3 ms·
It's kind of an interesting idea. I'd be willing to let someone else drive me around by remote controlling my car, as long as a blaring alarm goes off whenever
by sillysaurusx 3y ago
It's kind of an interesting idea. I'd be willing to let someone else drive me around by remote controlling my car, as long as a blaring alarm goes off whenever the network connection goes down. Some small amount of ML could be used to ease the transition, which defaults to "safely pull over and stop." That way at worst I just go back to driving normally.
Probably a terrible idea for a few reasons, but it was neat realizing there's an alternative to fully autonomous driving. Also doubt it would be legalized, but it's neat to consider.
- MereInterest 3y agoSporadic lag would be a killer. Think of how often you had Zoom calls that would lag for a second or two. Now, imagine the remote driver had that lag.
- CamperBob2 3y agoSo design it to augment, rather than replace, a conventional autonomous driving system. If the self-driving system is kept running full-time, it can take over instantly if there's a communications dropout. That way, the car only has to stop immediately if a problematic situation happens to coincide with signal loss. Perfection is not an option in this business, so it's time to stop demanding it. If we can manage to kill something less than 30,000 people a year on the roads, the way humans currently do, we can call it a win.
- allarm 3y ago> it can take over instantly if there's a communications dropout The only way to detect a communication dropout in a packet network is with constant exchange of keep alive packets. The detection time should be within some safety margins for the maximum allowed speed of the vehicle and the computational overheads. I think we’re speaking at least 100 pps, which is unlikely to deliver on time using public Internet over the unreliable medium. tl;dr - I think it’s not currently possible.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]