Self driving buses, trains, trucks etc

markodaly

dense wrote: »

Wrong guess.

Emphasis on 'could'.

markodaly

dense wrote: »

You are hoplessly deluded.

Here is a list of the Top 20 car sales by rank as at mid August.

He said sedan, not car overall.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/07/20180730_Tesla_Sales.jpg

markodaly

dense wrote: »

Seems like a waste seeing as nobody except the manufacturers seem to want self driving cars.

Sure what would car manufacturers know about the automobile industry?

dense

markodaly wrote: »

Sure what would car manufacturers know about the automobile industry?

About autos, lots, not so much about the technology that nobody wants that the clowns in Silicon Valley are indulging themselves with.



The auto manufacturers are over a barell on this, and they're playing catch up.


They're afraid to be seen as old technology and so have formed new "alliances" with the tech kids who are out to prove a point, that at some point in the future an autonomous vehicle might just work.



The traditional auto manufacturers want their name linked to that because they feel it'll make them appear cutting edge and on trend.



The really interesting part is that the new alliance is costing the old car manufacturers big bucks.


It may or may not sound their death knell, because as we have seen, in spite of all the pretend frustration and unhappiness about aspects of driving, drivers do really appear to enjoy being drivers and want to stay being drivers and don't appear to want to be in a world stuffed full of driverless cars.

dense

dense wrote: »

About autos, lots, not so much about the technology that nobody wants that the clowns in Silicon Valley are indulging themselves with.

The auto manufacturers are over a barell on this, and they're playing catch up.

They're afraid to be seen as old technology and so have formed new "alliances" with the tech kids who are out to prove a point, that at some point in the future an autonomous vehicle might just work.

The traditional auto manufacturers want their name linked to that because they feel it'll make them appear cutting edge and on trend.

The really interesting part is that the new alliance is costing the old car manufacturers big bucks.

It may or may not sound their death knell, because as we have seen, in spite of all the pretend frustration and unhappiness about aspects of driving, drivers do really appear to enjoy being drivers and want to stay being drivers and don't appear to want to be in a world stuffed full of driverless cars.

Is this just random stabs in the dark, wild ass guessing and make-believe or do you actually have anything to back up what you have said

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this just random stabs in the dark, wild ass guessing and make-believe or do you actually have anything to back up what you have said

No, of course not, it is just a personal opinion, but do you yourself have a better explanation as to why auto manufacturers with no expertise in self driving software development are spending billions on driverless technology that nobody outside of Silicon Valley is looking for?



Share it if you do?

mdebets

dense wrote: »

No, of course not, it is just a personal opinion, but do you yourself have a better explanation as to why auto manufacturers with no expertise in self driving software development are spending billions on driverless technology that nobody outside of Silicon Valley is looking for?



Share it if you do?

It's no wonder that people if asked today, don't want self-driving cars, because they don't exist yet and people haven't experienced them. If you go by your logic, we wouldn't have mobile phones, because if you asked people if they want one back in the 80s or early 90, few would have said they want one, yet today, everyone has one. The same will happen to self-driving cars. Once they go past the early adopters and people see the big advantages, no one wants to be driving themselves anymore.
As to traditional car companies, they don't really want them, as you can see that serious development and actually selling has only taken off in the last few years, after non-car companies have started developing cars.
For a traditional car company, electric and self-driving cars are a bad thing, they have to invest heavily, to develop the new technology, rather than just updating existing technology and raising the prices. They will also earn less from replacement parts and have to give their authorised garages more of a share in the sale price, to compensate for the reduction in maintenance income, as an electric motor needs less maintenance than an ICE.
Add to this, that a move to a more car sharing model would also mean a drop in sales numbers, as you need fewer cars.
All this means that traditional car manufacturers don't really want a self-driving car, but are forced by the likes of Tesla or Google, to not being made totally redundant.

orangerhyme

mdebets wrote: »

