6 ms·

Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

95 points by Nogwater 11y ago

r0naa 11y ago
I have the weird feeling that this report hasn't been written by a human.
- AaronFriel 11y ago
  Copy Errors Reported to CA Writers Guild Given the time we’re spending on busy scripts, we’ll inevitably be involved in writing bad copy; sometimes it’s impossible to overcome the realities of speed and deadlines. Thousands of minor creative failures happen every day in typical American copy, 94% of them involving human error, and as many as 55% of them go unreported. (And we think this number is low; for more, see here.) In the six years of our project, we’ve been involved in 14 minor grammatical errors of more than 1.8 million words of autonomous and manual writing combined. Not once was the autonomous writer the cause of the error. (CA regulations require us to submit CA WG form OL316 Report of Copy Error Involving an Autonomous Writer for all errors involving our writers. The following summaries are what we submitted in the “Copy Error Details” section of that form.)
samcheng 11y ago
The humans do seem to drive a little crazy on California St. in Mountain View! I've had a near miss with a negligent driver on that street myself. Nice to see that they're moving the cars away from the quieter (more suburban) southern parts of the city near the hospital. I have yet to see the new prototypes, which are allegedly making tours as well. Does anyone know what streets they frequent?
- atto 11y ago
  The new ones drive on San Antonio quite frequently, making the loop near Central Expressway.
  - joshu 11y ago
    I live off San Antonio and I see them daily. Up San Antonio to Leghorn and then to Rengstorff and over 101 is a pretty standard commute to Google.
- aggie 11y ago
  I saw one on Rengstorff the other day.
- andyl 11y ago
  I've seen the new cars in the San Antonio / Middlefield area. They look small - golf-cart sized. When you can use them via an Uber-like service, I'm in.
brownbat 11y ago
I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear end collision, the AV would honk and flash brake lights while scooting forward. Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? The AV yields to those running a red light, even though getting t-boned wouldn't legally be the AV's fault. That seems wise to me. Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear-ended? I'm not sure... Or, more broadly: How do you divide blame between two parties when one has superhuman faculties? Is the AI responsible for everything it could have conceivably been programmed to prevent? Or do you just hold it to a human standard? Like all hard problems, neither extreme is very satisfying.
- Swizec 11y ago
  > Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear end collisions at intersections? This is called defensive driving. You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable. This includes making sure the intersection is clear before going in. It includes checking if anyone is coming down the wrong way of a one way street before going in or crossing it. It involves something as simple as making sure "right lane must turn" actually turned before someone magically appears out of your blind spot. And, importantly, it also includes knowing what's behind you as much as knowing what's in front of you. If you see someone is going to rear-end you, you should at the very least step off the brake to make the collision less violent. If possible accelerate forward. And I know this isn't possible [/practical] in most american cars because they're automatics, but don't hold the brake when you're standing still. It makes potential rear-endings work out better. And never turn the wheel before you intend to turn. If you get rear-ended you could get pushed into oncoming traffic. All this is to say that while only one vehicle is to blame for a collision, two vehicles are responsible. (unless you hit a tree or some other static barrier, a tree cannot drive defensively) Or, more bluntly, it might be the other person's fault, but you're the one who's dead.
Pfhreak 11y ago
The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able to collect from even the simplest fender bender will be fantastic.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I'm thinking the same-thing but they could even take this data out of the self driving car, apply it to a normal car and even in that case it would be a huge change that could be incredibly beneficial!
  - rimantas 11y ago
    Some normal cars already have systems like this.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      Which ones? Not saying I doubt you just generally interested :)
