6 ms·

Why should we change city infrastructure to work with less than AGI driven cars? It sounds instead like yes, AV companies are over selling what they can do and

Why should we change city infrastructure to work with less than AGI driven cars? It sounds instead like yes, AV companies are over selling what they can do and they should be restricted to things like highways and the like where the easier, less complex driving environment already exists. Cities are by far the most complex relative to every other driving environment, in fact there is a good argument that, in cities, cars should be much more restricted because of health effects and traffic deaths, and the less complex areas (highways) are already the bulk of the drudgery in driving, but are much easier to automate, so why not do it for there?

brutusborn 4y ago
One good reason is to help the AIs make better decisions through greater certainty. For example, if a road sign has machine readable data there is a greater certainty that an AI will interpret it correctly. This could affect safety and ease of implementation.
- viscanti 4y ago
  The question is what value would a city get after, what seems to be, a very expensive process? What value do they get from unlocking semi competent AI cars that's worth the time, effort, and requires dedicated street space and an inconvenience to everyone else who travels a different way? It doesn't seem like it's replacing public transit and if someone needs a private vehicle to go beyond the area that's optimized they'll need a different transportation solution. It seems like a lot of cost for a very small benefit.
  - oblio 4y ago
    A very small benefit for society but potentially a very large benefit for a select few stakeholders. Musk largely became the richest person on the planet off the back of the promise that nobody else would have decent EV tech (turns out, they do), nobody else would have the battery production capacity (turns out, they do, plus super ironic when Tesla is partnering with Panasonic for battery production), AND the promise of fully self driving cars (which will happen for Tesla immediately after flying cars). I don't have a good term for this, but it's basically corruption: a few benefit at the cost of everyone else.
    - treis 4y ago
      It's an enormous benefit to society. A huge number of people are killed or seriously injured in car crashes every year. Plus the quality of life benefits and reduction in property damage.
      - oblio 4y ago
        Yeah, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. What you're referring to doesn't exist. Right now it's vaporware, and for all we know, we could be 1 century away from solving it up to human levels.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > off the back of the promise that nobody else would have decent EV tech (turns out, they do) That just simply not true. He became one of the richest people in the world when Tesla cracked really high volume productions of EVs at a quite amazing margin. That is what people didn't believe was possible when they did it in 2018. And at the same time SpaceX, where Musk owns much more stock off, managed to re-usability operational and started to launch Starlink. > production capacity (turns out, they do, plus super ironic when Tesla is partnering with Panasonic for battery production) Tesla is by far largest BEV producer in the world so its actually true. And if you think all Tesla does is partnering with Panasonic you have not been paying attention. Telsa has its own battery production and also is one of the largest costumers of CATL, LG and Panasonic. For quite a while Panasonic and Tesla have co-developed technology that Panasonic can just sell to anybody. As you can see, Tesla has to be both a producer and a major consumer of most battery companies in the world to achieve the volume they do. And others can not simply replicate it because the industry is supply constraint. > I don't have a good term for this, but it's basically corruption Tesla is the largest BEV producer in the world, and just recently made a larger profit then Ford/GM combined (if I remember correctly). Tesla has industry leading margin and is still the fastest growing car company of any size. SpaceX is one of the most advanced technology companies in the world and I don't think you will find anybody serious who disagrees with that. The only argument you have that makes sense is that Musk over-promised Self-Driving. That is certainty true, but I wouldn't call it corruption. And I don't think that today the stock price of Tesla is hugely inflated by this as there is so much pessimism on self-driving.