5 ms·

Could have been equipment failure on the truck - a tie rod end failing or such will create some interesting behaviors. > I believe the argument is the software

by Syonyk 5y ago

Could have been equipment failure on the truck - a tie rod end failing or such will create some interesting behaviors. > I believe the argument is the software will improve to eventually be as good or better than humans, and I have a hard time not believing that. I find it easy to believe that software won't manage to deal well with all the weird things that reality can throw at a car, because we suck at software as humans in the general case. It's just that in most environments, those failures aren't a big deal, just retry the API call. Humans can write very good software. The Space Shuttle engineering group wrote some damned fine software. They look literally nothing like the #YOLO coding that makes up most of Silicon Valley, and deal with a far, far more constrained environment as well than a typical public road. Self driving cars are simply the most visible display of the standard SV arrogance - that humans are nothing but a couple crappy cameras and some neural network mush, and, besides, we know code - how hard can it be? That approach to solving reality fails quite regularly.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Is flying a helicopter on Mars arrogance? Launching reusable space launch vehicles that boost back to the landing site arrogance? I don't believe so. These are engineering challenges to be surmounted, just as safe robotic vehicles are a challenge, and its reasonable (I'd argue) for us as a species to drive towards solutions (no pun intended). Silicon Valley isn't going to suddenly become less arrogant, but that doesn't mean the problems they attempt to solve don't need solving. Incentives are important to coax innovation in a way that balances life safety with progress, and I concede the incentives in place likely need improvement.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  Aviation and space are a very, very different problem space from surface street navigation, because they rely, almost entirely, on "nothing else being there." We've had good automation in aviation for decades. It doesn't handle anything else in the way very well at all, and while there's some traffic conflict avoidance stuff, it's a violent "Oh crap!" style response, nothing you actually want to get anywhere close to triggering. Automated approaches down to minimums require good equipment at the airport as well as on the airframe, and if there's a truck on the runway, well. Shouldn't have been there. Same thing for landing boosters. There's nothing it really has to look at and understand that it can't easily get from some basic sensor data - speed, attitude, location, etc. It's an interesting challenge, certainly, but it's of a very different form from understanding all the weird stuff that happens in a complex, messy, uncontrolled 3D ground environment. Self driving on a closed track is a perfectly well solved problem. Self driving in an open world is clearly very far from solved.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you. I believe we're arguing between "can't be solved" versus "it's going to take a long time to solve." I'm stating I fall in the latter camp, and advocating for stronger regulation and investment in the space.
  - belter 5y ago
    Show me Self driving on a closed track with snow or rain please.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Does open road snow count? https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/ https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/
      - belter 5y ago
        Its an interesting video but its an edited video. The company website mentions the system was able to negotiate the challenges of the driving conditions, looks like an euphemism... Very few details, no scientific publications I could find on their Asimov system on a quick search, not sure if this is a technological breakthrough or a fine tuning of existing processes and methods. Because if its a fine tuning of current algorithms not sure how long they can push this. They are relying on Lidar (and other sensors) but even as of last year, it seems most teams already realized Lidar would not be the solution for Snow, and were now pushing Ground Penetrating Radar ( sounds expensive...) "Autonomous Cars Struggle in Snow, but MIT Has a Solution for That" https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-snow-mit-researchers-solution/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-... Even Tesla, already realized its not just a sensor problem, solving self-driving needs a higher level algo than can put the different sensors, in context of situational awareness. Note that in no any other way I would consider Tesla an example to follow ;-) And do not think they are any closer to getting a working system. Some of the statements show at least a second level understanding of what is required. Sensors are a means to it. Its about situational awareness but also inference. "LIDAR is a fool’s errand… and anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. — Elon Musk" https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q
- Arch-TK 5y ago
  >Is flying a helicopter on Mars arrogance? No, but I am not so sure it's anything more than a stunt with a high chance of failure. >Launching reusable space launch vehicles that boost back to the landing site arrogance? Maybe, but it's mostly a PR stunt from my point of view. Just my 2 cents.
rcxdude 5y ago
> Humans can write very good software. The Space Shuttle engineering group wrote some damned fine software. They look literally nothing like the #YOLO coding that makes up most of Silicon Valley, and deal with a far, far more constrained environment as well than a typical public road. Safety-critical software like that used in the space shuttle is incredible expensive for the level of complexity involved (which is not very high, compared to other projects). A self-driving car is probably one of the most complex software projects ever attempted. If you were to apply the same techniques as the shuttle to achieve self-driving you would literally never finish (not even the tech giants have enough money to do this). So to achieve this you not only need to solve the very difficult initial problems you also need to come up with a way of getting extreme reliability in a much more efficient way than anyone has achieved before.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  And yet such self-driving car is going to kill way more people than the Space Shuttle ever did. Oh, the irony.