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  I'm sorta unconvinced we'll actually see any benefit. Humans are notoriously picky about their privacy; The ability to get black-box data for insurance purposes has been around for years, but most people would rather not, for good reason, have their insurers poking around their driving habits. I expect some backlash against cars collecting this data on their driving neighbors. What if the self-driving car isn't involved in an accident, but witnesses one? Can the courts subpoena google for the two driver's locations and velocities? That will be a fantastic NYT headline: "Are Google cars spying on you?" Look at public health data. There's a vast goldmine of data that could be collected, that could track, trace, and storm-warning diseases, but that is for legal reasons hidden behind a confidentiality barrier. I'd like it to be a simple check if any of your partners were STD positive; This is currently information that is hard to get reliably (Sure, your partner can hand you test results, but not verifiable ones; The clinic won't attest to it if you call to reference your partner's results, so you can never be certain it's not a clever photoshop). This is data that has direct, tangible impact on those around you, and in many states it is a crime to not reveal certain STDs. Still, these spread, because we're afraid of making the STD-infected social pariahs, and I can't see a world where we don't have the same problem with bad drivers.
lovelearning 11y ago
I found the linked TED talk [1] fascinating. [1]:https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_...
downandout 11y ago
While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim, it would save a fair number of people from gruesome deaths if they would build some sort of rear collision avoidance logic for situations where it may be possible for the system to get the car out of harm's way. There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at red lights or that have slowed down during traffic jams. Perhaps the cars should constantly be planning escape routes while slowing down and stopping with appropriate distance from those in front of it to allow for escape should it detect an inevitable collision from behind. Even where the only possible escape route involves hitting another car, it should be able to make the decision that a light collision with a vehicle in another lane is perferable to a large truck hitting it at 70mph. [1] http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/traffic/2015/04/12/fatal-crash-pasco-county/25670699/ http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/traffic/2015/04/12/fatal-cras...
- gambiting 11y ago
  "There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at red lights or that have slowed down during traffic jams." Isn't that solved by the automatic collision detection with emergency braking, as implemented by Volvo?[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, the OP is postulating an avoidance mechanism for the front ("victim") car, not the rear car. Indeed the rear car is at a higher risk of injury than the front car in read-end accidents.
- dsfyu404ed 11y ago
  >While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim This happens every day. -car A comes to a sudden stop for a less than legitimate reason (e.g "I need to be in that stopped left turn lane, not this moving through lane but I was too busy being distracted") -car B (behind A) begins to come to a stop as fast as possible -car B sees car C in rear-view -car B moves right one lane -car C manages to avoid rear ending A by less than the length of B Obviously this is set off by A having jack shit for situational awareness and B picks up the slack
jongraehl 11y ago
I think Google can do better than just "not at fault". Many of us have avoided (chain reaction or other) accidents by evading a would-be rear-ender (although this can backfire in that if you use up your cushion you may then be pushed into the obstacle ahead in addition to being hit from behind). Also, there are times where overly cautious braking causes chain reactions and collisions (at least, an extremely competent+cautious friend of mine told me he caused one once - maybe it's rare). Similarly, although we might do better to choose a world with different incentives (like one where 1/3 or more of cars are rigid rule-entitled automata), many of us have (selfish-rationally) made room for incompetent lane changers even if it means violating lane rules ourselves.
luckydata 11y ago
The description of June 4 sounds exactly like an accident where I was driving the car that touched the one in front of me. My foot slipped from the brake. The driver in front reported injuries and asked damages, I'm still paying the consequences on my insurance rate. I still remember her face vividly, I noticed the moment when she started doing mental calculations about how much she could get out of that. I hope she gets what she's got coming for her, and self driving cars can't come soon enough, especially for the sensor arrays mounted on each cars that will provide ample proof of what accidents are really like for insurance purposes.
Altay- 11y ago
Here's a non-pdf version without some of the padding: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgjC5VeySpjqzcHj1_4_-5MNck2tfIqjpNQBr8ihwz4/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgjC5VeySpjqzcHj1_4_-5MN... Side note: Google should whip up a google doc only url shortner... so people know its a document and not a risky link, but its still short enough to share easily...
- ariwilson 11y ago