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    How is my example, street signs, an inconvenience to others or needs dedicated street space? Signs need to be replaced anyway, just add a code at the next replacement. You're thinking back and white "it's not replacing...". What does that matter? To me what matters is "can we make transport better" I thought the question was "can we actually make fully autonomous vehicles?" If we have that, the value is pretty obvious.
- YawningAngel 4y ago
  It seems like it would be cheaper and easier to get rid of cars entirely
  - oblio 4y ago
    But not politically palatable :-)
- almost_usual 4y ago
  The environment requires too many constraints, in a city it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to vandalize these road signs.
- c7b 4y ago
  How well would that work during snow, fog, storms, how resilient would it be to vandalism? Sounds extremely fragile.
- incone123 4y ago
  If a so-called AI needs help reading a road sign then it stands no chance dealing with the rest of it's surroundings.
- ehnto 4y ago
  Then someone spray paints the sign, a taxi parks in the bike lane just behind a box truck blocking half the entrance to where you're going, meanwhile a cyclist rides the other direction directly toward you because human agents are chaotic and cities are full of them. Oh, a racoon! Less tongue in cheek: I think we should optimize city centers for human scales and activities, rather than sending cars right through them at all. We already sacrifice so much for cars in their current state, if we have to optimize for their mobility even moreso we are going in the wrong direction I feel. I'm not saying get rid of cars, just keep them out of the denser parts of cities and the CBD. Put them on roads, not streets.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Cars should just be blocked from cities unless very special situations. Removing cars from cities has huge health and economic benefits. Car free city centers are universally better then car invested cities. Cars where they are still allowed should move significantly slower, on much thinner roads. Self-Driving will not solve anything for cities. They will solve even less then EVs.
paganel 4y ago
Not all driving outside city areas happens on the highways. My brother lives in the countryside (somewhere in the EU), and, as a driver, he shares the paved road just outside his house with the village’s cows (including his two cows). I don’t see any non-AGI system being able to negotiate that, as at times is difficult even for me, a reasonably AGI system, to make sense of it all when I encounter a herd of loose cows on the road.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Sparsely populated rural areas are really the only place where personal autos make sense. Long distance highway travel is better serviced by train. And transportation inside the city is better serviced by literally anything except a car (bikes, e-bikes, subway, trams, scooters, walking).
  - cwalv 4y ago
    > Sparsely populated rural areas are really the only place where personal autos make sense This might be true, if rural areas and densely populated uran areas were the only 2 states, but there's a lot of intermediate density in between
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Even cities with decent public transport networks (such as Prague) tend to have a problem with tangential relations. Most lines go from some periphery to the center and to another periphery. If you need to travel between two peripheries, you have to be somewhat lucky to have a line connecting them at your disposal. Going through the center and back to the other periphery is possible, but usually takes too long. (e.g. 1h 30 min instead of 15 minutes by car).
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    How do you get around the sparsely-populated rural areas at either end of the highway?
  - dx034 4y ago
    Having kids makes car sharing very unattractive. Finding car sharing with enough (and high quality) car seats can be quite challenging. And as much as I like public transport, with kids using the car is often much faster.

