4 ms·
> How many nines of reliability do self driving cars need before they're safe? That depends on your perspective. I think most of us just wants it to be more re
by audunw 6y ago
> How many nines of reliability do self driving cars need before they're safe?
That depends on your perspective. I think most of us just wants it to be more reliable than a human driver that's not drunk or sleep deprived. But the liability challenges could mean you'll want more "perfect" reliability.
> They have to operate in weather. Rain, snow, dark. They have to adapt to novel conditions.
Seems like the solutions out there are already getting pretty good at handling the kind of rain, snow and darkness you'd see in most urban/suburban areas. Maybe you'll "never" be able to drive autonomously to your cabin in the woods, but so what?
> I don't think we'll see these things for another decade, and when that next decade arrives we'll be saying the same. Another decade.
What exactly do you mean by "seeing these things"? By some measures they're already here. The ones that are truly self driving are slow, and mostly on static routes. The ones that drive on highways need to be monitored by a human, but they're doing pretty well. I think you'll see these different solutions just slowly become better and better. I'd be very surprised if you couldn't hail a fully autonomous robotaxi in many urban areas in a decade. Maybe it can't drive it anywhere, maybe you can't use it in a snowstorm, but it'll be a case of "good enough".
- itsoktocry 6y ago>I think most of us just wants it to be more reliable than a human driver that's not drunk or sleep deprived That is a seriously low bar, and in no way do I think the majority of people feel that driving "better than a drunk" is good enough. In fact, I think it will be the opposite: people will want it to be almost flawless before it's accepted.
- matz1 6y agoFor me, "better than a drunk" is good enough >and in no way do I think the majority of people feel that driving "better than a drunk" is good enough If that the case something can be done such as smart marketing/social media campaign or something like that to change people perception.
- leetcrew 6y agoyou and rootusrootus have parsed this phrase incorrectly: > more reliable than a human driver that's not drunk or sleep deprived emphasis mine.
- rootusrootus 6y ago> more reliable than a human driver that's not drunk or sleep deprived. No thank you. Almost all the humans I share the road with are neither drunk nor sleep deprived. Putting robotic drivers on the road that make daylight driving as dangerous as 1am driving is not my idea of progress. It'd be a bloodbath.
- falcolas 6y ago“Good Enough” will mean that an autonomous car will be effectively useless between 6 and 8 months of the year in the north. Most of the roads may be clear, but “all” of them never are. Shaded areas are the worst, and can remain iced over for months at a time. Ice, especially intermittent ice, is bad. Slush, deep snow, and packed snow can be miles worse. Winter driving, as any Californian who has migrated north will tell you, is a dramatically different skill than driving on the roads of California or Arizona. It’s non-deterministic - turning the wheel doesn’t always turn the car. The car will move sideways on the road with no steering input. The speed of the wheels is completely divorced from the speed of the car.