  So ... http://goo.gl/drive/?? http://goo.gl/drive/???
DannoHung 11y ago
Have any of the AV teams said anything about testing in hazardous road conditions yet? Driving rain, thick fog, heavy snow, sleet, the like. Maybe the answer they'll give is, "Don't drive you dummy", but that's not really an acceptable solution for most people.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  Isn't it interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to a computer will loose their driving skills? Maps nicely to other things.
  - yazaddaruvala 11y ago
    Just because all of my needed math is done on a calculator doesn't mean I can no longer add.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      Well that already sort of happens to pilots. They spend so much time on autopilot that they become less and less skilled at manual flying. I'm not saying that they are not busy in the cockpit,but there was a case where a plane crashed because the pilot didn't know how to regain control of the plane after the autopilot disengaged.
  - dannypgh 11y ago
    I think it's more interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to cars end up thinking that cars are the only potential source of mobility, forgetting that walking, mass transit, and bicycling are all viable means of transport for most people.
- Mimu 11y ago
  Given the fact that half of the miles done if with a human drivers I would say this is not ready for complete autonomy yet, at all.
  - 11y ago
godgod 11y ago
Am I the only one who isn't for these 'self-driving' car projects? What's wrong with us driving instead of computers? Also..."self driving cars"...we already have that...it's what we have now.
amelius 11y ago
What I wonder most about: whenever the Car gets a minor software update, will they (be required to) do again 10,000 hours of test-driving?
- albertzeyer 11y ago
  I'm quite sure that those 10k hours are not with a single version but they are already being updated all the time. A human driver on the other hand similarly also updates his driving behavior throughout his life.
  - amelius 11y ago
    Software and humans are completely different. Humans are, in a way, very fault tolerant. In software, one erroneous line of code can literally crash the car. In a human, one stray neuron will probably don't do much harm.
- CardenB 11y ago
  You can use recorded data in a simulated environment to test new software in an accelerated manner.
  - amelius 11y ago
    The problem is: the car interacts with its environment. When a new algorithm kicks in, the car will behave differently, and as a result the input data will be different, and thus the recorded data will have lost its relevance.
jasonjei 11y ago
I think the only way to have safe driving with autonomous vehicles is to have roadways that are autonomous vehicles only. When autonomous vehicles become commercially viable, I think having dedicated autonomous freeways can really remove a lot of the randomness and dangers of driving. We might be a 100 years away from this prospect, but it would be great if we lost no more lives on freeways due to car accidents.
SuperChihuahua 11y ago
If anyone is interested in learning more, I've found a free online-course called "Programming a Robotic Car" (https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-robotics--cs373 https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-r...) The lecturer is the same guy behind the Stanley car that won the DARPA challenge a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)
kriro 11y ago
What happens after an incident with an AV (let's say I bumped into it)? Do I just wait and call the police or is the AV reporting it automatically? It's a little odd to not have a person to interact with in that situation.
saturdaysaint 11y ago
I found the linked Vox article really interesting -http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8700459/google-self-driving-cars http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8700459/google-self-driving-cars I've read reports that make me dread being behind a AV at a 4-way stop or a blinking red light - one passenger described waiting at a light for several minutes while drivers honked angrily behind them. Maybe AV's will encourage traffic planners to implement more roundabouts, which might be less prone to other driver's taking advantage. Or maybe AVs just need to get better at estimating the speed of oncoming traffic.
ucho 11y ago
So... does anybody know what truck manufacturers are doing? As far I can tell it will take at least 20 years before AV can drop steering wheel and deal with scenarios like police officer routing traffic around accident site. On the other hand even current Google tech should allow for soft* road trains made from 2-4 trucks and only one (active) driver. Also new hardware price would have smaller impact on already expensive vehicles. *without physical connection like in Australian ones
- tim333 11y ago
  Daimler have a truck https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555295 I'm not sure about the police routing around an accident thing. Google's cars can already recognise cyclists hand signals.

95 points by Nogwater 11y ago

r0naa 11y ago

I have the weird feeling that this report hasn't been written by a human.

AaronFriel 11y ago
Copy Errors Reported to CA Writers Guild Given the time we’re spending on busy scripts, we’ll inevitably be involved in writing bad copy; sometimes it’s impossible to overcome the realities of speed and deadlines. Thousands of minor creative failures happen every day in typical American copy, 94% of them involving human error, and as many as 55% of them go unreported. (And we think this number is low; for more, see here.) In the six years of our project, we’ve been involved in 14 minor grammatical errors of more than 1.8 million words of autonomous and manual writing combined. Not once was the autonomous writer the cause of the error. (CA regulations require us to submit CA WG form OL316 Report of Copy Error Involving an Autonomous Writer for all errors involving our writers. The following summaries are what we submitted in the “Copy Error Details” section of that form.)

samcheng 11y ago

The humans do seem to drive a little crazy on California St. in Mountain View! I've had a near miss with a negligent driver on that street myself. Nice to see that they're moving the cars away from the quieter (more suburban) southern parts of the city near the hospital. I have yet to see the new prototypes, which are allegedly making tours as well. Does anyone know what streets they frequent?

atto 11y ago
The new ones drive on San Antonio quite frequently, making the loop near Central Expressway.
- joshu 11y ago
  I live off San Antonio and I see them daily. Up San Antonio to Leghorn and then to Rengstorff and over 101 is a pretty standard commute to Google.
aggie 11y ago
I saw one on Rengstorff the other day.
andyl 11y ago
I've seen the new cars in the San Antonio / Middlefield area. They look small - golf-cart sized. When you can use them via an Uber-like service, I'm in.

brownbat 11y ago

I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear end collision, the AV would honk and flash brake lights while scooting forward. Google's absolutely correct that its AVs are never at fault in any of these accidents, legally speaking. Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? The AV yields to those running a red light, even though getting t-boned wouldn't legally be the AV's fault. That seems wise to me. Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear-ended? I'm not sure... Or, more broadly: How do you divide blame between two parties when one has superhuman faculties? Is the AI responsible for everything it could have conceivably been programmed to prevent? Or do you just hold it to a human standard? Like all hard problems, neither extreme is very satisfying.

Swizec 11y ago
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear end collisions at intersections? This is called defensive driving. You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable. This includes making sure the intersection is clear before going in. It includes checking if anyone is coming down the wrong way of a one way street before going in or crossing it. It involves something as simple as making sure "right lane must turn" actually turned before someone magically appears out of your blind spot. And, importantly, it also includes knowing what's behind you as much as knowing what's in front of you. If you see someone is going to rear-end you, you should at the very least step off the brake to make the collision less violent. If possible accelerate forward. And I know this isn't possible [/practical] in most american cars because they're automatics, but don't hold the brake when you're standing still. It makes potential rear-endings work out better. And never turn the wheel before you intend to turn. If you get rear-ended you could get pushed into oncoming traffic. All this is to say that while only one vehicle is to blame for a collision, two vehicles are responsible. (unless you hit a tree or some other static barrier, a tree cannot drive defensively) Or, more bluntly, it might be the other person's fault, but you're the one who's dead.

