can pull off a very well designed autonomous driving system, and I don't doubt that they have the talent to do it. But nevertheless, I remain a skeptic.
I'd also be worried about what kind of support organization Google would through behind an AV platform.
Historically, they seem to be pretty bad at this. I've never had a positive experience with Google support, whether it was for an 'Enterprise' product, or for consumer products. In my experience, they've always got amazingly friendly support staff, but their technical knowledge and ability to resolve issues has always been a major shortcoming.
As we're talking about two+ major players competing to outfit the auto fleet with self-driving software, I'd like to hear discussion of the pros and cons of vehicles sharing software. Technically, economically, and especially regarding driving dynamics.
Will a Google car be able to caravan with a GM car? Is a single hive mind able to produce better energy/travel time results than the multiple hive mind of Google/gm/tesla/toyota/+100m humans?
This is funny "starting with “Driver in charge” in 2010, progressing to “Driver mostly in charge” this year, to “Car mostly in charge” in 2020, anded,. finally “Car in charge” in 2025."
Given what Google has already demonstrated, its more likely we will see fully autonomous within 5 years. I'm betting less than that in a few test cities.
So probably too late already for "Detroit"
Are you seriously suggesting that, in just five years, you'll be able to go to your computer and order yourself a car that will drive itself to your house in an arbitrary US city? (Because, if we're going to have 100% autonomous cars, we might as well assume that we've totally revamped the whole automobile distribution system too.)
Even the "car in charge" in 2025 seems ridiculously optimistic even if the problem is tightly bounded by type of road.
Yes.
I think maybe in 1-2 cities in limited areas I will be able to use an app on my phone to order a Google car from point A to B. I think it will have lots of limits, perhaps limited to certain areas within a city, perhaps limited by speeds, time of day etc.
I don't think it will be long distance, most cities won't have it, highways later, etc.
>Given what Google has already demonstrated, its more likely we will see fully autonomous within 5 years. I'm betting less than that in a few test cities.
So, in other words, no. Not to pick on you but the scenario you (optimistically IMO) describe is that, on a test basis, under certain limited circumstances and locations, might be able to have fully autonomous vehicles. (Though if they're that limited, why would they be legally allowed on the streets?)
And highways actually seem like a more likely nearish-term scenario given that, aside from the occasional deer/moose, debris, and construction (which could presumably be dealt with in various ways) seems far more manageable than the typical city street.
> Given what Google has already demonstrated, its more likely we will see fully autonomous within 5 years.
Really? I thought that Google's car doesn't work in bad weather (and it say so in the article too).
Los Angeles doesn't have many of those :)
Sure it will be limited in all kinds of ways, but many cities will and want to support the early versions.
Sorry for the off-topic-ness, but it really irks me when the US auto industry is referred to as "Detroit." I grew up in Flint, MI and currently live just outside of Detroit, and the implication that the US auto industry is here is, frankly, rather offensive. Sure, there are a couple plants here and there, and corporate HQs, of course, but after what the US auto industry did to the blue collar workers in Flint and Detroit (among others here in MI), it feels disingenuous to say that the US auto industry is "here."
It's a synecdoche (and a deeply entrenched one: Detroit is a long-standing symbol denoting the auto industry.)
Do you object to a farm helper being called a "hand", because he's an entire man?
People understand that "hand" denotes the person, just like they understand that Detroit, in context, isn't literally the city of Detroit.
If the President is visiting Los Angeles, and is informed of something, then "Washington is informed".
Likewise, financial business is not only on Wall Street.
Broadway musicals aren't played only on Broadway --- even if we restrict the context to New York.
Of course I understand that the auto industry is not literally in Detroit, but the fact that the auto industry is constantly referred to by the name of the city they ruined is...upsetting to me.
Is it relevant who gets the tech first? I think regulation will end up having them all hit the market at about the same time.
A few minutes later: Especially regulation of hands off systems.
Autoplaying unrelated ad video with music, half way down the page (well out of sight when the audio starts) with no way to stop it apart from clicking on the ad.
That's it, I've had enough of you internet, I'm going to use a adblocker. I really tried to give you a chance. I tried to let you do the right thing and show polite respectful ads. I understand that you need to make money, and I wanted to let you show your ads I really did, I even clicked on them sometimes when they looked interesting, but this is just too much. This is just abuse. I'm not taking this any more. You brought this on yourself, and your bad behaviour has ruined it for everyone else. Goodbye world of advertising, I hope you drown in your own filth. I look forward to an internet where people pay for things they like and the advertising revenue model dies a painful death.
I think we need an alternative to ad blocking.
I'd like to be warned "if you follow this link you'll go to a site that is know to use auto-playing audio, are you sure?", preferably a purely visual warning rather than one that requires extra clicks if I do interact with the link.
That way they don't even count me as a visitor, never mind an advert impression.
Of course writing add-ins to do that, populating the database, protecting the data from malicious updates, and so forth, would not be a quick one-off job. This is one of the (many) items on my list of stuff to do if I ever develop infinite free time...
when adblockers start charging, I'll believe in an alternate revenue model for the open internet
edit: I meant when people start paying for adblockers
Adblock for iOS - $1.99
I think I stated my idea incorrectly, I mean when people start paying for adblockers. Which Hulu+ is doing quite well actually