My only disagreement comes because I suspect that few drivers of non-automated cars are 100% effective. They fail on edge cases too, and also mainstream cases because of boredom, distraction , medical issues and a host of other problems. In an ideal world the automated driving system doesn't have to be perfect just better than human drivers. These systems have an advantage. With no ego they should have no problem pulling safely to the side and stopping when it is raining too hard, too foggy, too slick or any number other problems where human drivers readily proceed beyond their skills
Remember, Tesla FSD is called Full Self Driving, but that's in name only. It's not actually full self driving. It's actual name is AutoPilot, and that's what it officially is, and advanced autopilot that can lane change and brake etc. And it has a cute auto-summon mode where it find you in a carpark or something. They are very clear about this on their website. It's Musk that has been personally talking up "Full Self Driving" and fully autonymos for years now, or at least implying it. There are countless FSD beta video out there showing how dumb the system is in even basic almost ideal condition scenarios.
He's either had a technical awakening or the suits have tapped him on the shoulder to calm it down, they aren't even remotely close to full autonymous self self driving which Musk now has essentially admitted.
These are placed to let autonomous vehicles know their position. In addition to that they are also building a digital infrastructure to support vehicle to vehicle communication.
right now I would say they're at the level of "15 year old who just got a learner permit and has had a cumulative total experience of 2 hours behind the wheel.
right now I would say they're at the level of "15 year old who just got a learner permit and has had a cumulative total experience of 2 hours behind the wheel.Actually I think they are more like a wide-awake drunk driver that is trying to fake it by staying in the lane, etc but then occasionally makes a huge mistake or can't react properly to something. Perhaps self-driving systems could be rated by how they compare with drunks with certain blood alcohol levels--the eBAC rating. NHTSA could set up a proving ground with obstacles and tests and volunteers can get drunk and then compete against the FSD vehicles. I think Tesla is probably blowing at least a 0.15-0.20 at this point.
They probably will have to be at least an order of magnitude better than humans and not make any of certain classes of errors in order to be widely accepted.
I'm pretty sure this point is known and acknowledged as a challenge. 10:27, 13:09. Sandy is blaming poor road markings for difficulties but Elon is asserting that an autonomous driving system must remain safe under any condition whatsoever.
Elon is slowly coming to realise this, and it's why he recently tweeted that, essentially, true autonomous cars will require a dramatic leap in AI (that we don't currently posses).
Anyone who designs a FSD relying on future improvements/changes to the road environment for their FSD to function properly will be superseded by the the corporation which develops a complex and robust enough AI to drive as 'competently' as a human who is paying proper attention to the road at all times without fatigue or disruption, even if the AI takes a few hundred watts to operate in the beginning.
Anyone who designs a FSD relying on future improvements/changes to the road environment for their FSD to function properly will be superseded by the the corporation which develops a complex and robust enough AI to drive as 'competently' as a human who is paying proper attention to the road at all times without fatigue or disruption, even if the AI takes a few hundred watts to operate in the beginning.Don't think so. The FSD which relies on infrastructure will be cheaper and useful sooner. In the end simplicity wins and in this case simplicity is achieved by adapting the road.
As an autonomous autopilot yes, but certainly not as a driver assist. .... It's also IMO a whole lot more immediately useful than cars that drive themselves, that's just a novelty.
The technical prowess and value to investment to make the later work does exists and it will quickly make such specialized adaptation of every road in every country obsolete.
Don't think so. The FSD which relies on infrastructure will be cheaper and useful sooner. In the end simplicity wins and in this case simplicity is achieved by adapting the road.
They probably will have to be at least an order of magnitude better than humans and not make any of certain classes of errors in order to be widely accepted.As an autonomous autopilot yes, but certainly not as a driver assist. It's exceedingly useful to have a vehicle that is completely incapable or running into a pedestrian in a crosswalk, or drift off into a cyclist on the shoulder. Or with some added instrumentation like beacons, incapable of rolling through a stop sign, running a red light, will always stop at yellow lights when possible, will warn when trying to stop in a no-stop zone, will always properly yield in intersections, and prevents many other thoughtless and dangerous behaviors or outcomes. When the emergency flashers are activated the vehicle can emit a beacon that makes it practically impossible for another vehicle to collide with it or drive too close (where it might hit an open door or injured person). Bicyclists could mount beacons (similar to existing radars like the Garmin Varia RTL515) that no matter how stupid or illegal they are it's impossible for a car to hit them - it will simply stop when on a collision course. This is absolutely the only way we can make any progress towards a zero goal. It's also IMO a whole lot more immediately useful than cars that drive themselves, that's just a novelty.
The technical prowess and value to investment to make the later work does exists and it will quickly make such specialized adaptation of every road in every country obsolete.