Pfhreak 11y ago

The thing that really stands out here isn't that the accidents occurred (which is sort of amusing), but rather the excellent analytics the car produced. The car knew where it was, how long it was stopped, the conditions at the time of the accident, and the relative velocities of the vehicle that caused the accident. This is going to change the nature of automobile accidents entirely. The amount of data we'll be able to collect from even the simplest fender bender will be fantastic.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I'm thinking the same-thing but they could even take this data out of the self driving car, apply it to a normal car and even in that case it would be a huge change that could be incredibly beneficial!
- rimantas 11y ago
  Some normal cars already have systems like this.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Which ones? Not saying I doubt you just generally interested :)
GauntletWizard 11y ago
I'm sorta unconvinced we'll actually see any benefit. Humans are notoriously picky about their privacy; The ability to get black-box data for insurance purposes has been around for years, but most people would rather not, for good reason, have their insurers poking around their driving habits. I expect some backlash against cars collecting this data on their driving neighbors. What if the self-driving car isn't involved in an accident, but witnesses one? Can the courts subpoena google for the two driver's locations and velocities? That will be a fantastic NYT headline: "Are Google cars spying on you?" Look at public health data. There's a vast goldmine of data that could be collected, that could track, trace, and storm-warning diseases, but that is for legal reasons hidden behind a confidentiality barrier. I'd like it to be a simple check if any of your partners were STD positive; This is currently information that is hard to get reliably (Sure, your partner can hand you test results, but not verifiable ones; The clinic won't attest to it if you call to reference your partner's results, so you can never be certain it's not a clever photoshop). This is data that has direct, tangible impact on those around you, and in many states it is a crime to not reveal certain STDs. Still, these spread, because we're afraid of making the STD-infected social pariahs, and I can't see a world where we don't have the same problem with bad drivers.

lovelearning 11y ago

I found the linked TED talk [1] fascinating. [1]:https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_...

downandout 11y ago

While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim, it would save a fair number of people from gruesome deaths if they would build some sort of rear collision avoidance logic for situations where it may be possible for the system to get the car out of harm's way. There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at red lights or that have slowed down during traffic jams. Perhaps the cars should constantly be planning escape routes while slowing down and stopping with appropriate distance from those in front of it to allow for escape should it detect an inevitable collision from behind. Even where the only possible escape route involves hitting another car, it should be able to make the decision that a light collision with a vehicle in another lane is perferable to a large truck hitting it at 70mph. [1] http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/traffic/2015/04/12/fatal-crash-pasco-county/25670699/ http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/traffic/2015/04/12/fatal-cras...

gambiting 11y ago
"There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at red lights or that have slowed down during traffic jams." Isn't that solved by the automatic collision detection with emergency braking, as implemented by Volvo?[1] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY
- Hytosys 11y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, the OP is postulating an avoidance mechanism for the front ("victim") car, not the rear car. Indeed the rear car is at a higher risk of injury than the front car in read-end accidents.
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
>While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim This happens every day. -car A comes to a sudden stop for a less than legitimate reason (e.g "I need to be in that stopped left turn lane, not this moving through lane but I was too busy being distracted") -car B (behind A) begins to come to a stop as fast as possible -car B sees car C in rear-view -car B moves right one lane -car C manages to avoid rear ending A by less than the length of B Obviously this is set off by A having jack shit for situational awareness and B picks up the slack

jongraehl 11y ago

I think Google can do better than just "not at fault". Many of us have avoided (chain reaction or other) accidents by evading a would-be rear-ender (although this can backfire in that if you use up your cushion you may then be pushed into the obstacle ahead in addition to being hit from behind). Also, there are times where overly cautious braking causes chain reactions and collisions (at least, an extremely competent+cautious friend of mine told me he caused one once - maybe it's rare). Similarly, although we might do better to choose a world with different incentives (like one where 1/3 or more of cars are rigid rule-entitled automata), many of us have (selfish-rationally) made room for incompetent lane changers even if it means violating lane rules ourselves.

luckydata 11y ago

The description of June 4 sounds exactly like an accident where I was driving the car that touched the one in front of me. My foot slipped from the brake. The driver in front reported injuries and asked damages, I'm still paying the consequences on my insurance rate. I still remember her face vividly, I noticed the moment when she started doing mental calculations about how much she could get out of that. I hope she gets what she's got coming for her, and self driving cars can't come soon enough, especially for the sensor arrays mounted on each cars that will provide ample proof of what accidents are really like for insurance purposes.

Altay- 11y ago

Here's a non-pdf version without some of the padding: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgjC5VeySpjqzcHj1_4_-5MNck2tfIqjpNQBr8ihwz4/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgjC5VeySpjqzcHj1_4_-5MN... Side note: Google should whip up a google doc only url shortner... so people know its a document and not a risky link, but its still short enough to share easily...

ariwilson 11y ago
So ... http://goo.gl/drive/?? http://goo.gl/drive/???

