5 ms·

I love the work that Volvo is doing, but I am highly skeptical they will release a stage 4 autonomous vehicle in 1 year's time. You might be buying into their

I love the work that Volvo is doing, but I am highly skeptical they will release a stage 4 autonomous vehicle in 1 year's time. You might be buying into their PR the same way everybody else bought into Tesla's PR.

ModernMech 10y ago
Yes, some of that is PR and yet to be proven. But an appropriate sensor suite for the task of autonomous driving is not really a question. There's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. For robotics researchers, there's really two ways of looking at things. Some say "look, we as humans are proof that the only sensors you need to do autonomous driving are two cameras (out eyes). So the real research question is, how do we make a system that works with just these sensors?" The other camp says "In order to get away with just two sensors, you need human-level AI. We are not there and we're not going to be for a long time, so let's work within our current capabilities and engineer a proper system." As a community, robotics researchers now know what kind of engineered system works. In the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, EVERY car that finished the race had a 360 degree velodyne laser. It was very much a game-changing sensor for autonomous cars. For Tesla to now say "Oh, we'll do the same thing but without all the fancy sensors" is just incredible. Speaking in terms of the information that the cars acquire, Tesla is driving blind compared to its rivals.
- jayjay71 10y ago
  I agree that Volvo has a better approach and from what I can tell the necessary hardware to have a much more robust system. What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. I used to work on self-driving cars, specifically this one - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/driverless-vehicles-even-in-dc-streets-an-autonomous-car-takes-a-capitol-test-run/2014/08/25/6d26baa8-06a4-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dri... - and while that was a few years ago I know just how many things the technology is fundamentally not ready for, such as adverse weather. I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else.
  - ModernMech 10y ago
    > What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. Oh, I would agree with you there as well. > I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else. I think that's where we were differing. I think Volvo is many years ahead of Tesla only because Volvo is using the state of the art in driverless tech. Other rivals like Google, BMW, and VW are doing the same. On the other hand, Tesla is choosing to use technology the robotics field had proven to be ineffective over 10 years ago.
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them. That's an order of magnitude more expensive than the car. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, just pointing out that it's a fiendishly difficult problem. I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR. Likewise I like what Volvo is doing, and I'm curious how they're going to price it.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Actually selling cars to the public is an exceptionally poor excuse for -- as it has been described upthread -- using technology that is known to be inadequate to safe implementation of the feature set. If a feature cannot be safely implemented at a price point suitable for the target market of the vehicle, then it shouldn't be in the vehicle. Deliberately choosing otherwise goes beyond mere negligence into actual recklessness, IMO. (Note, I'm not saying that Tesla is doing this, I'm saying that the use of the excuse "they're actually selling cars" as a response to the claim of proven inadequacy of the sensor choice made upthread is an inadequate excuse, since if that was the reason and if the sensor choice was proven to be as inadequate as described, then that would be reckless.)
        10y ago
- studentrob 10y ago
  > For Tesla to now say "Oh, we'll do the same thing but without all the fancy sensors" is just incredible. Speaking in terms of the information that the cars acquire, Tesla is driving blind compared to its rivals. Wow, there's a headline. You sound pretty knowledgeable about the history. Why not write a blog post? Constructive criticism is a positive thing.

ModernMech 10y ago

Yes, some of that is PR and yet to be proven. But an appropriate sensor suite for the task of autonomous driving is not really a question. There's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. For robotics researchers, there's really two ways of looking at things. Some say "look, we as humans are proof that the only sensors you need to do autonomous driving are two cameras (out eyes). So the real research question is, how do we make a system that works with just these sensors?" The other camp says "In order to get away with just two sensors, you need human-level AI. We are not there and we're not going to be for a long time, so let's work within our current capabilities and engineer a proper system." As a community, robotics researchers now know what kind of engineered system works. In the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, EVERY car that finished the race had a 360 degree velodyne laser. It was very much a game-changing sensor for autonomous cars. For Tesla to now say "Oh, we'll do the same thing but without all the fancy sensors" is just incredible. Speaking in terms of the information that the cars acquire, Tesla is driving blind compared to its rivals.

jayjay71 10y ago
I agree that Volvo has a better approach and from what I can tell the necessary hardware to have a much more robust system. What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. I used to work on self-driving cars, specifically this one - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/driverless-vehicles-even-in-dc-streets-an-autonomous-car-takes-a-capitol-test-run/2014/08/25/6d26baa8-06a4-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dri... - and while that was a few years ago I know just how many things the technology is fundamentally not ready for, such as adverse weather. I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else.
- ModernMech 10y ago
  > What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. Oh, I would agree with you there as well. > I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else. I think that's where we were differing. I think Volvo is many years ahead of Tesla only because Volvo is using the state of the art in driverless tech. Other rivals like Google, BMW, and VW are doing the same. On the other hand, Tesla is choosing to use technology the robotics field had proven to be ineffective over 10 years ago.
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them. That's an order of magnitude more expensive than the car. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, just pointing out that it's a fiendishly difficult problem. I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR. Likewise I like what Volvo is doing, and I'm curious how they're going to price it.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Actually selling cars to the public is an exceptionally poor excuse for -- as it has been described upthread -- using technology that is known to be inadequate to safe implementation of the feature set. If a feature cannot be safely implemented at a price point suitable for the target market of the vehicle, then it shouldn't be in the vehicle. Deliberately choosing otherwise goes beyond mere negligence into actual recklessness, IMO. (Note, I'm not saying that Tesla is doing this, I'm saying that the use of the excuse "they're actually selling cars" as a response to the claim of proven inadequacy of the sensor choice made upthread is an inadequate excuse, since if that was the reason and if the sensor choice was proven to be as inadequate as described, then that would be reckless.)
      - 10y ago
studentrob 10y ago
> For Tesla to now say "Oh, we'll do the same thing but without all the fancy sensors" is just incredible. Speaking in terms of the information that the cars acquire, Tesla is driving blind compared to its rivals. Wow, there's a headline. You sound pretty knowledgeable about the history. Why not write a blog post? Constructive criticism is a positive thing.