Volvo bucks the industry, will sell LIDAR-equipped self-driving cars to customers by 2022

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Most? Likely a few times a year. In those cases? Just rent a long range vehicle

For a lot of people that eliminates the need to own a car to begin with, especially in countries with a good public transport system - and if all long range trips require you to rent a gas car we've kind of defeated the purpose. The original argument was about whether we should give up LIDARs out of energy concerns - to which I answered that if that is a problem then it needs to be addressed on the battery side, not on the side that reduces human safety.

 

Also citation needed that affordable EVs offer a 300 mile range. Tesla cars are still luxury vehicles that not a lot of people can even afford.

[ARikozuM]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

For a lot of people that eliminates the need to own a car to begin with, especially in countries with a good public transport system - and if all long range trips require you to rent a gas car we've kind of defeated the purpose. The original argument was about whether we should give up LIDARs out of energy concerns - to which I answered that if that is a problem then it needs to be addressed on the battery side, not on the side that reduces human safety.

 

Also citation needed that affordable EVs offer a 300 mile range. Tesla cars are still luxury vehicles that not a lot of people can even afford.

We give billions to oil operations and billions more for “zero emissions” vehicles. We could put that money into the hands of people who want to purchase electric vehicles and for better battery technology that would serve every sector in a more positive manner. Also, why “300 miles”? Why not “put your car on a fooking train” for $80 (cost of us doing so in 2014 to head from NJ to Canada) and have it sent to your destination instead? There may not be a train in every place but it’s something that serves a much better purpose over just wasting your time driving. 

[Guest willies leg]

As a Tesla Model 3 owner, I've seen and trusted my life with Elon's AI every day (well that was before the pandemic) and I can say it's fantastic!

I think the biggest thing to get used to is that it doesn't drive like I do. But that's ok, it drives like it's supposed to drive. I still pay attention, and correct it when it has issues. You get to know it as you use it. For example, when I first got it, it had issues when driving on the highway if a lane was slow because of an exit or accident, and my lane was clear, it just jetted in my open lane. So I'm going like 70mph next to a lane of cars around 15mph. Not too safe. But now they've adjusted the AI (with all our accumulated crowdsourced help) so it looks in the adjacent lane and if it's a lot slower, it slows down too. Another example is that it liked to drive in the center of the lane on the highway. So when you're next to a big truck you're (in my opinion) too close to the truck. Now if it sees a truck in the adjacent lane it'll give it a little more space if it's there. There's a lot of things like that, see them with every update.

 

The main thing about driving is it's not a precise algorithm, it's a learning AI exercise that is solved by millions of miles of training.

 

Those that are trying to short-cut the self driving process are doomed to failure. It's not a maps exercise. It's not a lidar exercise. It's an AI training exercise and you need lots of drivers and miles to train it and keep training it.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

We give billions to oil operations and billions more for “zero emissions” vehicles. We could put that money into the hands of people who want to purchase electric vehicles and for better battery technology that would serve every sector in a more positive manner.

Yes but I would argue that money is better spent on public transportation since cars are inherently less efficient no matter what.

12 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Also, why “300 miles”?

I don't know, that's the number @Bombastinator mentioned.

13 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Why not “put your car on a fooking train” for $80 (cost of us doing so in 2014 to head from NJ to Canada) and have it sent to your destination instead?

Doesn't that... completely defeat the purpose of a car? If I could go by train then I might as well take the train and leave the car home.

 

Anyway we're kind of going off topic here - I'm not saying EVs are inherently not viable, I'm just saying that if battery constraints impact the security of autonomous driving then either the batteries should get better or EVs should not be autonomous.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, willies leg said:

As a Tesla Model 3 owner, I've seen and trusted my life with Elon's AI every day (well that was before the pandemic) and I can say it's fantastic!

Sounds like survivor bias there

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Doesn't that... completely defeat the purpose of a car? If I could go by train then I might as well take the train and leave the car home.

Long range trips are better handled by trains or buses. But getting around a town or two is easier if you have a car and have your own schedule. 

