undefined | Better HN

0 pointspj_mukh6y ago0 comments

Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation. In the end, the only test that matters is the real-test. Real speed (sensor/computation latency et al.), real sensor feeds (lighting et al.) and real car size (momentum et al.). Source: Am Controls engineer.

There WILL be bugs and un-modellable sources of error. The real hedging in these situations is the safety driver. The death of Elaine Herzberg is very regrettable, but the fault ultimately lies with the safety driver and the training that was offered to her. She was on her phone, like 1000's of drivers are now.

0 comments

carapace6y ago

> Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I mean build a machine that, in the real world, can't hurt people.

Make it light.

Make it soft.

Program it to limit its speed such that it can always stop before colliding with whatever (whoever) might leap out in front of it.

If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it.

The safety driver is wrong too. But she was there because Uber wanted to put car-shaped robots onto public streets.

Really the insane thing is that we mix car and pedestrian traffic at all in the first place. Oddly enough, it's the result of a deliberate campaign of propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s "Adam Ruins Everything - Why Jaywalking Is a Crime"

> Adam reveals the derogatory origins of jaywalking and explains how the auto industry made it illegal.

pj_mukhOP6y ago

"If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it."

You are not really testing though. The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit. You can test all you want at 5mph, but let me assure you, most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

carapace6y ago

> The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit.

Sure, eventually, when the machines and sensors and algorithms and so on are good enough. When the infrastructure can be rebuilt to accommodate them (e.g. Boring company tunnels for auto-trucking, sensors and comms in the roads and signage, &c.)

The rush to market is the whole problem. Not the ultimate concept.

I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.

Let the experiences with the toy cars guide the incremental graceful adoption of faster machines.

> most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

Right! So don't go 45.

pj_mukhOP6y ago

Sorry you’re asking for a completely different concept. Asking for the infrastructure to change to adopt AV’s is a pipe dream. Never going to happen.

“ I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.“

This meanwhile is already happening[1]. We’ve been testing on toy cars for 15 years. We’re not ready to remove the safety driver but we are ready for the road.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16874410/voyage-self-driv...

1 more reply

tom-_-6y ago

I imagine reducing the weight of the vehicle would effect it's stopping distance, traction, turning radius, a bunch of other car physics that would in turn produce unreliable data to train on.

I assume much of the training is done in simulation or within a controlled environment but unfortunately the only way to train for city driving is to gather as much real world data as possible and that means "testing in production" with a hopefully alert humans (one for backup) behind the wheel.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

carapace6y ago

> Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I mean build a machine that, in the real world, can't hurt people.

Make it light.

Make it soft.

Program it to limit its speed such that it can always stop before colliding with whatever (whoever) might leap out in front of it.

If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it.

The safety driver is wrong too. But she was there because Uber wanted to put car-shaped robots onto public streets.

> Adam reveals the derogatory origins of jaywalking and explains how the auto industry made it illegal.

pj_mukhOP6y ago

"If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it."

carapace6y ago

> The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit.

The rush to market is the whole problem. Not the ultimate concept.

I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.

Let the experiences with the toy cars guide the incremental graceful adoption of faster machines.

> most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

Right! So don't go 45.

pj_mukhOP6y ago

Sorry you’re asking for a completely different concept. Asking for the infrastructure to change to adopt AV’s is a pipe dream. Never going to happen.

“ I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.“

This meanwhile is already happening[1]. We’ve been testing on toy cars for 15 years. We’re not ready to remove the safety driver but we are ready for the road.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16874410/voyage-self-driv...

1 more reply

tom-_-6y ago

I imagine reducing the weight of the vehicle would effect it's stopping distance, traction, turning radius, a bunch of other car physics that would in turn produce unreliable data to train on.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse