Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the who's-gonna-drive-miss-daisy? dept.

The race to bring driverless cars to the masses is only just beginning, but already it is a fight for the ages. The competition is fierce, secretive, and elite. It pits Apple against Google against Tesla against Uber: all titans of Silicon Valley, in many ways as enigmatic as they are revered.

As these technology giants zero in on the car industry, global automakers are being forced to dramatically rethink what it means to build a vehicle for the first time in a century. Aspects of this race evoke several pivotal moments in technological history: the construction of railroads, the dawn of electric light, the birth of the automobile, the beginning of aviation. There's no precedent for what engineers are trying to build now, and no single blueprint for how to build it.

Self-driving cars promise to create a new kind of leisure, offering passengers additional time for reading books, writing email, knitting, practicing an instrument, cracking open a beer, taking a catnap, and any number of other diversions. Peope who are unable to drive themselves could experience a new kind of independence. And self-driving cars could re-contextualize land-use on massive scales. In this imagined mobility utopia, drone trucks would haul packages across the country and no human would have to circle a city block in search of a parking spot.

If self-driving vehicles deliver on their promises, they will save millions of lives over the course of a few decades, destroy and create entire industries, and fundamentally change the human relationship with space and time. All of which is why some of the planet's most valuable companies are pouring billions of dollars into the effort to build driverless cars.

After automation puts everyone out of work, will anyone need to drive anywhere anymore?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:28PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:28PM (#277312)

    As long as you can still go where you wish when you wish

    The same class of male version of cat lady who become OSHA inspectors will become the folks in charge of which automated cars are permitted to go where and when. The concept of an OSHA inspector safety nazi looking at "cars on a street" without guarding and lockouts and gates is kinda funny. The cost of implementing auto driving cars might be the elimination of all architecture and replacement of everything with a weird cross between a subway and space station, its just that this subway doesn't use rails, it uses tires.

    I suppose the 1/2 of the population with jobs can't have one because the boss isn't going to tolerate a guy who won't come into work because his car said it was too rainy, but the guy who has an old fashioned car can just drive in.

    This is before we get into redlining and no-drive-zones. "someone" says ethnic group X isn't allowed in neighborhood Y in certain hours, due to crime or civil disorder, I guess you're stranded.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:43PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:43PM (#277350) Homepage Journal

    Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:34AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:34AM (#277421) Journal

      Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.

      The problem here is that he is right. Once someone has the power to tell your car where to go, they will use it. First, it'll be used relatively sensibly, say for pulling over criminals on the run. Later, it'll be profoundly stupid or abusive, such as pulling everyone on the freeway through Sunflowerville's main street for the annual Sunflower Festival or preventing all self-driving buses from getting within 500 miles of Washington, DC during the course of the Million Geek March.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:43AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:43AM (#277487) Homepage Journal

        Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.

        The problem here is that he is right. Once someone has the power to tell your car where to go, they will use it. First, it'll be used relatively sensibly, say for pulling over criminals on the run. Later, it'll be profoundly stupid or abusive, such as pulling everyone on the freeway through Sunflowerville's main street for the annual Sunflower Festival or preventing all self-driving buses from getting within 500 miles of Washington, DC during the course of the Million Geek March.

        This assumes that there is centralized control of *every* car. It also assumes that the government in in possession of said centralized system. Both of those assumptions are highly speculative and, with even a little thought to the potential viability of such a system, highly unlikely.

        It's catastrophizing [psychcentral.com] at its best (worst?).

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:02AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:02AM (#277494) Journal

          This assumes that there is centralized control of *every* car.

          Sounds a reasonable assumption to me.

          It also assumes that the government in in possession of said centralized system.

          Same.

          Both of those assumptions are highly speculative and, with even a little thought to the potential viability of such a system, highly unlikely.

          Highly speculative why? Aside from the obvious, that any control system tried by government will probably be centralized, we also have the huge factor that this unloads a large liability off the hands of the manufacturers of self-driving cars.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:23AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:23AM (#277511) Homepage Journal

            Highly speculative why? Aside from the obvious, that any control system tried by government will probably be centralized, we also have the huge factor that this unloads a large liability off the hands of the manufacturers of self-driving cars.

            Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model. What's more, even if (and that's a big if) and when we have car-to-car communications for automated driving, that will be distributed as well (on an autodetect/bluetooth-like basis).

            AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.

            Your paranoid fantasies do not approximate reality, friend. I urge you to liberally apply Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] and realize that no one is out to get you. The government doesn't want to take your guns or your cars or your right to travel to the tittie bar or the amusement park, or anywhere else you want to go. Well, unless you want to go to a terrist training camp -- but if you want to go to one of those, they are out to get you.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:13AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:13AM (#277629) Journal

              Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model.

              Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?

              AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.

              Every plane flies through a region of centralized air traffic control when it takes off and lands. All airports are under centralized control. I think we'll see the same thing on the busiest stretches of highway.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:37AM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:37AM (#277640) Homepage Journal

                Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model.

                Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?

                Presumably the car owner -- or at least his or her insurance company.

                Of which "government" do you speak? and how would such an entity give orders to an automated driver -- presumably speed limit information broadcast from the speed limit signs, I guess. Maybe even real-time traffic updates to route around accidents and high volume. Anything more is way beyond current technology.

                You seem to be under quite a few misapprehensions about this suite of technologies. I'd suggest becoming more familiar with the topic before accusing the evil gub'mint about how they will misuse the non-existent technology you're blathering on about.

                I get it. I really do. Gub'mint bad. Bad gub'mint! Where's my rolled up newspaper?

                AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.

                Every plane flies through a region of centralized air traffic control when it takes off and lands. All airports are under centralized control. I think we'll see the same thing on the busiest stretches of highway.

                My apologies. I should have been clearer -- I mean fully automated centralized air traffic control, without human controllers.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:40PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:40PM (#277663) Journal

                  Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?

                  Presumably the car owner -- or at least his or her insurance company.

                  It was a rhetorical question. The car manufacturer and the managers of the network will bear liability, unless a government steps in the way. There's no way the driver or their insurance company will be liable for software glitches in the control system or miscommunications between vehicles.

                  Of which "government" do you speak? and how would such an entity give orders to an automated driver -- presumably speed limit information broadcast from the speed limit signs, I guess. Maybe even real-time traffic updates to route around accidents and high volume. Anything more is way beyond current technology.

                  Any scale of government from local up to global. And given your later discussion of misapprehensions, I think you're way out of touch with what's available using current technology. For example, one could enable large scale control just by pushing commands from satellite. It wouldn't need any more hardware than GPS uses (which is a similar satellite-based technology).

                  Further, we aren't close to extinction of the human driver now. When we are, we'll have more advanced communication and control systems too.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:01PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:01PM (#277970) Journal
          As supporting evidence, we have this [medium.com]:

          the CA DMV proposed a draft rule that would require a self-driving car to have a licensed driver at all times

          This substantially defeats the point of the self-driving car. But that's an example of the top-down control from government I was speaking of.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @05:20PM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 18 2015, @05:20PM (#278269) Homepage Journal

            As supporting evidence, we have this:

            the CA DMV proposed a draft rule that would require a self-driving car to have a licensed driver at all times

            This substantially defeats the point of the self-driving car. But that's an example of the top-down control from government I was speaking of.

            Did you consider actually looking at [ca.gov] the draft regulation you've pilloried?

            I know. Reading the actual regulations and understanding them is far too much work when you can find someone with a strong economic interest who blogs exactly what you want to hear.

            Congratulations! Someone else agrees with you. Context doesn't matter, nor do facts. Someone agrees with you! Woo-hoo!

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 18 2015, @10:26PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 18 2015, @10:26PM (#278379) Journal
              Well, let's do that then:

              Autonomous vehicle operators must be a licensed driver who possesses an autonomous vehicle operator certificate issued by the DMV. The operator will be responsible for monitoring the safe operation of the vehicle at all times, and must be capable of taking over immediate control in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency. In addition, operators will be responsible for all traffic violations that occur while operating the autonomous vehicle. These operator requirements create the safeguard of a driver who is capable of taking control of the vehicle when needed.

              A consumer education plan and behind the wheel training program developed by the manufacturer will provide operators with an understanding of how the autonomous vehicle technology is to be engaged, used, monitored, and disengaged.

              The draft regulations exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver. Given the potential risks associated with deployment of such a new technology, DMV believes that manufacturers need to obtain more experience in testing driverless vehicles on public roads prior to making this technology available to the general public. The department will address the unique safety, performance, and equipment requirements associated with fully autonomous vehicles without the presence of a driver in subsequent regulatory packages.

              No, I'm not seeing your concern. All self-driving vehicles are required to have a driver, unless the California DMV decides to anoint the vehicle as self-driving. The requirement is still there.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @11:02PM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 18 2015, @11:02PM (#278390) Homepage Journal

                Autonomous vehicle operators must be a licensed driver who possesses an autonomous vehicle operator certificate issued by the DMV. The operator will be responsible for monitoring the safe operation of the vehicle at all times, and must be capable of taking over immediate control in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency. In addition, operators will be responsible for all traffic violations that occur while operating the autonomous vehicle. These operator requirements create the safeguard of a driver who is capable of taking control of the vehicle when needed.

                A consumer education plan and behind the wheel training program developed by the manufacturer will provide operators with an understanding of how the autonomous vehicle technology is to be engaged, used, monitored, and disengaged.

                The draft regulations exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver. Given the potential risks associated with deployment of such a new technology, DMV believes that manufacturers need to obtain more experience in testing driverless vehicles on public roads prior to making this technology available to the general public. The department will address the unique safety, performance, and equipment requirements associated with fully autonomous vehicles without the presence of a driver in subsequent regulatory packages.

                No, I'm not seeing your concern. All self-driving vehicles are required to have a driver, unless the California DMV decides to anoint the vehicle as self-driving. The requirement is still there.

                I don't live in California, but I do visit on occasion. When I do, I certainly don't want to be surrounded by autonomous vehicles, a suite of technologies which is largely unproven, without a driver available to take over, unless and until we have sufficient experience with it.

                Given the lack of data available, requiring a licensed driver is, at this time, an excellent idea. The proposed regulations also "...exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver." Another excellent idea.

                Please explain how this is some sort of government grab for control of autonomous vehicles? Please explain how these regulations are a *bad* thing? Yeah. I know. Gub'mint bad. Bad Gub'mint!

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @05:37AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 19 2015, @05:37AM (#278486) Journal

                  When I do, I certainly don't want to be surrounded by autonomous vehicles

                  Not going to happen this decade. Makes you wonder what the point of the regulation is, right?