 

Gas cars should really start pushing for some sort of autonomy. 

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 5/6/2020 at 7:50 AM, Windows9 said:

Do you really trust a computer to control driving at 70mph

Yes their reaction time is a lot faster than me, my question is, if you hit someone and kill them while you have the autonomous driver on, are you responsible for death.

[ARikozuM]

2 hours ago, scuff gang said:

Yes their reaction time is a lot faster than me, my question is, if you hit someone and kill them while you have the autonomous driver on, are you responsible for death.

It depends on the hypothetical. Were you in a 30 doing 50? Your fault. Was it a pedestrian on a highway? Their fault. Personally, I don't think it should be the driver's fault at all [unless malice was intended] and all onus placed on insurance. 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

It depends on the hypothetical. Were you in a 30 doing 50? Your fault. Was it a pedestrian on a highway? Their fault. Personally, I don't think it should be the driver's fault at all [unless malice was intended] and all onus placed on insurance. 

Only problem here is you can’t arrest insurance for murder. 
 

That works totally fine for non-criminal accidents, like your regular fender benders. 
 

But if someone’s life is lost, sometimes blame is appropriate. It depends on the context of the specific situation. 
 

As you said, if you’re on a highway and a pedestrian jumps out in front of you, that’s their fault. No human could avoid that, and it’s unlikely a machine could either. 
 

As for blame, in the short term it ultimately rests with the driver. Once full self driving is enabled and legal, it’ll probably come down to the manufacturer being liable if the machine made a mistake. 
 

However, if the driver tampers with the system, he may become liable instead. 

[imreloadin]

On 5/8/2020 at 1:19 AM, atxcyclist said:

I've seen computers crash and I've seen people crash, my issue lies with how a self-driving vehicle will prioritize safety/damage during a crash. Is it occupants first and screw everyone else? If there's a motorcyclist/bicyclist stopped in front of it at a stoplight, and someone hits the self-driver while slowing down for the light, dose the car cut the wheels hard and plow over the curb into whatever light poles and trashcans are up there, even if it would be more dangerous for the occupants of the car? Or is it just final destination for the rider? With a person driving, investigators (police) can assess fault and the expectation is that in the prior scenario, if there is time to react the driver behind would cut the wheel and make a line for a light pole to save the rider; Logically a driver would normally sacrifice their vehicle in order to not run someone over.

 

As someone that rides a motorcycle every day (I mean, not right now because of the human malware), I'd rather be looked at as a fragile object to a driver with empathy (probably), rather than a calculated variable in a computer program. It is 'artificial intelligence' after-all, no soul,  no actual freedom of choice, and no empathy.

You're setting the bar really high, I mean most people can barely manage driving next to other vehicles on their own let alone being able to make these types of split-second decisions...

 

When it comes to driving a motorcycle I'd much rather have a computer recognize me as an "object" and do obstacle avoidance rather than John Doe just not even noticing me on the road which is what happens 90% of the time.

[Letgomyleghoe]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Were you in a 30 doing 50? Your fault

Well that would be the case if you were driving, however with the computer driving I think it would be a difficult one.

[dalekphalm]

50 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

Well that would be the case if you were driving, however with the computer driving I think it would be a difficult one.

Not necessarily. If you instruct the computer to break the law, you’re at fault for that. 
 

Same as if you put your car on cruise control and you get a speeding ticket.

 

Now if the autonomous car decides on its own to speed or do something dangerous, that’s the fault of the company, I would say. 

[Rolling2405]

On 5/6/2020 at 7:50 AM, Windows9 said:

Volvo says it will roll out its self-driving highway feature, dubbed “Highway Pilot

Wait does it mean customers like consumers or other companies like ride share companies and 18 wheeler trucking companies??

[Rolling2405]

On 5/6/2020 at 8:57 AM, kokakolia said:

Driver's Assist is probably the most tangible option. At the very least it puts all of the responsibility towards the operator. Same as non-autonomous driving. 

The whole point of a self driving cars is to make one safe enough so it can be fully autonomous without any human driving required.