It's no wonder that people if asked today, don't want self-driving cars, because they don't exist yet and people haven't experienced them. If you go by your logic, we wouldn't have mobile phones, because if you asked people if they want one back in the 80s or early 90, few would have said they want one, yet today, everyone has one. The same will happen to self-driving cars. Once they go past the early adopters and people see the big advantages, no one wants to be driving themselves anymore.
As to traditional car companies, they don't really want them, as you can see that serious development and actually selling has only taken off in the last few years, after non-car companies have started developing cars.
For a traditional car company, electric and self-driving cars are a bad thing, they have to invest heavily, to develop the new technology, rather than just updating existing technology and raising the prices. They will also earn less from replacement parts and have to give their authorised garages more of a share in the sale price, to compensate for the reduction in maintenance income, as an electric motor needs less maintenance than an ICE.
Add to this, that a move to a more car sharing model would also mean a drop in sales numbers, as you need fewer cars.
All this means that traditional car manufacturers don't really want a self-driving car, but are forced by the likes of Tesla or Google, to not being made totally redundant.

It'll be an economic catastrophe.
Self-driving electric cars will lead to huge job losses in taxi drivers, van, truck, pizza delivery, also petrol stations, mechanics, car dealerships, car parts manufactures etc etc.
Some traditional big name manufacturers will go bust.
Car ownership and sales will fall off a cliff sometime in the 2020s

dense

mdebets wrote: »

It's no wonder that people if asked today, don't want self-driving cars, because they don't exist yet and people haven't experienced them. If you go by your logic, we wouldn't have mobile phones, because if you asked people if they want one back in the 80s or early 90, few would have said they want one, yet today, everyone has one. The same will happen to self-driving cars. Once they go past the early adopters and people see the big advantages, no one wants to be driving themselves anymore.

That analogy is flawed.


By your logic, if you had asked people in the days of brick analogue 088 phones would they be interested in a phone with today's features you are saying they would have said no. I find that hard to accept.



Cars already exist. Nice ones.
Cheap ones, expensive ones, ones that sometimes people have an affinity to.


And while that can be dismissed as waffle, the fact is that cars do permit people the chance to switch off and have a bit of independence and a bit of privacy.

The difference today is that people may be reluctant to embrace a technology where they literally are no longer in the driving seat, and are reluctant to buy into the idea because autonomous cars have very few tangible selling points.


The reason people are not interested is because the USP of an autonomous vehicle has not been identified and can not be really explained.

mdebets wrote: »

As to traditional car companies, they don't really want them, as you can see that serious development and actually selling has only taken off in the last few years, after non-car companies have started developing cars.
For a traditional car company, electric and self-driving cars are a bad thing, they have to invest heavily, to develop the new technology, rather than just updating existing technology and raising the prices. They will also earn less from replacement parts and have to give their authorised garages more of a share in the sale price, to compensate for the reduction in maintenance income, as an electric motor needs less maintenance than an ICE.
Add to this, that a move to a more car sharing model would also mean a drop in sales numbers, as you need fewer cars.
All this means that traditional car manufacturers don't really want a self-driving car, but are forced by the likes of Tesla or Google, to not being made totally redundant.

Agreed, dependent on the outcome of current research and whether the public attitude to them changes .

markodaly

Waymo self driving taxis' going on live next month!
So much for this tech being decades away.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-13/waymo-to-start-first-driverless-car-service-next-month

Waymo taking a very cautious, meticulous approach it seems.

markodaly

Meanwhile, in Ireland 50,000 people over a two year period have been charged with using a mobile phone while driving.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/3392743/mobile-phones-driving-irish-roads/

This included drivers who were taking selfies, live streaming and even watching Netflix while driving.
Humans are indeed a stupid careless animal and the sooner self-driving cars take over the majority of driving activity the better for road safety.

TheQuietFella

orangerhyme wrote: »

It'll be an economic catastrophe.
Self-driving electric cars will lead to huge job losses in taxi drivers, van, truck, pizza delivery, also petrol stations, mechanics, car dealerships, car parts manufactures etc etc.
Some traditional big name manufacturers will go bust.
Car ownership and sales will fall off a cliff sometime in the 2020s

I wouldn't be worrying too much about it because it's never going to happen!

cnocbui

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I wouldn't be worrying too much about it because it's never going to happen!

Never say never, but I think the optimism among many is far too high and it isn't coming soon beyond major arterial roads like motorways.

Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

As things stand today, the driverless car of the future can’t handle more than a dusting of snow.

