3 ms·

Interesting. I didn't realize humans have already attempted so many different automated systems. In the talk you linked, he points out how, historically, syst

Interesting. I didn't realize humans have already attempted so many different automated systems. In the talk you linked, he points out how, historically, systems are never fully automated because humans are not comfortable with that. He seems to predict that cars will not be the first systems that we allow to become fully autonomous, and admits he could be wrong. It's surprising to me that he feels texting should be permissible while driving with a driver-assist system [1]. His whole argument here doesn't add up for me. I'll have to check out his book. It sounds like he supports driver-assist mechanisms, though maybe without Tesla's beta release schedule of OTA updates. He seems unconvinced that full autonomy will ever be achievable. I think I still believe in Google's plan, despite the shadow he casts on full autonomy. Zero deaths and full disclosure seems better than selective reports and the possibility for more fatal accidents. Given there are now a decent number of investors on both sides, I imagine the debate will continue as to which is the best path: testing driver-assist in consumer vehicles, or testing full autonomy with company-controlled cars. I'd like to hear what Mindell thinks would be the best hand-off from computer to driver in a driver-assist vehicle such as Tesla's. He answers a question about that generally here [2], but is mainly talking about airplanes where there is a chance for a smoother transition. How does one slow down time such that a hand off is possible in a vehicle during an adverse event that the car cannot handle itself? I feel that is the most pertinent question to today. It seems like the car needs to see the adverse event coming, but since it is not ready to handle the event, the car is unlikely able to give the driver much extra time. By definition of adverse event, it would now seem to have been better if the driver had been paying complete attention the whole time. [1] https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=41m32s https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=41m32s [2] https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=35m37s https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=35m37s

oconnore 10y ago
When he talks of humans being richly involved in the environment, not sleeping in the trunk, I imagine an interface with several levels. Example: you are driving down a highway that has full monitoring by overhead cameras. No obstacles are going to jump out at you, and the position of the car is mapped precisely in real time. The human controls via a joystick to select a lane position, and brakes are automatically applied if avoidance is needed. Now the car leaves the highway, onto an isolated road. Before leaving the known environment, the interface switches. Now the lane position becomes a trajectory projection, and the driver must observe the road. The task of safely following the trajectory is automated. The interface adds random noise to the trajectory projection, to test that the driver is paying attention. Failure to demonstrate control results in the car pulling off to a rest stop. Finally the car goes downtown. A well known road, but with many pedestrians and bicycles. The interface is based around identifying obstacles, with a joystick for max safe speed <-> stop. Trajectory is automated, with the driver choosing turns. The car scans for pedestrians, but if the driver does not acknowledge them, the car slows since the driver is not paying attention. If the car misses a pedestrian, the driver is aware and has been conditioned and trained to react in time. All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving. I see now, that makes sense. Thanks! I did a little more hunting on Mindell and it seems his words are easily misinterpreted [1] [2] It sounds like he is almost anti-Google in that article, though I imagine he's really trying to argue for something like you describe. I think Google's on the right track towards such a system. Right now they're constraining themselves to having sensors inside the vehicle to see how far they can safely travel. If that does not work out, presumably they can invest in developing a living road like you describe to aid in tracking cars' movements. If Google does start some sort of taxi network, presumably passengers will be able to enter destinations, or perhaps request to change lanes. Under Mindell's definition, perhaps that is not completely autonomous. I think it is full autonomy in the way Google thinks of it. Or maybe Mindell would call that autonomy and just admit he was wrong and that cars are the first human transporters that can be fully autonomous. Thanks for your thoughts. I like your ideas about adding noise. You've obviously put some thought into this. I haven't seen others mention that elsewhere. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision_of_selfdriving_cars_is_wrong_says/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision... [2] http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars-is-wayward-says-mit-prof/ http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars...

oconnore 10y ago

When he talks of humans being richly involved in the environment, not sleeping in the trunk, I imagine an interface with several levels. Example: you are driving down a highway that has full monitoring by overhead cameras. No obstacles are going to jump out at you, and the position of the car is mapped precisely in real time. The human controls via a joystick to select a lane position, and brakes are automatically applied if avoidance is needed. Now the car leaves the highway, onto an isolated road. Before leaving the known environment, the interface switches. Now the lane position becomes a trajectory projection, and the driver must observe the road. The task of safely following the trajectory is automated. The interface adds random noise to the trajectory projection, to test that the driver is paying attention. Failure to demonstrate control results in the car pulling off to a rest stop. Finally the car goes downtown. A well known road, but with many pedestrians and bicycles. The interface is based around identifying obstacles, with a joystick for max safe speed <-> stop. Trajectory is automated, with the driver choosing turns. The car scans for pedestrians, but if the driver does not acknowledge them, the car slows since the driver is not paying attention. If the car misses a pedestrian, the driver is aware and has been conditioned and trained to react in time. All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving.

studentrob 10y ago
> All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving. I see now, that makes sense. Thanks! I did a little more hunting on Mindell and it seems his words are easily misinterpreted [1] [2] It sounds like he is almost anti-Google in that article, though I imagine he's really trying to argue for something like you describe. I think Google's on the right track towards such a system. Right now they're constraining themselves to having sensors inside the vehicle to see how far they can safely travel. If that does not work out, presumably they can invest in developing a living road like you describe to aid in tracking cars' movements. If Google does start some sort of taxi network, presumably passengers will be able to enter destinations, or perhaps request to change lanes. Under Mindell's definition, perhaps that is not completely autonomous. I think it is full autonomy in the way Google thinks of it. Or maybe Mindell would call that autonomy and just admit he was wrong and that cars are the first human transporters that can be fully autonomous. Thanks for your thoughts. I like your ideas about adding noise. You've obviously put some thought into this. I haven't seen others mention that elsewhere. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision_of_selfdriving_cars_is_wrong_says/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision... [2] http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars-is-wayward-says-mit-prof/ http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars...