25 ms·
Baidu’s self-driving cars begin public test in Wuzhen, China
- hesdeadjim 10y agoThere is so much talk in the current rhetoric about the US losing its dominance in science and technology. But it is a tad myopic to not be excited about a country of a billion people pushing the boundaries of what is possible. It is not a zero sum game and we will all benefit.
- JulianMorrison 10y agoAnd a bit of healthy competition for national kudos is likely to speed things along.
- Someone1234 10y agoI agree. Just as long as we don't let safety fall by the wayside in order to speed progress (it has happened before, and it will happen again: see early nuclear refinement).
- ThomPete 10y agoHow? How do the uneducated in the rust belt benefit? And perhaps more importantly when? I agree that technology for society in general make us better of over time, but society consists of individuals who don't necessarily benefit from this. In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that?
- chrischen 10y agoWell the current generation will suffer, but the next generation and future ones will benefit from self driving cars.
- perfmode 10y agoWho owns the future though? While I am not a nationalist and I think it's commendable that the human race is making progress, I'm concerned that advances in technology are causing troubling concentrations of wealth among those who operate and control the technology.
- bertomartin 10y agoluddites thought the same ;)
- ThomPete 10y agoThe luddite fallacy is in itself a fallacy as we are today not just talking about replacing physical labour with technology we are also replacing jobs that require mental abilities and at higher and higher levels of abstraction in an environment thats exponentially progressing. The cold hard reality is that a lot of the jobs that's been created in the US are wallmart jobs or part time jobs and that the cost of living is going up. So those who keep mentioning luddite fallacy owe it to explain what new jobs it is they see replacing the current jobs. Because if it's just a hope that it will be all right in the future some day it's not really an argument for anything.
- Zigurd 10y agoLuddism was about a privileged caste defending their way of life. That has little to do with thinking about a post labor world and what happens to everyone who gets stranded outside the cash economy, never mind having any capital. If coders formed a guild and smashed automatic coding machines, now THAT would be more like Luddism.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y agoWhat do you suggest though? Should we intentionally hold back technology so that factory workers and bus drivers have jobs? Especially as these automation schemes generally have the promise of drastically increased safety. I agree it is a problem that people will be put out of work, but that is kind of an inevitability. Which is why a lot of people are arguing that basic income needs to be investigated much more closely.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that? Jobs are going to be lost anyways, whether from cars or from a different technology. Are you arguing the problem is that people aren't able to continue to do trivial things which technology can easily replace them at? Or that they will not have a relevant skill / source of income? If the former than we should give hoes and scythes back to 90% of the population and get rid of agricultural machinery. If the later - it's a problem that needs to be addressed one way or another, self-driving cars are really a minor detail here..
- ThomPete 10y agoI was responding to the OP who said it wasn't a zero zum game. Not sure why we are suddenly discussing what I propose instead. All I am saying is that it's easy to forget that real people are effected by progress and that the narrative that we all benefit is kind of disingenuous from that perspective and I believe we need to think harder on what to do about that because it's only going to increase.
- cushychicken 10y agoThat was a quick backpedal. :)
- ThomPete 10y agoIn what way?
- it_learnses 10y agoYep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...
- JulianMorrison 10y agoPeople used to have jobs walking behind horses in fields, while the horses pulled ploughs and so forth. Pretty stultifying, dawn to dusk staring at horse's ass. A generation from now, manual driving will be viewed as maddeningly dull makework for human drones. Hours of staring at roads with instant death the punishment for dozing off? Wouldn't do it if you paid me. I'd have said, hopefully the world gets basic income and then a full leisure society sorted out. But honestly, not feeling optimistic right now. The Trumpoids and Brexiteers voted to get their makework back. They won't get it, the economics will make sure of that. But they probably will get unemployed.
- ThomPete 10y agoHow many of the horses have jobs today though? :) But sure I agree. That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago"Canned horse meat was introduced in the United States under the Ken-L Ration brand after WWI as a means to dispose of deceased horses" -- Wikipedia Are you suggesting a Soylent solution?