It’s a known problem in the field, and vaguely embarrassing when the end result is supposed to be robots sophisticated enough to navigate the uncertainties of traffic and improve on lackluster human perception. In Boston, where NuTonomy has been road testing autonomous vehicles in cooperation with city planning officials, snow and seagulls have emerged as two of the biggest obstacles.

I'm sorry Dave, I can no longer take you to your destination. Dave you must take back control now.

Twenty Grand

cnocbui wrote: »

Never say never, but I think the optimism among many is far too high and it isn't coming soon beyond major arterial roads like motorways.



I'm sorry Dave, I can no longer take you to your destination. Dave you must take back control now.

And from the same article:
"Xavier Mosquet, senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group, thinks it will be at least two years before even an elite player such as Waymo is able to code a car brain to consistently handle the challenges of a Boston-like climate."

2 whole years?! Cancel everything!

markodaly

Twenty Grand wrote: »

And from the same article:
"Xavier Mosquet, senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group, thinks it will be at least two years before even an elite player such as Waymo is able to code a car brain to consistently handle the challenges of a Boston-like climate."

2 whole years?! Cancel everything!

If a Waymo car can consistently handle a Boston type climate and traffic scenario, that means it can handle the vast vast majority of car traffic. Game changer indeed.

dense

markodaly wrote: »

If a Waymo car can consistently handle a Boston type climate and traffic scenario, that means it can handle the vast vast majority of car traffic. Game changer indeed.

IF it can, great.



But it will take "at least" two years to find out, so that could be 5, 9, or 15 years in reality.

cnocbui

Twenty Grand wrote: »

And from the same article:
"Xavier Mosquet, senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group, thinks it will be at least two years before even an elite player such as Waymo is able to code a car brain to consistently handle the challenges of a Boston-like climate."

2 whole years?! Cancel everything!

Have they managed to finish the software they thought could be written to get the F35 fighter to do all the things they said it could do?

Didn't think so.

Twenty Grand

cnocbui wrote: »

Have they managed to finish the software they thought could be written to get the F35 fighter to do all the things they said it could do?

Didn't think so.

Didnt know Google was working on the F35?
Do they have literally the best software people in the world working on the F35 fighter?

markodaly

dense wrote: »

IF it can, great.



But it will take "at least" two years to find out, so that could be 5, 9, or 15 years in reality.

2 years is 24 months. That is nothing. As I said, that is the end goal.

We pretty much already know that it can handle dry climates like Phoneix and traffic conditions like that now easily enough.

In my opinion, as I said. 2025-2030 is when we will reach the point of inflection in regards to self-driving cars and EV's.

The fact that some think this tech is like 50 years away are utterly deluded.

RayCun

markodaly wrote: »

2 years is 24 months. That is nothing. As I said, that is the end goal.

We pretty much already know that it can handle dry climates like Phoneix and traffic conditions like that now easily enough.

In my opinion, as I said. 2025-2030 is when we will reach the point of inflection in regards to self-driving cars and EV's.

The fact that some think this tech is like 50 years away are utterly deluded.

"At least two years" means it is definitely not happening in the next 24 months. Beyond that, they haven't a clue.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

"At least two years" means it is definitely not happening in the next 24 months. Beyond that, they haven't a clue.

Semantics

12,24,36 months

Whichever number it is, it's still a lot sooner than originally anticipated by a lot of people

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist, I am looking forward to seeing these become the norm

RayCun

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Semantics

12,24,36 months

Whichever number it is, it's still a lot sooner than originally anticipated by a lot of people

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist, I am looking forward to seeing these become the norm

How can you say it is a lot sooner than anticipated when you don't know how soon it will be?

All he has said is that it _won't_ be in the next two years.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

How can you say it is a lot sooner than anticipated when you don't know how soon it will be?

All he has said is that it _won't_ be in the next two years.

Like I said, Semantics

magicbastarder

cnocbui wrote: »

Have they managed to finish the software they thought could be written to get the F35 fighter to do all the things they said it could do?

