4 ms·

But I think for it to have meaningful impact we need interstate public roads to have self-driving. I haven't looked at the statistics, but most deadly accidents

But I think for it to have meaningful impact we need interstate public roads to have self-driving. I haven't looked at the statistics, but most deadly accidents I read of late happen on interstate roads. Edit: It's unthinkable at present but I believe if a city-state like Singapore undertook the experiment and it was successful it could eventually spread around the world like HD adoption. (That's why I said it would take a long time to happen in America.)

jessriedel 10y ago
But Singapore doesn't help much with that because its only 20 miles across.
- lokedhs 10y ago
  Singapore may be small, but within that space (a bit over 700 square km) it has everything larger countries have. Towns, expressways, nature reserves, military bases, airports, etc. Thus, it is an excellent place for testing such things as self driving cars.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    The amount of miles driven per year on highway, which is the issue I'm addressing, is much too low. Just need higher throughput.
    - lokedhs 10y ago
      I found this statistic[1] from LTA, and as far as I can tell, there are 10 billion km travelled on cars per year in Singapore. I don't know how that compares to other countries though. [1] https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Statistics%20in%20Brief%202015%20FINAL.pdf https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsR...
      - jessriedel 10y ago
        Five trillion km/year in the US.
ars 10y ago
Not only is that most meaningful, it olso has the most bang for the buck (saves people the most time), AND is the easiest technically. I wrote a long post about it before, but basically I expect self driving trucks on dedicated interstate lanes to be the start. Then self driving cars on the same lanes. Over time all interstates will be self driving. City streets will never be unless we get AI with general intelligence.
- duaneb 10y ago
  I'm not convinced most human city drivers have general intelligence. I don't see it being much later than other roads.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > City streets will never be unless we get AI with general intelligence. Driving is likely a much easier problem than artificial general intelligence. Even when it involves evading rampaging toddlers. Sure, if you want perfect safety, you'll need the car to anticipate a great deal —far more than humans currently do, like looking at the walkways as well as the drive lanes. If we merely want something that's safer than a human driver that's probably nothing more than a (huge) engineering feat.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Driving is likely a much easier problem than artificial general intelligence. That isn't actually true. Scenario: Narrow one way road, you get to the bottom of it and there is an ambulance blocking the road. Behind you is a bunch of cars, ahead of you is a few cars. You need to coordinate with other cars to move out of the way, you need to make use of driveways to turn around, you need to know to override the law and got the wrong way on a one way. And that's just one scenario. You need general AI to handle all the different things that happen on city streets. Highways is easier - it's controlled access. And if they block the road it's typically by officials who would have some way to remotely control the self driving cars and tell them what to do (not that that is not a car of worms in itself). > If we merely want something that's safer than a human driver that's probably nothing more than a (huge) engineering feat. Not even close. You would need to do better than 99.99999% perfect to do better than a human. That number is correct BTW - that's how rarely humans make a mistake that leads to a fatality. (Injury rate is not quite that good: 99.999% but that's still quite hard for a computer.) We don't have that level of reliability in a phone, never mind a car. There are some appliances that are that good, but they tend to be very simple.

jessriedel 10y ago

But Singapore doesn't help much with that because its only 20 miles across.

lokedhs 10y ago
Singapore may be small, but within that space (a bit over 700 square km) it has everything larger countries have. Towns, expressways, nature reserves, military bases, airports, etc. Thus, it is an excellent place for testing such things as self driving cars.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  The amount of miles driven per year on highway, which is the issue I'm addressing, is much too low. Just need higher throughput.
  - lokedhs 10y ago
    I found this statistic[1] from LTA, and as far as I can tell, there are 10 billion km travelled on cars per year in Singapore. I don't know how that compares to other countries though. [1] https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Statistics%20in%20Brief%202015%20FINAL.pdf https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsR...
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Five trillion km/year in the US.

ars 10y ago

Not only is that most meaningful, it olso has the most bang for the buck (saves people the most time), AND is the easiest technically. I wrote a long post about it before, but basically I expect self driving trucks on dedicated interstate lanes to be the start. Then self driving cars on the same lanes. Over time all interstates will be self driving. City streets will never be unless we get AI with general intelligence.

duaneb 10y ago
I'm not convinced most human city drivers have general intelligence. I don't see it being much later than other roads.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> City streets will never be unless we get AI with general intelligence. Driving is likely a much easier problem than artificial general intelligence. Even when it involves evading rampaging toddlers. Sure, if you want perfect safety, you'll need the car to anticipate a great deal —far more than humans currently do, like looking at the walkways as well as the drive lanes. If we merely want something that's safer than a human driver that's probably nothing more than a (huge) engineering feat.
- ars 10y ago
  > Driving is likely a much easier problem than artificial general intelligence. That isn't actually true. Scenario: Narrow one way road, you get to the bottom of it and there is an ambulance blocking the road. Behind you is a bunch of cars, ahead of you is a few cars. You need to coordinate with other cars to move out of the way, you need to make use of driveways to turn around, you need to know to override the law and got the wrong way on a one way. And that's just one scenario. You need general AI to handle all the different things that happen on city streets. Highways is easier - it's controlled access. And if they block the road it's typically by officials who would have some way to remotely control the self driving cars and tell them what to do (not that that is not a car of worms in itself). > If we merely want something that's safer than a human driver that's probably nothing more than a (huge) engineering feat. Not even close. You would need to do better than 99.99999% perfect to do better than a human. That number is correct BTW - that's how rarely humans make a mistake that leads to a fatality. (Injury rate is not quite that good: 99.999% but that's still quite hard for a computer.) We don't have that level of reliability in a phone, never mind a car. There are some appliances that are that good, but they tend to be very simple.