- nartsbtaa 10y ago> That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society. This has always been the case throughout history: new technology makes some jobs irrelevant, and humans adapt by doing new jobs. It's unfortunate for people who cannot or will not adapt, but historically people have been resilient to such changes. It's a legitimate issue when there aren't enough jobs to employ a significant portion of the population, and perhaps we're starting to reach that point now. We're seeing a decoupling in our economy: job growth is slowing while corporate growth and profits continue to rise. On one hand, this indicates that we are heading towards post-scarcity conditions. On the other hand, the current arrangement is that an increasing amount of wealth is being distributed to a decreasing number of people, leading to greater wealth inequality. What can be done? We might increase wage/salary while cutting the number of hours worked per week, allowing more people to work while still providing a livable income. A basic income is another option, but that seems extreme; things would have to get much worse (or better, depending on your long-term view of automation) before that's taken seriously on a large scale.
- Zigurd 10y agoI'd guess you got downvoted because that's irrelevant. The benefits come in the form of fewer road deaths, which is potentially as significant as curing malaria, which only in the abstract benefits the people you are talking about, but it nevertheless does benefit them.
- ThomPete 10y agoDid you read the parent I am replying too? How is road safety relevant to a discussion about zero sum games?
- Zigurd 10y agoFor one, it makes it a non-zero-sum game.
- ThomPete 10y agoThe claim was that we will all benefit. So I am asking how is that benefitting those who loos their jobs. Sure you can cherry pick your perspective and make OPs statement true, but whats the point of that.
- Zigurd 10y agoAbout a million people die on the roads each year. Even though the US has a relatively low rate of road fatalities, there are still tens of thousands of people killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured on the roads. Even the poor and jobless benefit from not getting mangled in a car wreck or run down while cycling, and the health care money saved can go to directly aid them.
- ThomPete 10y agoWhat does that help them if they can't feed their family because they have no jobs.
- hx87 10y ago
- wnevets 10y agoSounds like it's time to leave the rust belt then.
- serge2k 10y agoWell step 1 is accept that the jobs are gone/will be gone and they aren't coming back. Step 2 is on the TBD. We'll let you know when we promise. Just around the corner really. We promise. I'm serious about step 1 though. Should be preparing now.
- gnipgnip 10y agoBaidu's Autonomous Driving division is in California.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoSelf driving cars are much more valuable to China than the US. China, for all its development, lacks road and parking infrastructure and places to put them even if it was willing to build them. So cities like Beijing are incredibly congested. Likewise, the driving culture in many Chinese cities (all slightly different) is often very bad, it isn't uncommon to see someone back up on a free way because they missed their exit in Beijing....The US, for the most part, doesn't have these problems (lots of roads, parking, and fairly well behaved drivers)...self driving cars are seen as more of a convenience than a necessity. Self driving cars potentially solve all that by optimizing limited infrastructure and standardizing driving behavior. It has the potential to make cities that are bursting at the seams (like Beijing) much more livable and viable. Couple that with an authoritarian government that can dictate rules much more easily, I predict that self driving cars will be a thing in China much faster than in the west (even if much of the tech still comes from the west).
- finid 10y agoit isn't uncommon to see someone back up on a free way because they missed their exit in Beijing....The US, for the most part, doesn't have these problems I'm guessing that you haven't driven anywhere near New York City or Boston. I've seen my fair share of drivers backing up or driving on the part of the road they're not supposed to just because they missed their exit. Someone said I've done that myself, but I'll need to see proof.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoSure it "happens", but do you see it on almost all of your commutes? When someone does something dumb ass in the states, everyone is shocked and surprised, in Beijing it is just normal and should be expected (as a benefit, everyone is driving like everyone else is crazy). (And I wasn't driving, rather sitting in the taxi, but I digress)
- cesarbs 10y agoI live in the Seattle area and I see people doing "dumb ass" things on the road every single day.
- mtw 10y ago1.4 billion :)
- whazor 10y agoIn Asia, to say it gently, people follow less rules... Baidu is going to have a hard time, as people take advantage when you are driving carefully.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoBeijing could just mandate that the ring roads from 6AM to 10PM are self driving only, like they already ban trucks during that time. The cars will also have cameras galore, and who knows...if they are owned by the state (or a taxi company), they might as well just report bad human drivers to ensure good behavior.
