3 ms·

What's MVP? Of course we don't have self drivinv car otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

• dagss 10y ago
  Minimum Viable Product. He means that until self driving cars are not even as good as human drivers, it is pointless to discuss features that make them even better than human drivers. I.e. "one step at the time".
  • yeukhon 10y ago
    Well it probably is, but it would be too late if we don't start investing into the data collection. Convincing government to build infrastructure and services what I am suggesting is going to be a long investment. I know some states are working on toward that goal, and IBM's SmartCity project is one such example experimenting how to use technology to allow services to subscribe to data. We have a MVP. Google has a MVP, Telsa is a MVP already. I feel we focus too much on building sensors.
    • Retric 10y ago
      With good sensors you can quickly get to good maps. But, getting to level 5 automation without good sensors and useful AI is impossible.
      • yeukhon 10y ago
        Again, I never said we don't need good sensor. I have been saying we need to start thinking outside of just sensor. The forumla can't just rely on sensors alone. I don't dispute we need to be able to recongize surroundings. Because we human drive with eyes open.
        • Retric 10y ago
          We humans also do fine with a our eyes, our brain, and a crappy GPS or Map. If you want to say that's not enough for computers and you need really good maps to get level 5 automation then I disagree. If you think you can be first to market with Level 5 automation while splitting your focus onto irrelevant details, again I disagree.
          • yeukhon 9y ago
            Your view on self-driving car is different than mine. I am not sure who came up with the five levels of self-driving car automation, but let me reiterate the last time before I give up trying to convince anyone on this thread. First, for a computer to be able to navigate safely on the road the computer needs to be able to recongize and understand its surroundings. Checked. Next, for computers to be able to be good at driving, we need to train the computer both in the real world and in simulations. Moreover, to ensure we can optimize route, plan ahead we need data about road condition far ahead of us (and sometimes behind us). To be able to make turns on an intersection safely and swiftly, unlike humans who are terrible at making turns and confusing when to turn, computers can coordinate with one another. This requires good network communication. Bluetooth is weak and unstable. In my earlier example, if an ambulance says it is driving heading my direction, my car can coordinate how to empty up a lane for the ambluance to pass. This level of automation is what one sees in a sci-fi movie, which is really what you want besides being able to avoid obstacles like Bat mobile. My point is, we should explore how to make traffic data accessible. There is so much one can do with such data. It takes a good amount of time to get the government onboard and help them build such infrastructure. To finish off my point, meter data is not available, right now apps use crowd source to determine whether a parking spot is available or not. Instead of driving around which causes more congestion and sometimes accident, governement should make meter data available, and we can still crowd source by using driver's camera to recongize whether a spot is opened and send back to datastore. This is essentially the goal of Internet of Things, at rhe city scale. As I mentioned, IBM's SmartCities supposed to do stuff above but I really am not sure if IBM will ever pull off given many of their projects ended up on someoen's desk covering in dust.
            • Retric 9y ago