DannoHung 11y ago

Have any of the AV teams said anything about testing in hazardous road conditions yet? Driving rain, thick fog, heavy snow, sleet, the like. Maybe the answer they'll give is, "Don't drive you dummy", but that's not really an acceptable solution for most people.

jakeogh 11y ago
Isn't it interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to a computer will loose their driving skills? Maps nicely to other things.
- yazaddaruvala 11y ago
  Just because all of my needed math is done on a calculator doesn't mean I can no longer add.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    Well that already sort of happens to pilots. They spend so much time on autopilot that they become less and less skilled at manual flying. I'm not saying that they are not busy in the cockpit,but there was a case where a plane crashed because the pilot didn't know how to regain control of the plane after the autopilot disengaged.
- dannypgh 11y ago
  I think it's more interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to cars end up thinking that cars are the only potential source of mobility, forgetting that walking, mass transit, and bicycling are all viable means of transport for most people.
Mimu 11y ago
Given the fact that half of the miles done if with a human drivers I would say this is not ready for complete autonomy yet, at all.
- 11y ago

godgod 11y ago

Am I the only one who isn't for these 'self-driving' car projects? What's wrong with us driving instead of computers? Also..."self driving cars"...we already have that...it's what we have now.

amelius 11y ago

What I wonder most about: whenever the Car gets a minor software update, will they (be required to) do again 10,000 hours of test-driving?

albertzeyer 11y ago
I'm quite sure that those 10k hours are not with a single version but they are already being updated all the time. A human driver on the other hand similarly also updates his driving behavior throughout his life.
- amelius 11y ago
  Software and humans are completely different. Humans are, in a way, very fault tolerant. In software, one erroneous line of code can literally crash the car. In a human, one stray neuron will probably don't do much harm.
CardenB 11y ago
You can use recorded data in a simulated environment to test new software in an accelerated manner.
- amelius 11y ago
  The problem is: the car interacts with its environment. When a new algorithm kicks in, the car will behave differently, and as a result the input data will be different, and thus the recorded data will have lost its relevance.

jasonjei 11y ago

I think the only way to have safe driving with autonomous vehicles is to have roadways that are autonomous vehicles only. When autonomous vehicles become commercially viable, I think having dedicated autonomous freeways can really remove a lot of the randomness and dangers of driving. We might be a 100 years away from this prospect, but it would be great if we lost no more lives on freeways due to car accidents.

SuperChihuahua 11y ago

If anyone is interested in learning more, I've found a free online-course called "Programming a Robotic Car" (https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-robotics--cs373 https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-r...) The lecturer is the same guy behind the Stanley car that won the DARPA challenge a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)

kriro 11y ago

What happens after an incident with an AV (let's say I bumped into it)? Do I just wait and call the police or is the AV reporting it automatically? It's a little odd to not have a person to interact with in that situation.

saturdaysaint 11y ago

I found the linked Vox article really interesting -http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8700459/google-self-driving-cars http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8700459/google-self-driving-cars I've read reports that make me dread being behind a AV at a 4-way stop or a blinking red light - one passenger described waiting at a light for several minutes while drivers honked angrily behind them. Maybe AV's will encourage traffic planners to implement more roundabouts, which might be less prone to other driver's taking advantage. Or maybe AVs just need to get better at estimating the speed of oncoming traffic.

ucho 11y ago

So... does anybody know what truck manufacturers are doing? As far I can tell it will take at least 20 years before AV can drop steering wheel and deal with scenarios like police officer routing traffic around accident site. On the other hand even current Google tech should allow for soft* road trains made from 2-4 trucks and only one (active) driver. Also new hardware price would have smaller impact on already expensive vehicles. *without physical connection like in Australian ones

tim333 11y ago
Daimler have a truck https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555295 I'm not sure about the police routing around an accident thing. Google's cars can already recognise cyclists hand signals.