- TACIXAT 10y agoYea, I'm very curious how this will work out. Traffic there is madness and people use all parts of the road to get to where they're going. Maybe it will be simpler. Don't hit anything in front of you, don't let anyone merge, use any piece of visible road. For those who are curious, two guys just did a motorcycle race through rush hour traffic in China [1]. It gives a good idea what the road conditions are like. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axZC4inhu9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axZC4inhu9c
- cuantos 10y agoPeople who worry about the risk of accidents should also take into account the risk of falling behind technologically and economically. I'd argue that the latter would cause (or fail to prevent) far more deaths. If China wants to lead the world on this then more power to them. Maybe the US will step up their game in response.
- goldenbeet 10y agoPeople worry about accidents as if we aren't already causing thousands of accidents every single day. SDCs are inevitably going to reduce that danger.
- neves 10y agoDon't forget that they hired the guy behind Google's self driving car, Andrew Ng: http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/30/andrew-ng-baidu/ http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/30/andrew-ng-baidu/ Does it takes just a hire to compete against all Google's patents?
- wavefunction 10y ago"compete" would imply Chinese recognition of US patents, which seems hit-or-miss.
- Already__Taken 10y agoAren't you thinking of trade secrets by that statement? Patents would let anyone do it you just have to pay google their fee.
- deepnotderp 10y agoAndrew wasn't their self driving car leaders, he was their DL and ML leader, he didn't lead the SDC division specifically.
- goldenbeet 10y agoAndrew Ng wasn't really the brain child of Google's car. That honor goes to Sebastian Thrun.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dtnewman 10y agoI worry about the regulatory aspects of getting self-driving cars off-the-ground in the United States. It is inevitable that self driving cars will make mistakes and people will be injured or killed as a result. It is also inevitable that people will be injured or killed as a result of people driving cars. But in the long run, it's virtually guaranteed that self-driving technology will result in safer cars and fewer driving deaths. Computers can respond quicker, communicate well with other computers (hopefully) and they don't get drunk. It's a fact of life that while accidents from ordinary drivers go unnoticed (ironically because they are so frequent), car crashes from self-driving cars will get covered extensively by the media, at least for the short term. All this means that it will be a tough regulatory environment for self-driving cars in the US. In China, the government has more power to create regulatory policies around self-driving cars that take a long-term view without having to worry as much about lawsuits and other concerns. Perhaps the fear of seeing the Chinese companies "getting there first" with self-driving cars will be an impetus for US regulators to create policies that are encourage the development of self-driving cars.
- rfghsfgt 10y agoThe issue is that self driving cars are naturally _worse_ than human drivers, and the only way to ensure that only the _good_ self driving cars get on the road is regulation. Like flying, if anyone could build an airplane and fly it, flying would be more dangerous then driving. It's the FAA which keeps these things in check.
- imh 10y ago
- EGreg 10y agoHow come no one has figured out that these self driving cars can be tested with light soft and fuzzy tops which only look like real cars, so if they crash into something, even at high speed, they wouldn't hurt anyone and couldn't be sued for a lot? They could then skip to testing much more daring maneuvers on higher speed than they would otherwise.
- VeejayRampay 10y agoUnless I'm missing something the car needs to have an engine, that's heavy enough to kill people, even at moderate speeds, no?
- hx87 10y agoNot if you go all-electric. Motors are light, batteries are heavy, but battery packs give you much more packaging flexibility than an ICE engine.
- akira2501 10y agoTo an extent, but at those current draws, you do need integrated cooling in your battery packs.
- EGreg 10y agoBut the engine can be surrounded by a lot of SOFT components which cause deceleration. What happens is that the outer layer will give way and the other cars will not be harmed in this deceleration. ESPECIALLY since I imagine most of the collisions will actually be glancing or scraping ones. This is strictly better than a real hard outer shell as now. I guess the reason they haven't done it is that humans are required to be inside the car for now.
- Jyaif 10y agoThat's a... great idea. Self driving cars without passengers, where the hard components are close to the ground, and with soft padding everywhere else.
- intrasight 10y agoHere in the US, self-driving cars will cause some challenges on the legal front. In China, lacking the rule of law, it'll just be a calamity.