Google Cars Drive Themselves, In Traffic 293
An anonymous reader noted that "At the TED 2011 conference this week, Google has been giving extremely rare demos of its self-driving cars. TED attendees have even been allowed to travel inside them, on a closed course. The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver."
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:4, Insightful)
So how do humans do it?
They start with a small number of basic "rules" and acquire the majority of their learning from experience.
In general it seems like an expert systems AI project. You have a domain that has an incomplete definition, many variables and many inputs. You hand code some basic rules as a starting point. You rig up sensors so that a computer can observe the environment and the human and it generates new rules based on its observations(*). And/Or you let the computer loose in a simulated environment and it learns through trial and error.
(*) In the movie Starman the alien learns to drive via observation. Red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go faster. Selection of the expert to observe is a critical step.
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but it's likely to be a hell of a lot better at not doing the idiotic things that cause the overwhelming majority of accidents in the first place.
Almost all accidents other than collisions with animals that run out in front of you are due to human stupidity. Black ice may be an exception, maybe, except that if the conditions allow it to happen a prudent driver accounts for the possibility (note that if you hit a patch of black ice the accident is considered your fault esp. for purposes of determining liability). Everything from:
You name it. It's plain old human stupidity. It's a particularly egregious kind of imbecility too, the kind that fails to recognize that other people exist and can be harmed by your poor decision-making. If "robots" can be programmed not to do these things I'm all for it. Alternatively, if robots can be programmed to beat the living shit out of people who do these things, I'm all for that too.
That's a new one to me. I have heard complaints that many train systems would be uneconomical, in the sense that they'd never survive without some kind of subsidy. I haven't heard anyone actually refer to alternate transportation as a tenet of Communism, however.
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:2, Insightful)
there is no way a @#$ robot can judge what to do about oncoming accidents, like a pedestrian, a deer, a squirrel, a semi jackknifing, an ambulance passing, a crash ahead of you, a gigantic pothole, a box full of dishes that fell off a truck, a big tree branch, a patch of black ice, a tire blowing out, a semi weaving in a strong wind, etc etc etc.
A bunch of your example are redundant, object in lane will suffice.
If the computer maintains safe following distances and brakes when there is sudden deceleration ahead or an object ahead then it will probably do better than many drivers I've seen on the road. If it has sufficient sensors to be situationally aware, ie is it safe to change lanes, and is able to change lanes to avoid an object then it will probably do better than most of the drivers out there. Keep in mind that the sensors may have better perception than the human visual system. It may be able to detect that deer beyond headlight range. It certainly would not suffer from the most common human driving failure, inattention.
These complaints sound similar to the arguments made when antilock brakes and traction control systems were introduced. How will the computer know what kind of surface I am on (paved, gravel, dirt, wet, snow, etc) so it can break accordingly. While perhaps a good question in theory when compared to an expert driver (as in professional racing/pursuit instructor) but when compared to the average driver on the road not very relevant. The computers only need to outperform the average driver.
That said. I wouldn't own/operate such a car until laws are passed to shield operators from lawsuits. Cars with automated driving are going to be law suit magnets regardless of who is at fault.
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:5, Insightful)
SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atmk07Otu9U Skip to 2:10 to see where the ABC reporter makes a move like she's going to run out in front of the car. The thing slams on the brakes.
Re:Can't wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just anecdotal. What about instances where clear pilot error has caused fatal crashes? You can't just pick out particular instances, one way or the other, and made your judgment on the issue based on that. I honestly don't know whether it's true or not, not having looked at any data on it myself, but I think it's a huge mistake to jump to conclusions like that.
Highway Holocaust (Score:4, Insightful)
Thirty thousand people dead each year in US car accidents. That's over half a million dead each generation. Robots could not do worse. And I think they could do a lot better. Especially if the cars talk to each other.
In fifty years people may well look back upon our manual driving culture as next to insane. That said. I love to drive. But really. It's hell out there
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody doing the legal speed limit in the left lane is very fucking clearly not using the left lane for it's intended purpose, passing. Exceeding the legal speed limit during passing isn't only legal damn near anywhere that had driving laws, it's the responsible thing to do. Fuck, in some states travelling the speed limit in the left lane is explicitly against the fucking law.
The root of the problems being described here are fucking idiots such as yourself, who lack a mature understanding of how to handle yourself on the road.
Re:awful, awful awful awful (Score:4, Insightful)
That's convenient except for the fact that there are lots of legal reasons to exceed the speed limit and it is not for you to decide if other drivers are being prudent. That is why we have police patrolling streets. There is no legal reason for you to be in the left lane as you stated yourself, it is for passing. If you are not passing then you should not be in said lane performing a rolling road block.
While yes, poor impulse control is a huge issue it is often caused by people that shouldn't be on the road to begin with. When someone is so scared to drive that they can't maintain speed then they shouldn't be on the road at all. They force people to pass them and clog up road ways when they fail to merge properly. Every time I see someone stop and wait for an opening I know I get a little more mad.
Re:Going to be a long time unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
*(Not that I agree with holding the manufacturer liable for a pedestrian jumping out in front of a car. I just think it's better that the family frivolously sue a car company with plenty of lawyers than an average citizen with no money for extended legal shenanigans.)