Didn't think so.

there's a lot more going on with the F35 than just avionics software though:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/

to suggest that because they're having trouble writing the software for it means we can't have self driving cars (?) would also suggest that because they've had trouble designing the wing for it, means wings are not possible to be built dependably.

cnocbui

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a lot more going on with the F35 than just avionics software though:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/

to suggest that because they're having trouble writing the software for it means we can't have self driving cars (?) would also suggest that because they've had trouble designing the wing for it, means wings are not possible to be built dependably.

I didn't say 'can't'. I gave that as an example of how the unbridled optimism of certain people that assumes if you can think it you can do it - applied to software - is misguided.

That's what people think about self driving cars. The worst thing is that I think a huge number of people who comment on this think driving is a simple task and so should be trivial to write software to replicate what a lot of people can do with great competence.

I think the worst thing is that a lot of people think people are generally bad drivers and that autonomous driving systems will be a lot better.
Personally I suspect that general intelligence is required for full driving competence and that it will be found to be beyond the neural network approach that most of the companies are using.

If the target was actually self-aware general intelligence - real AI - who would be thinking that's only a decade away from full reality?

cnocbui

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a lot more going on with the F35 than just avionics software though:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/

to suggest that because they're having trouble writing the software for it means we can't have self driving cars (?) would also suggest that because they've had trouble designing the wing for it, means wings are not possible to be built dependably.

I didn't say 'can't'. I gave that as an example of how the unbridled optimism of certain people that assumes if you can think it you can do it - applied to software - is misguided.

That's what people think about self driving cars. The worst thing is that I think a huge number of people who comment on this think driving is a simple task and so should be trivial to write software to replicate what a lot of people can do with great competence.

Personally I suspect that general intelligence is required for full driving competence and that it will be found to be beyond the neural network approach that most of the companies are using.

If the target was actually self-aware general intelligence - real AI - who would be thinking that's only a decade away from full reality?

The worst thing is that a lot of people seem to think people in general are bad drivers and that AI autonomous driving systems will be far better to the point of infallibility. Just wait for the first malicious hack to fix that notion.

markodaly

cnocbui wrote: »

I think the worst thing is that a lot of people think people are generally bad drivers and that autonomous driving systems will be a lot better.
Personally I suspect that general intelligence is required for full driving competence and that it will be found to be beyond the neural network approach that most of the companies are using.

If the target was actually self-aware general intelligence - real AI - who would be thinking that's only a decade away from full reality?

That is a more philosophical discussion really but I would image the best brains in Google and Waymo have thought of this and decided on what they think is the best course of action.

If you believe they are wrong, well send in your CV to them, get hired and tell them to do it right, as you obviously know better.

AndrewJRenko

cnocbui wrote: »

Personally I suspect that general intelligence is required for full driving competence and that it will be found to be beyond the neural network approach that most of the companies are using.

If the target was actually self-aware general intelligence - real AI - who would be thinking that's only a decade away from full reality?

The worst thing is that a lot of people seem to think people in general are bad drivers and that AI autonomous driving systems will be far better to the point of infallibility. Just wait for the first malicious hack to fix that notion.

I guess the hope comes from the idea that the neural network won't be phoning mammy at the same time, or eating breakfast, or doing makeup, or doing all the other things drivers are supposed to be doing when concentrating on their driving.

cnocbui

markodaly wrote: »

That is a more philosophical discussion really but I would image the best brains in Google and Waymo have thought of this and decided on what they think is the best course of action.

If you believe they are wrong, well send in your CV to them, get hired and tell them to do it right, as you obviously know better.

My software writing skills aren't up to it. My son on the other hand would be well up for it, but he's working on something else at the moment. He is probably more skeptical than I am, and he writes code probably 12 hours a day, 365.

cnocbui

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I guess the hope comes from the idea that the neural network won't be phoning mammy at the same time, or eating breakfast, or doing makeup, or doing all the other things drivers are supposed to be doing when concentrating on their driving.

Well people's hopes are beyond simplistic. Neural networks have their own problems, such as the black box problem wherein if anything goes wrong, you have absolutely no idea how or why.

People should read about Toyota's 'simple' brake software problem and how it proved impossible to find the fault, know why it happened or fix it with a simple tweak.

Boeing just wrote some software for the new 737 max that killed 189 people.