by Syonyk 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Is flying a helicopter on Mars arrogance? Launching reusable space launch vehicles that boost back to the landing site arrogance? I don't believe so. These are engineering challenges to be surmounted, just as safe robotic vehicles are a challenge, and its reasonable (I'd argue) for us as a species to drive towards solutions (no pun intended). Silicon Valley isn't going to suddenly become less arrogant, but that doesn't mean the problems they attempt to solve don't need solving. Incentives are important to coax innovation in a way that balances life safety with progress, and I concede the incentives in place likely need improvement.

Syonyk 5y ago
Aviation and space are a very, very different problem space from surface street navigation, because they rely, almost entirely, on "nothing else being there." We've had good automation in aviation for decades. It doesn't handle anything else in the way very well at all, and while there's some traffic conflict avoidance stuff, it's a violent "Oh crap!" style response, nothing you actually want to get anywhere close to triggering. Automated approaches down to minimums require good equipment at the airport as well as on the airframe, and if there's a truck on the runway, well. Shouldn't have been there. Same thing for landing boosters. There's nothing it really has to look at and understand that it can't easily get from some basic sensor data - speed, attitude, location, etc. It's an interesting challenge, certainly, but it's of a very different form from understanding all the weird stuff that happens in a complex, messy, uncontrolled 3D ground environment. Self driving on a closed track is a perfectly well solved problem. Self driving in an open world is clearly very far from solved.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I don't disagree with you. I believe we're arguing between "can't be solved" versus "it's going to take a long time to solve." I'm stating I fall in the latter camp, and advocating for stronger regulation and investment in the space.
- belter 5y ago
  Show me Self driving on a closed track with snow or rain please.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Does open road snow count? https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/ https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/
    - belter 5y ago
      Its an interesting video but its an edited video. The company website mentions the system was able to negotiate the challenges of the driving conditions, looks like an euphemism... Very few details, no scientific publications I could find on their Asimov system on a quick search, not sure if this is a technological breakthrough or a fine tuning of existing processes and methods. Because if its a fine tuning of current algorithms not sure how long they can push this. They are relying on Lidar (and other sensors) but even as of last year, it seems most teams already realized Lidar would not be the solution for Snow, and were now pushing Ground Penetrating Radar ( sounds expensive...) "Autonomous Cars Struggle in Snow, but MIT Has a Solution for That" https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-snow-mit-researchers-solution/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-... Even Tesla, already realized its not just a sensor problem, solving self-driving needs a higher level algo than can put the different sensors, in context of situational awareness. Note that in no any other way I would consider Tesla an example to follow ;-) And do not think they are any closer to getting a working system. Some of the statements show at least a second level understanding of what is required. Sensors are a means to it. Its about situational awareness but also inference. "LIDAR is a fool’s errand… and anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. — Elon Musk" https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q
Arch-TK 5y ago
>Is flying a helicopter on Mars arrogance? No, but I am not so sure it's anything more than a stunt with a high chance of failure. >Launching reusable space launch vehicles that boost back to the landing site arrogance? Maybe, but it's mostly a PR stunt from my point of view. Just my 2 cents.

rcxdude 5y ago

> Humans can write very good software. The Space Shuttle engineering group wrote some damned fine software. They look literally nothing like the #YOLO coding that makes up most of Silicon Valley, and deal with a far, far more constrained environment as well than a typical public road. Safety-critical software like that used in the space shuttle is incredible expensive for the level of complexity involved (which is not very high, compared to other projects). A self-driving car is probably one of the most complex software projects ever attempted. If you were to apply the same techniques as the shuttle to achieve self-driving you would literally never finish (not even the tech giants have enough money to do this). So to achieve this you not only need to solve the very difficult initial problems you also need to come up with a way of getting extreme reliability in a much more efficient way than anyone has achieved before.

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
And yet such self-driving car is going to kill way more people than the Space Shuttle ever did. Oh, the irony.