That's yet to be proven on both counts.
If you think we reached an end apex, I am here to tell you we have just begun and we will progress further.
Today's AI is only at such a level of infancy that what we have today is like an ant compared to what's coming down the line.
Anyone who designs a FSD relying on future improvements/changes to the road environment for their FSD to function properly will be superseded by the the corporation which develops a complex and robust enough AI to drive as 'competently' as a human who is paying proper attention to the road at all times without fatigue or disruption, even if the AI takes a few hundred watts to operate in the beginning.Don't think so. The FSD which relies on infrastructure will be cheaper and useful sooner. In the end simplicity wins and in this case simplicity is achieved by adapting the road.Which FSD tech will be ready first? The one which requires every road, suburb road, in all countries, all of them to have an infrastructure set-up, maintained and regulated across all states and countries, and you need to get investment to handle these logistics and government regulation? Or, a company getting investment to make a vehicle which can just do it on it's own?
And how I was railed at in the other thread saying that Elon's Full Self Driving required a ton more processing and added layers to it's capabilities. Yes it can be done. No, currently it would require too much neuronet processing with specialist sections dealing in not just the current generic shape (including signs, humans, vehicles, bikers, ect..) and geometric representation of what the cameras see with motion tracking, but a complete set layers dealing with how to interpret what is happening and predictions on what the environments should look like over time as you move, including items which are visually damaged, hidden by obstructions or missing all together. In isolated circumstances, many of these functions already do exist as seen on Dr. Károly Zsolnai-Fehér YouTube A.I. channel 'Two Minute Papers'. The problem is integrating all those specialized functions + a neuronet to link them together, and properly train everything. Today, this would make an FSD AI computer consume a few kilowatts and be the size of 2-3 huge PCs.
This figure will improve and we will get there as the latest 2nm IC eventually filter down to specialized dedicated ASICS like the Tesla FSD chip, though, you would still need a few of them. There is too much money in FSD to just drop the ball, so it is guaranteed to eventually happen.
Anyone who designs a FSD relying on future improvements/changes to the road environment for their FSD to function properly will be superseded by the the corporation which develops a complex and robust enough AI to drive as 'competently' as a human who is paying proper attention to the road at all times without fatigue or disruption, even if the AI takes a few hundred watts to operate in the beginning.
(Adding Lidar on-top of the camera system is a big plus, but the FSD should be able to operate on sight alone...)
(Adding Lidar on-top of the camera system is a big plus, but the FSD should be able to operate on sight alone...)
Did you some how overlook every other word of CatalinaWOW's post? "no ego" is talking about "automated driving systems" not "Elon Musk" unless you are somehow suggesting autonomous driving systems are somehow magically imprinted with the human personality traits of a CEO ... hang on ... I think I hear the whisper of Steve Job's ghost from my iPhone
If I compare using Microsoft Word on a PC in 1991 with using Office 365 on a PC in 2021, the technological differences are astounding. The modern PC will have a thousand times the memory and I don't know how many times the processor power. Office 365 is connected online and has a myriad of features that were only hinted at if even that in 1991. And yet the way I use it the most has hardly changed at all.
Autonomous cars either have to be perfect without any driver at all, or you need a driver. Anything else is just glorified smart assistance features we've had for decades. And while that's useful, it's not game changing. Games changing requires a level of advancement we aren't even close to attaining yet.
So I was having a think about issues with LIDAR/RADAR based systems. One of the main "false triggers" for radar is apparently increased returns due to things in the environment that aren't actually in the way of the vehicle e.g. an overpass. You could probably solve this by using PN (pseudo noise) radar or RM (random modulation) CW LIDAR (which have been a concepts since the late 70s) to over come range ambiguity, Doppler ambiguity, and clutter. You could even use multiple antennas then process correlations to get pretty robust 3D maps. Needless to say such systems introduce much more complexity and I'm not an expert in these technologies.
I'm not really sure what people have actually implemented but it doesn't seem like these approaches are being used? Are they potentially restricted tech?
Most LIDAR looks like single point disco balls. Haven't seen anything that looks like multiple radar antennas either (can you get wavelengths small enough for multiple points?).
Impossible to tell from pictures if PN/RM is being used and they aren't mentioned in press releases I could find. It is mentioned in some fairly recent papers though
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.01729.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338506276_Pseudo-LiDAR_From_Visual_Depth_Estimation_Bridging_the_Gap_in_3D_Object_Detection_for_Autonomous_Driving
I'm guessing at a certain level of complexity in hardware and data processing, it becomes more efficient (cost and development wise) to simply use multiple visual image sensors and neutral net based algorithms to perform processing?
Autonomous cars either have to be perfect without any driver at all, or you need a driver. Anything else is just glorified smart assistance features we've had for decades.