brutusborn 4y ago

One good reason is to help the AIs make better decisions through greater certainty. For example, if a road sign has machine readable data there is a greater certainty that an AI will interpret it correctly. This could affect safety and ease of implementation.

viscanti 4y ago
The question is what value would a city get after, what seems to be, a very expensive process? What value do they get from unlocking semi competent AI cars that's worth the time, effort, and requires dedicated street space and an inconvenience to everyone else who travels a different way? It doesn't seem like it's replacing public transit and if someone needs a private vehicle to go beyond the area that's optimized they'll need a different transportation solution. It seems like a lot of cost for a very small benefit.
- oblio 4y ago
  A very small benefit for society but potentially a very large benefit for a select few stakeholders. Musk largely became the richest person on the planet off the back of the promise that nobody else would have decent EV tech (turns out, they do), nobody else would have the battery production capacity (turns out, they do, plus super ironic when Tesla is partnering with Panasonic for battery production), AND the promise of fully self driving cars (which will happen for Tesla immediately after flying cars). I don't have a good term for this, but it's basically corruption: a few benefit at the cost of everyone else.
  - treis 4y ago
    It's an enormous benefit to society. A huge number of people are killed or seriously injured in car crashes every year. Plus the quality of life benefits and reduction in property damage.
    - oblio 4y ago
      Yeah, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. What you're referring to doesn't exist. Right now it's vaporware, and for all we know, we could be 1 century away from solving it up to human levels.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > off the back of the promise that nobody else would have decent EV tech (turns out, they do) That just simply not true. He became one of the richest people in the world when Tesla cracked really high volume productions of EVs at a quite amazing margin. That is what people didn't believe was possible when they did it in 2018. And at the same time SpaceX, where Musk owns much more stock off, managed to re-usability operational and started to launch Starlink. > production capacity (turns out, they do, plus super ironic when Tesla is partnering with Panasonic for battery production) Tesla is by far largest BEV producer in the world so its actually true. And if you think all Tesla does is partnering with Panasonic you have not been paying attention. Telsa has its own battery production and also is one of the largest costumers of CATL, LG and Panasonic. For quite a while Panasonic and Tesla have co-developed technology that Panasonic can just sell to anybody. As you can see, Tesla has to be both a producer and a major consumer of most battery companies in the world to achieve the volume they do. And others can not simply replicate it because the industry is supply constraint. > I don't have a good term for this, but it's basically corruption Tesla is the largest BEV producer in the world, and just recently made a larger profit then Ford/GM combined (if I remember correctly). Tesla has industry leading margin and is still the fastest growing car company of any size. SpaceX is one of the most advanced technology companies in the world and I don't think you will find anybody serious who disagrees with that. The only argument you have that makes sense is that Musk over-promised Self-Driving. That is certainty true, but I wouldn't call it corruption. And I don't think that today the stock price of Tesla is hugely inflated by this as there is so much pessimism on self-driving.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  How is my example, street signs, an inconvenience to others or needs dedicated street space? Signs need to be replaced anyway, just add a code at the next replacement. You're thinking back and white "it's not replacing...". What does that matter? To me what matters is "can we make transport better" I thought the question was "can we actually make fully autonomous vehicles?" If we have that, the value is pretty obvious.
YawningAngel 4y ago
It seems like it would be cheaper and easier to get rid of cars entirely
- oblio 4y ago
  But not politically palatable :-)
almost_usual 4y ago
The environment requires too many constraints, in a city it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to vandalize these road signs.
c7b 4y ago
How well would that work during snow, fog, storms, how resilient would it be to vandalism? Sounds extremely fragile.
incone123 4y ago
If a so-called AI needs help reading a road sign then it stands no chance dealing with the rest of it's surroundings.
ehnto 4y ago
Then someone spray paints the sign, a taxi parks in the bike lane just behind a box truck blocking half the entrance to where you're going, meanwhile a cyclist rides the other direction directly toward you because human agents are chaotic and cities are full of them. Oh, a racoon! Less tongue in cheek: I think we should optimize city centers for human scales and activities, rather than sending cars right through them at all. We already sacrifice so much for cars in their current state, if we have to optimize for their mobility even moreso we are going in the wrong direction I feel. I'm not saying get rid of cars, just keep them out of the denser parts of cities and the CBD. Put them on roads, not streets.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Cars should just be blocked from cities unless very special situations. Removing cars from cities has huge health and economic benefits. Car free city centers are universally better then car invested cities. Cars where they are still allowed should move significantly slower, on much thinner roads. Self-Driving will not solve anything for cities. They will solve even less then EVs.

paganel 4y ago

Not all driving outside city areas happens on the highways. My brother lives in the countryside (somewhere in the EU), and, as a driver, he shares the paved road just outside his house with the village’s cows (including his two cows). I don’t see any non-AGI system being able to negotiate that, as at times is difficult even for me, a reasonably AGI system, to make sense of it all when I encounter a herd of loose cows on the road.

andrepd 4y ago
Sparsely populated rural areas are really the only place where personal autos make sense. Long distance highway travel is better serviced by train. And transportation inside the city is better serviced by literally anything except a car (bikes, e-bikes, subway, trams, scooters, walking).
- cwalv 4y ago
  > Sparsely populated rural areas are really the only place where personal autos make sense This might be true, if rural areas and densely populated uran areas were the only 2 states, but there's a lot of intermediate density in between
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Even cities with decent public transport networks (such as Prague) tend to have a problem with tangential relations. Most lines go from some periphery to the center and to another periphery. If you need to travel between two peripheries, you have to be somewhat lucky to have a line connecting them at your disposal. Going through the center and back to the other periphery is possible, but usually takes too long. (e.g. 1h 30 min instead of 15 minutes by car).
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  How do you get around the sparsely-populated rural areas at either end of the highway?
- dx034 4y ago
  Having kids makes car sharing very unattractive. Finding car sharing with enough (and high quality) car seats can be quite challenging. And as much as I like public transport, with kids using the car is often much faster.