5 ms·
The common sentiment has been that self-driving cars are just around the corner. The reality is quite different. The remaining problems to solve such as naviga
by jahooma 12y ago
The common sentiment has been that self-driving cars are just around the corner. The reality is quite different.
The remaining problems to solve such as navigating the elements or obeying construction signs or interacting properly with pedestrians or police are orders of magnitude more difficult than the problems that have been solved thus far. These problems are fundamentally different in that they can't be solved by current AI techniques and vision algorithms. The progress made so far has been quick, but it relies on technology that Google has already mastered. We'd be mistaken to think that the remaining challenges will be solved as easily.
It's a repeat of the classic mistake that has plagued the field of AI since the beginning: we underestimate the difficulty of problems that humans solve easily. We simply aren't aware of the incredible complexity involved in our simplest decisions, such as pulling over to allow an ambulance to pass. This is simple right? Just slow down and move off to the side of the road. But when is it OK to move off to the side -- what if there is something in the way, what if a pedestrian didn't expect you to move there, what if the car behind you suddenly gets in the way while it's pulling over, what if you're on a bridge, what if the ambulance behind you turned already and no one expects your car to suddenly pull over? Similar or more difficult problems arise when there's debris or potholes in the road, other poor drivers, bad weather, jaywalkers, policemen giving orders, road work, detours, etc.
What you find is that the last 5 or 10 percent of the capability required to make self-driving cars feasible represents a category of problems which we don't know how to solve, requiring a level of sophistication far beyond the current state of the art and perhaps approaching general intelligence in some cases (such as interpreting signs).
Better approaches involve shooting for more modest goals instead of full autonomy. Car companies are making investments in these more practical, incremental improvements, like automated parking and advanced cruise control.
But unlike car companies, Google isn't in this game because it thinks it can make a profitable and successful product. Instead, it's obvious that the main function of developing self-driving cars is as a PR tool (and the same goes for the rest of the Google-X projects). Google has gotten a lot of positive press for their self-driving cars, and they even use it to attract new employees.
However, I predict this positive press won't last (this article being an early example) because people's expectations are way too high. As years and years go by without much progress, Google's self-driving cars will increasingly become a PR liability and will be compared to the promised flying cars of yesteryear.
- maxerickson 12y agoIf self driving is otherwise compelling, police and construction can use electronic signs (radio, networked notifications, whatever). The robot drivers will do better than humans in that case, they will reliably obey the signs (imagine how easy it would be to detour a car that communicates with a regional traffic management system, compared to a human that thinks they know better).
- takemikazuchi 12y agoWhile I agree in principle, in practice this idea sounds like a security and authentication nightmare.
- maxerickson 12y agoThe simplest form I can think of is a beacon broadcasting its location along with a stay back distance (with the routing system in the vehicle left to deal with the details of compliance). That doesn't address security or authentication, but it should be fairly easy to track down a broadcasting radio, and it should also be easy to log and aggregate the active beacons that have been spotted by vehicles. With that context, traditional enforcement tools should probably work well enough.
- jfoster 12y agoSome of the things you mentioned as not being handled by Google's cars actually are handled, and you can find videos on the Google Self-Driving Car Google+ page that provide visualizations of the car encountering some of those scenarios or similar ones. (some of the others do seem to be unresolved so far, though) You assert that Google can't make this profitable. Why do you think that? If they can make it work well enough, they can be cheaper and more efficient than (probably) any other form of transport, probably drive all taxi companies out of business, and be raking in some revenue every time someone wants to go somewhere, worldwide. (think Uber, if only it were used for every single trip) This could be far bigger than their current businesses.