Driverless cars today... where will they be in 5 years...
#151
Been Around Awhile
#154
Been Around Awhile
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,515
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13117 Post(s)
Liked 4,446 Times
in
2,492 Posts
The problem is you guys are using facts, which I-Like is immune to.
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
#157
Been Around Awhile
The driver/rider is still required behind the steering mechanism to get anywhere.
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,168
Bikes: Breezer Radar
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1691 Post(s)
Liked 898 Times
in
436 Posts
That doesn't mean it's not self-driving. Currently there must be a person sitting in the driver's seat and touching the steering wheel and be ready to take over, but the car is still driving itself.
#159
Been Around Awhile
Driver-less means what in your world?
#160
Keepin it Wheel
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,349
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Krampus
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 938 Times
in
708 Posts
You are using very strict, binary definitions of 'autonomous/self-driving' for which 'more autonomous' or 'part-time self-driving' are self-negating, thus you are (mis)using terminology to beg the question, and cock-blocking any possibility of meaningful conversation.
If cruise-control is not 'more autonomous' and adaptive cruise-control (also automatically slowing down based on sensed distance to car in front) 'more autonomous' than that, and tesla autopilot (also operating the steering wheel to stay in the lane) 'more autonomous' than that, then you're the one buried in semantics.
#161
Been Around Awhile
I don't get what FFS does -- does it automatically shift the front for you? If so, then it may not be (fully) autonomous, but it is MORE autonomous than a manual-shift bike. Similarly, an Autobike is more autonomous than a manual-shift bike.
You are using very strict, binary definitions of 'autonomous/self-driving' for which 'more autonomous' or 'part-time self-driving' are self-negating, thus you are (mis)using terminology to beg the question, and cock-blocking any possibility of meaningful conversation.
If cruise-control is not 'more autonomous' and adaptive cruise-control (also automatically slowing down based on sensed distance to car in front) 'more autonomous' than that, and tesla autopilot (also operating the steering wheel to stay in the lane) 'more autonomous' than that, then you're the one buried in semantics.
You are using very strict, binary definitions of 'autonomous/self-driving' for which 'more autonomous' or 'part-time self-driving' are self-negating, thus you are (mis)using terminology to beg the question, and cock-blocking any possibility of meaningful conversation.
If cruise-control is not 'more autonomous' and adaptive cruise-control (also automatically slowing down based on sensed distance to car in front) 'more autonomous' than that, and tesla autopilot (also operating the steering wheel to stay in the lane) 'more autonomous' than that, then you're the one buried in semantics.
#162
Been Around Awhile
#163
Keepin it Wheel
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,349
Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Krampus
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 938 Times
in
708 Posts
OK fine, I didn't start this thread and write that title line. But when others of us subtly shift/expand the topic to self-driving or autonomous (by using terms such as 'self-driving' or 'autonomous') it would be cool if you could follow along.
#165
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,673
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9484 Post(s)
Liked 1,744 Times
in
1,190 Posts
Intelligence in AI driving improves daily... how many "shopping cart ladies" will killed in the future... or how many road crossing tractortrailers will be hit in the future by autonomous vehicles? Meanwhile, humans continue to "right cross" cyclists... year after year. AI gets smarter, humans do not. (Ultimately that may be the downfall of humans... but that's a different thread.)
Sensors improve... human sight and reaction times do not. In fact as each human ages, we get worse... after going through a period of steady improvement... us frail humans decline in performance.
AI is likely to be shared, if through no more than a greedy system of IP licenses.
#167
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
See immeditely preceding response. These features no more make a vehicle driver-less and self driving, than the convenience of the Shimano Front Freewheel Crank (FFS) feature on my old Schwinn World Tourist make that bicycle an autonomous, rider-free bicycle.
The driver/rider is still required behind the steering mechanism to get anywhere.
The driver/rider is still required behind the steering mechanism to get anywhere.
#168
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,168
Bikes: Breezer Radar
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1691 Post(s)
Liked 898 Times
in
436 Posts
The more data collected, the more test cases run, the "smarter" the system gets... that does not happen with human drivers... each human starts at square 1... and has to learn everything all other drivers have learned before them.
Intelligence in AI driving improves daily... how many "shopping cart ladies" will killed in the future... or how many road crossing tractortrailers will be hit in the future by autonomous vehicles? Meanwhile, humans continue to "right cross" cyclists... year after year. AI gets smarter, humans do not. (Ultimately that may be the downfall of humans... but that's a different thread.)
Sensors improve... human sight and reaction times do not. In fact as each human ages, we get worse... after going through a period of steady improvement... us frail humans decline in performance.
AI is likely to be shared, if through no more than a greedy system of IP licenses.
