3 ms·
To the contrary he should be admired for his candour. It's very easy for execs to talk up utopian smack, it's harder the other way around. I for one agree: L5
by jariel 7y ago
To the contrary he should be admired for his candour.
It's very easy for execs to talk up utopian smack, it's harder the other way around.
I for one agree: L5 may not be viable for many decades at least, not with the tech we have. It may never happen because conditions will change to the point wherein it won't make sense.
What is viable, that nobody really talks about are 'controlled areas' - for example, highways built for long-haul trucks with 0 human drivers. This is a great place for AI because the conditions are set for all the crazy unknowns (esp. humans) to be controlled.
Special roadways within cities, where there are no pedestrians, AI drivers only, that can communicate with 'the grid' etc - could not only mean full L5 'driverless' but no stop-signs either - traffic could be designed to flow much, much more efficiently using 'today's tech'. Cars won't have steering wheels, they can be called 'on demand' and 'parking' will be very different, more like 'temp storage' and won't involve humans. All viable.
- tylerrobinson 7y ago> Special roadways This is a point that always seems to be missing. All of our roads are/were constructed at a specific size with specific engineering requirements and specific materials. If we have a major change in the technology of the cars, it seems to be perfectly reasonable that we could have a new type of road to accommodate that. For example, before interstate highways it probably would have sounded strange to imagine high-speed roads with limited entry and exit. And before that, may have sounded strange to have automated stoplights and traffic signals.
- jariel 7y agoNot just materials: human drivers. Signage, sizes, safety tolerances. etc.