4 ms·

Does it matter if they rely on some pre-processed data, as long as they have some form of fallback that allows for manoeuvring when a change in environment is f

by jfoster 11y ago

Does it matter if they rely on some pre-processed data, as long as they have some form of fallback that allows for manoeuvring when a change in environment is found? Human drivers also face immense difficulty when there is a giant tree fallen across the road. Luckily, such changes in environment are relatively infrequent.

kuschku 11y ago
Google Maps’ data about my city are from 2005. Half of my district is not even existing – and with Google Mapmaker not available in my region (northern Germany), I don’t think it will be added anytime soon. While currently I end up with dozens of human drivers every day stopping in front of a retractable fence (and some try to trick it), do I have to expect Google’s cars soon just driving right through it, or refusing to use alternative routes? Especially because we have shit weather with lots of wind and rain and snow and fog and below 10m vision often during winter. How’s the Google car supposed to drive in that situation?
- manicdee 11y ago
  Slowly, just like a human?
  - kuschku 11y ago
    The issue is that the reason the fence is retractable is because of the busses that speed through there every 7 minutes. If you drive there slowly, you might cause a crash. Cars shouldn’t drive there at all, but Google Maps still suggests to drive right through it as the fastest route. And it’s just one example, we have hundreds of them all over the city. If they can’t even provide reliable maps, how can we expect reliable self-driving cars?
    - manicdee 11y ago
      How do humans learn to not go through the gates?
- jfoster 11y ago
  I'm assuming that self-driving cars will also perform data collection for the rest of Google's self-driving cars. I could be incorrect about that, but if they do, it won't matter that the current data is from 2005. Alternatively, if Google do need to collect manually, I would assume they will mobilize to do just that. They did it for Street View, a feature that isn't directly linked to revenue. A much more solid business case could be made for doing it for self-driving cars. Humans rely almost solely on vision from a single source (counting both eyes as just one source) when driving. Autonomous vehicles have far greater potential when it comes to sensors. Google's current vehicles utilize LIDAR and GPS. Tesla's lane following uses cameras, but they get more than one perspective. If it added anything, infrared could be used. There's potential to have tonnes of cameras on the car to get a fuller view. They can triangulate position more effectively by listening out for Wi-Fi and cellular network signals. There's gyroscopes, too. CPUs can calculate exactly how much stopping distance is required in the particular road conditions and adjust speed accordingly. When you think about the sensors and processing capability compared with two human eyes and a brain, it seems to me as though humans are very poorly equipped for dealing with driving in hazardous weather. You're probably right that the current cars struggle under poor weather conditions, but it hardly seems like an unsolvable problem. Once they do function in poor weather conditions, they'll probably do a far better job of it than a human driver would.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, Google doesn’t even have StreetView imagery of most of Germany after they intentionally broke the law to get better images¹, so it’s not expected they’ll do much better anyway. I talked today with a bunch of friends, and we discovered that for all purposes here maps works better in Germany and Austria (except in Hamburg, that actually works in Google Maps. Vienna's satellite view is unusable in Google Maps) 1: To take images from just above 2.50m height you need permission from every house owner, cause most house owners build their hedges and fences in expectation for a person with an eyeheight of 1.90m or less. Google actually intentionally increased the height after their first test runs because they were annoyed with hedges blocking the sight. According to the news back then. --- To your point: Well, the issue is, if Google is not willing to provide or collect up-to-date data – even if they get it for free – then data-based driving is quite risky. And in the narrow, crowded streets of european cities I’d rather not have an automated car drive on sight in a winter storm.

by jfoster 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

Google Maps’ data about my city are from 2005. Half of my district is not even existing – and with Google Mapmaker not available in my region (northern Germany), I don’t think it will be added anytime soon. While currently I end up with dozens of human drivers every day stopping in front of a retractable fence (and some try to trick it), do I have to expect Google’s cars soon just driving right through it, or refusing to use alternative routes? Especially because we have shit weather with lots of wind and rain and snow and fog and below 10m vision often during winter. How’s the Google car supposed to drive in that situation?

manicdee 11y ago
Slowly, just like a human?
- kuschku 11y ago
  The issue is that the reason the fence is retractable is because of the busses that speed through there every 7 minutes. If you drive there slowly, you might cause a crash. Cars shouldn’t drive there at all, but Google Maps still suggests to drive right through it as the fastest route. And it’s just one example, we have hundreds of them all over the city. If they can’t even provide reliable maps, how can we expect reliable self-driving cars?
  - manicdee 11y ago
    How do humans learn to not go through the gates?
jfoster 11y ago
I'm assuming that self-driving cars will also perform data collection for the rest of Google's self-driving cars. I could be incorrect about that, but if they do, it won't matter that the current data is from 2005. Alternatively, if Google do need to collect manually, I would assume they will mobilize to do just that. They did it for Street View, a feature that isn't directly linked to revenue. A much more solid business case could be made for doing it for self-driving cars. Humans rely almost solely on vision from a single source (counting both eyes as just one source) when driving. Autonomous vehicles have far greater potential when it comes to sensors. Google's current vehicles utilize LIDAR and GPS. Tesla's lane following uses cameras, but they get more than one perspective. If it added anything, infrared could be used. There's potential to have tonnes of cameras on the car to get a fuller view. They can triangulate position more effectively by listening out for Wi-Fi and cellular network signals. There's gyroscopes, too. CPUs can calculate exactly how much stopping distance is required in the particular road conditions and adjust speed accordingly. When you think about the sensors and processing capability compared with two human eyes and a brain, it seems to me as though humans are very poorly equipped for dealing with driving in hazardous weather. You're probably right that the current cars struggle under poor weather conditions, but it hardly seems like an unsolvable problem. Once they do function in poor weather conditions, they'll probably do a far better job of it than a human driver would.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, Google doesn’t even have StreetView imagery of most of Germany after they intentionally broke the law to get better images¹, so it’s not expected they’ll do much better anyway. I talked today with a bunch of friends, and we discovered that for all purposes here maps works better in Germany and Austria (except in Hamburg, that actually works in Google Maps. Vienna's satellite view is unusable in Google Maps) 1: To take images from just above 2.50m height you need permission from every house owner, cause most house owners build their hedges and fences in expectation for a person with an eyeheight of 1.90m or less. Google actually intentionally increased the height after their first test runs because they were annoyed with hedges blocking the sight. According to the news back then. --- To your point: Well, the issue is, if Google is not willing to provide or collect up-to-date data – even if they get it for free – then data-based driving is quite risky. And in the narrow, crowded streets of european cities I’d rather not have an automated car drive on sight in a winter storm.