Intelligence in AI driving improves daily... how many "shopping cart ladies" will killed in the future... or how many road crossing tractortrailers will be hit in the future by autonomous vehicles? Meanwhile, humans continue to "right cross" cyclists... year after year. AI gets smarter, humans do not. (Ultimately that may be the downfall of humans... but that's a different thread.)
Sensors improve... human sight and reaction times do not. In fact as each human ages, we get worse... after going through a period of steady improvement... us frail humans decline in performance.
AI is likely to be shared, if through no more than a greedy system of IP licenses.
#169
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,515
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13117 Post(s)
Liked 4,446 Times
in
2,492 Posts
#170
Been Around Awhile
#171
Been Around Awhile
The more data collected, the more test cases run, the "smarter" the system gets... that does not happen with human drivers... each human starts at square 1... and has to learn everything all other drivers have learned before them.
Intelligence in AI driving improves daily... how many "shopping cart ladies" will killed in the future... or how many road crossing tractortrailers will be hit in the future by autonomous vehicles? Meanwhile, humans continue to "right cross" cyclists... year after year. AI gets smarter, humans do not. (Ultimately that may be the downfall of humans... but that's a different thread.)
Sensors improve... human sight and reaction times do not. In fact as each human ages, we get worse... after going through a period of steady improvement... us frail humans decline in performance.
AI is likely to be shared, if through no more than a greedy system of IP licenses.
Intelligence in AI driving improves daily... how many "shopping cart ladies" will killed in the future... or how many road crossing tractortrailers will be hit in the future by autonomous vehicles? Meanwhile, humans continue to "right cross" cyclists... year after year. AI gets smarter, humans do not. (Ultimately that may be the downfall of humans... but that's a different thread.)
Sensors improve... human sight and reaction times do not. In fact as each human ages, we get worse... after going through a period of steady improvement... us frail humans decline in performance.
AI is likely to be shared, if through no more than a greedy system of IP licenses.
It seems only in Internet gossip threads like this and Elon Musk Twitter-dom is there anyone seriously suggesting that real driverless cars will be available for use by the public in the next 4 or 5 years. And that speculation is fueled more by wishful thinking, references to data collection metrics, and redefining driverless cars as something that still requires constant monitoring by a human driver, than real honest-to-goodness facts
Good take on the subject is at: The rhetoric about driverless cars is being toned down
#172
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,673
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9484 Post(s)
Liked 1,744 Times
in
1,190 Posts
So just how smart and learned have Google, Tesla, Uber, Ford, et al. become? Perhaps smart enough to recognize that they are a long way off from being able to move beyond testing their proprietary prototypes in a few limited carefully selected geo-fenced zones. The more recent gossip from the PR flaks indicates that the introduction date for production and sale of driverless cars keeps getting pushed out into the future for fielding real driverless cars (ya know, SAE Level 5 autonomous cars, not cars with advanced cruise control.)
It seems only in Internet gossip threads like this and Elon Musk Twitter-dom is there anyone seriously suggesting that real driverless cars will be available for use by the public in the next 4 or 5 years. And that speculation is fueled more by wishful thinking, references to data collection metrics, and redefining driverless cars as something that still requires constant monitoring by a human driver, than real honest-to-goodness facts
Good take on the subject is at: The rhetoric about driverless cars is being toned down
It seems only in Internet gossip threads like this and Elon Musk Twitter-dom is there anyone seriously suggesting that real driverless cars will be available for use by the public in the next 4 or 5 years. And that speculation is fueled more by wishful thinking, references to data collection metrics, and redefining driverless cars as something that still requires constant monitoring by a human driver, than real honest-to-goodness facts
Good take on the subject is at: The rhetoric about driverless cars is being toned down
"Krafcik went on to say that the auto industry might never produce a car capable of driving at any time of year, in any weather, under any conditions." Well, duh... human beings can't even achieve *that* goal.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...uries-1926386/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/weath...rnd/index.html
Silly human drivers... they just *think* they can drive in any and all conditions...
#173
Been Around Awhile
Uber would like to have self driving DRIVERLESS cars for the obvious monetary reason of pocketing the entire fare and not paying those pesky drivers a dime. Perhaps they expect to take ownership of their future DRIVERLESS taxis also without giving a dime to whomever will build them. Maybe Uber might even make a dime of profit if venture capitalists like Soft Bank will give Uber/Lyft Billions of Dollars to buy the fleet of (vaporware) driverless taxis with little to no expectation of ever getting repaid (just like the Ponzi-WeWorks fiasco.)
However, I seriously doubt that all the Billions of Dollars being burned on these prototype testing endeavors by Google, Uber, Ford, Volvo, M-B, et al. are for the purpose of producing an end product with fancy cruise control, built-in Internet connection, and proximity warning signals, BUT still requires a driver behind the wheel of every one of the vehicles when in motion. Won't be many cheers from the speculators and venture capitalists if that is all they get for their massive expenditures on this project. Sorta like settling for Tang instead of a moon landing and safe return.
My prediction is that if Alphabet/Google cannot monetize their mapping and obstacle detecting software being developed by Waymo and license or sell it for significant money in the next 4 years to some other organization that believes they can profitably utilize it in production vehicles, Alphabet/Google/Waymo will wash their hands of the entire Waymo money burning autonomous car project.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 01-04-20 at 01:45 PM.
#174
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked 1,335 Times
in
428 Posts
i find it funny how this thread deteriorated into such unreasonableness and chest beating. Someday level 5 autonomous cars will arrive in large numbers and the serious crashes that are due to human error and distracted, speeding and drunken driving will be much less and later none. For now i’ll just enjoy the safety features that the research/development into it have already and will continue to give us.
__________________
"The negative feelings we all have can be addictive…just as the positive…it’s up to
us to decide which ones we want to choose and feed”… Pema Chodron
"The negative feelings we all have can be addictive…just as the positive…it’s up to
us to decide which ones we want to choose and feed”… Pema Chodron
Likes For clemsongirl:
#175
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,673
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9484 Post(s)
Liked 1,744 Times
in
1,190 Posts
Yep, sure, Google knows better from their testing regimen and data collection that there is no reason to field a car that the passenger might need to use to venture beyond a few miles surrounding Chandler AZ or in any weather or road or traffic condition that varies too much from what can be found there. Not that Google has any intention to manufacture or field any cars, anywhere. Data collection, map making, and selling collected data, software and ads is the name of their game.
Uber would like to have self driving DRIVERLESS cars for the obvious monetary reason of pocketing the entire fare and not paying those pesky drivers a dime. Perhaps they expect to take ownership of their future DRIVERLESS taxis also without giving a dime to whomever will build them. Maybe Uber might even make a dime of profit if venture capitalists like Soft Bank will give Uber/Lyft Billions of Dollars to buy the fleet of (vaporware) driverless taxis with little to no expectation of ever getting repaid (just like the Ponzi-WeWorks fiasco.)
However, I seriously doubt that all the Billions of Dollars being burned on these prototype testing endeavors by Google, Uber, Ford, Volvo, M-B, et al. are for the purpose of producing an end product with fancy cruise control, built-in Internet connection, and proximity warning signals, BUT still requires a driver behind the wheel of every one of the vehicles when in motion. Won't be many cheers from the speculators and venture capitalists if that is all they get for their massive expenditures on this project. Sorta like settling for Tang instead of a moon landing and safe return.
My prediction is that if Alphabet/Google cannot monetize their mapping and obstacle detecting software being developed by Waymo and license or sell it for significant money in the next 4 years to some other organization that believes they can profitably utilize it in production vehicles, Alphabet/Google/Waymo will wash their hands of the entire Waymo money burning autonomous car project.
Uber would like to have self driving DRIVERLESS cars for the obvious monetary reason of pocketing the entire fare and not paying those pesky drivers a dime. Perhaps they expect to take ownership of their future DRIVERLESS taxis also without giving a dime to whomever will build them. Maybe Uber might even make a dime of profit if venture capitalists like Soft Bank will give Uber/Lyft Billions of Dollars to buy the fleet of (vaporware) driverless taxis with little to no expectation of ever getting repaid (just like the Ponzi-WeWorks fiasco.)
However, I seriously doubt that all the Billions of Dollars being burned on these prototype testing endeavors by Google, Uber, Ford, Volvo, M-B, et al. are for the purpose of producing an end product with fancy cruise control, built-in Internet connection, and proximity warning signals, BUT still requires a driver behind the wheel of every one of the vehicles when in motion. Won't be many cheers from the speculators and venture capitalists if that is all they get for their massive expenditures on this project. Sorta like settling for Tang instead of a moon landing and safe return.
My prediction is that if Alphabet/Google cannot monetize their mapping and obstacle detecting software being developed by Waymo and license or sell it for significant money in the next 4 years to some other organization that believes they can profitably utilize it in production vehicles, Alphabet/Google/Waymo will wash their hands of the entire Waymo money burning autonomous car project.
SHENZHEN, China--(BUSINESS WIRE)--RoboSense, the world’s leading autonomous driving LiDAR perception solution provider, announced today that the solid-state LiDAR RS-LiDAR-M1Simple(Simple Sensor Version) is now ready for customer delivery, priced at $1,898. The new RS-LiDAR-M1Simple is less than half the size of the previous version, with dimensions of 4.3” x 1.9” x 4.7” (110mm x 50mm x 120mm), and is equipped with enhanced hardware performance virtually equal to the serial production version provided to OEMs. The main body design of this automotive-grade solid-state LiDAR is finalized and ready for shipment.