California gives green light to self-driving car tests

March 10, 2017
In this May 13, 2015, file photo, Google's new self-driving prototype car is introduced at the Google campus in Mountain View, Calif. Cars with no steering wheel, no pedals and nobody at all inside could be driving themselves on California roads by the end of 2017, under proposed new rules that would give a powerful boost to the technology from the nation's most populous state. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File)

The US state of California is easing its rules for autonomous car testing, by allowing testing of vehicles in which there is no human driver.

The new rules have yet to be submitted for public consultation, with a final version expected by the end of the year, according to its Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

"These rules expand our existing autonomous vehicle testing program to include testing vehicles where no driver is present," said DMV Director Jean Shiomoto.

"This is the next step in eventually allowing driverless autonomous vehicles on California roadways."

California took some heat earlier for seeking to stop testing of fully autonomous cars—those in which a human is not physically on board.

Rules proposed at the end of 2015 required that a person with a permit always be present in the vehicle, and be able to regain control of it. And that person would be held responsible for traffic offenses or accidents.

The Federal Road Safety Agency NHTSA, however, differed a few months later saying that a computer system—based on the artificial intelligence of autonomous cars—could be considered their "driver."

California, and Silicon Valley in particular, is a key location for automakers and tech startups working on driverless cars. The change should help keep that the case.

The DMV says it las permitted 27 manufacturers to test self-driving cars.

This May 18, 2016, file photo shows a Google self-driving car on display at Google's I/O conference in Mountain View, Calif. Cars with no steering wheel, no pedals and nobody at all inside could be driving themselves on California roads by the end of 2017, under proposed new rules that would give a powerful boost to the technology from the nation's most populous state. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)

Explore further: Self-driving car prototypes need less human help, data show

Related Stories

Self-driving car prototypes need less human help, data show

February 1, 2017

Self-driving car prototypes appear to be getting better at negotiating California streets and highways without a human backup driver intervening, according to data made public Wednesday by California transportation regulators.

Recommended for you

Team breaks world record for fast, accurate AI training

November 7, 2018

Researchers at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) have partnered with a team from Tencent Machine Learning to create a new technique for training artificial intelligence (AI) machines faster than ever before while maintaining ...

73 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
Moravec's paradox: once all the facts are known, abstract reasoning requires very little computation - yet coming up with the facts from raw sensory data takes truly enormous computational resources.

Point is case. To have a real-time analog of a human visual cortex would require about 100 trillion transistors in 20,000 of the new neuromorphic chips from IBM. The hardware in the present self-driving vehicles is a couple laptops worth: a common GPU has about 1 billion transistors - and they're running the stuff as software emulation which is hundreds of times slower, so the AI in those self-driving vehicles in terms of raw information processing ability is about ten million times dumber than a human being - optimistically speaking.

The cars simply don't have the brains to see what we see when we look out through the windshield, so all the effort with the software has been on making shortcuts to find out what the car -has- to be able to see to drive safely.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2017
And frankly, I don't think they have what it takes. The argument is that the computer is never tired, never distracted, and never drunk, but that point is entirely moot when the AI is entirely too dumb to comprehend what's going on around it.

Wait another ten years and try again.

You have to remember that people are actually very good drivers. The AI has a very high standard to adhere to - 1.26 deaths per 100 million miles. If the AI makes one fatal mistake per million miles, it's going to kill 80 times more people.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2017

"Them things will just scare the horses!"
Eikka
3 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2017
"Them things will just scare the horses!"


Them corporations that are trying to sell you a car on the point that it drives itself, are going to kill people because the product isn't nearly as good as it should be.

It's going to take hundreds of people killed before there's enough statistical evidence to say for certain that it wasn't good enough, and by that time the corporations will have changed the software and the cars to argue that the new ones are better, and so-on.

That's why more research and more understanding is needed about brains and intelligence to come up with a metric of merit to prove that the car is intelligent enough to drive. Currently the AI ability to percieve objects is just terrible - even state of the art visual recognition algorithms are only 80% accurate in identifying objects they've been trained to detect out of video feeds, and that's no good if your car simply "forgets" that e.g. a nearby cyclist is a cyclist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2017
"Google's Self-Driving Car Program Odometer Reaches 2 Million Miles... Alphabet Inc.'s car program had nearly 60 self-driving vehicles on roads in four states in August"

How come eikka is so oblivious to the obvious? Youre kind of pissing in the wind you know? AI is already better than the average human.
Currently the AI ability to percieve objects is just terrible
-Maybe youre not clear what perception regarding AI cars needs to be. Yeah maybe thats it.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2017
another conundrum , why not run the test without passengers ? since the whole idea is to turn humans into veggies without input besides picking a destination what would be the difference ? and the risk would only be to other drivers, SOUNDS LIKE FUN !
xponen
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2017
@Eikka
What if they mitigate the risk? like limiting the speed, or emitting sound from the car. This can expand the time available for AI to identify & plan, and reduce crash severity, and inform people of the car.

The engineers who made the AI have ways to improve the system. The system is not stagnant or reaching any limit. The rate of "intervene" (aka: anomalous behaviour) for Google's Waymo's AI seem to be reducing.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2017
"why not run the test without passengers ? "
---------------------------------

Yup, carry goods. Delivery vehicles.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Mar 10, 2017
should work in the 'moonbeam' state
PhysicsMatter
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2017
I wonder from where are coming such optimistic conclusions. No, there will be no mass AV traffic anytime soon.

Well, this whole hoopla and hype about AVs in our garages soon turned out to be just that, a Wall Street / Silicon Valley hype, a stock pumping scheme , now experts say may be by 2035 we will see any reliable AVs on specifically designed roads, possible on AV only lanes etc.,And Uber ridiculous utterances about AVs with a driver who does not drive will not change that fact.
And hence there will be no elimination of steering wheel and pedals is even planed except for close circuit roads equipped with expensive infrastructure.
Finally, AV fanatics started seeing AVs [trucks and cars] not as a panacea for all transportation problems by a niche industry for disabled and in controlled urban environment as a rental fleet.
More on that, pros and cons of AV ca found here:
https://sostratus...ture-av/
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2017
Nobody promised you an automatic vehicle in your driveway soon, . . . not even a few, let alone market penetration.
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
You have to remember that people are actually very good drivers. The AI has a very high standard to adhere to - 1.26 deaths per 100 million miles. If the AI makes one fatal mistake per million miles, it's going to kill 80 times more people.

That's tight. There was a couple of weeks ago an article around here on computer errors caused by cosmic radiation. At ground level it was something like 1 error/month. I hope they plan some redundancy on those cars.
Gigel
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
@Eikka
What if they mitigate the risk? like limiting the speed, or emitting sound from the car. This can expand the time available for AI to identify & plan, and reduce crash severity, and inform people of the car.

Or put them on rails. That would make them very safe.
Gigel
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
I think that before AI is allowed to drive, it should prove it's capable of crossing a street safely.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
"Google's Self-Driving Car Program Odometer Reaches 2 Million Miles... Alphabet Inc.'s car program had nearly 60 self-driving vehicles on roads in four states in August"

How come eikka is so oblivious to the obvious? Youre kind of pissing in the wind you know? AI is already better than the average human.


That just isn't enough miles to prove that they're safe. 1.26 in 100 million miles is the national average fatality rate, which makes the odds just 1.26% in a million miles. GIven the small odds, it's entirely probable that even a very bad self-driving AI manages to make it to 2 million miles without a major accident.

Especially considering that the Google cars are driving only on particular set routes because they can't set a wheel outside of what isn't pre-mapped for them, only in good weather, and have humans in them to catch when they fail. They still have their training wheels on, so the 2 million miles argument is totally meaningless.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
AI is already better than the average human.


You'd have more of an argument with Tesla's AI because they claim more than 200 million miles with the autopilot, last time I checked.

But they already have had one fatality and another near-fatal accident, and plenty of youtube videos showing their vehicles swerving like drunken idiots on the wrong lanes, and the German court injunction that said they shouldn't market the thing as an autopilot because it just isn't good enough.

No. The AI is not better than people. That's a complete myth.

The thing is, the law of large numbers in statistics starts to kick in when you have around 32 random samples, that is, about 32 people have to die before we can tell how many miles the cars can go before killing someone. If the cars are only as good as the average driver, then that requires 2.5 billion miles.

However, as the manufacturer keeps changing the software, they can always argue some of the deaths don't count.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
@Eikka
What if they mitigate the risk? like limiting the speed, or emitting sound from the car. This can expand the time available for AI to identify & plan, and reduce crash severity, and inform people of the car.


They already are. Google cars drive only routes specifically mapped for them, and Tesla's autopilot gives up and stops the car as soon as it becomes confused - or at least it should. There's no way to program self-doubt in such a simple AI, so it simply doesn't know when it's out of its depth.

The engineers who made the AI have ways to improve the system. The system is not stagnant or reaching any limit. The rate of "intervene" (aka: anomalous behaviour) for Google's Waymo's AI seem to be reducing.


That's not the point. They're starting from "unsafe" and gradually improving it towards good enough, but the marketing and the hype is the opposite: the claim is that it's already safer - and that's simply a lie.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
-Maybe youre not clear what perception regarding AI cars needs to be. Yeah maybe thats it.


That is the question: what is the minimum intelligence needed to drive?

Currently the self-driving cars are just blind idiots. If a person is standing up, the algorithm identifies it as a person about 80% of the time/cases. If the person happens to fall down on the ground, the algorithm will have great trouble telling the difference to a reflecting puddle of water. Can you drive it over or not? That's why the cars use radars/lidars because they at least identify there's something in the way no matter what it is.

Furthermore, the system doesn't remember what it just saw because there's too many false positives (identifying something that isn't there) so it would start hallucinating objects. If a cyclist dissapears behind a billboard, it never even existed as far as the car is concerned.

That is clearly not good enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017
just blind idiots. If a person is standing up, the algorithm identifies it as a person about 80% of the time/cases. If the person happens to fall down on the ground, the algorithm will have great trouble telling the difference to a reflecting puddle of water. Can you drive it over or not?
AI cars haven't had these problems after 2M+ miles. Humans have these problems a lot.
That's why the cars use radars/lidars because they at least identify there's something in the way no matter what it is
-while humans have no redundent senses.
so it would start hallucinating objects
Again wheres your evidence that this sort of thing is actually happening?
That's not the point
Sure it is. A rational improvement system based on lessons learned. Same as tech is improved to compensate for incompetent humans now.
They're starting from "unsafe" and gradually improving it
No theyre starting with 60 vehicles and over 2M miles with only a few accidents.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2017
However, as the manufacturer keeps changing the software, they can always argue some of the deaths don't count
-So let me get this straight. You dont think any tech should be fielded until it is guaranteed 100% safe. When has this EVER happened?

And further youre saying that if accidents do occur then developers should be considered crass and inhuman monsters. Argumentum ad absurdum.

The tech is already on the streets and even at this very early stage it has proven to be far safer than anybody imagined. And it is constantly improving with no apparent critical flaws to impede it.

Your theories do not match reality.
dogbert
not rated yet Mar 11, 2017
Neither the article nor the commentary so far has mentioned a very serious problem with automated vehicles -- the ability to hack the software and the tendency of any complex software system to crash over time. How often do you have to shut down and restart your computer or your smart phone? If my computer hangs up or my smart phone, no one gets injured and no one dies. If my smart car fails in action, extensive damage and death is possible.

Autonomous cars have to maintain constant contact with GPS and cell towers for positioning data. There are plans for such vehicles to communicate constantly with each other and with the roadways. All of this communication creates vulnerabilities. Suppose a terrorist wants to drive an SUV into a crowded parade but rather than risk his own life, he simply hijacks your vehicle and drives it remotely into the crowd?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
I think dogbert would be much happier driving plowhorses in lancaster county.
https://youtu.be/umS3XM3xAPk

Now this is bizarre:
he simply hijacks your vehicle and drives it remotely into the crowd?
-They are not rc toys with remote controllers. Whered you get this idea?
dogbert
5 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2017
TheGhostofOtto1923,
-They are not rc toys with remote controllers. Whered you get this idea?


Any software system can be hijacked.

Missile systems are hardened against electromagnet and hacking attacks, but even they are not invulnerable. The autonomous vehicles on the roads today are not hardened against attack.

Software that can drive a car autonomously to a set destination can be hijacked to drive that car to a different destination.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2017
I guess some folk are unaware of the hacking of the Jeeps.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2017
Software that can drive a car autonomously to a set destination can be hijacked to drive that car to a different destination
How do you know that? For that matter currently it is far easier to steal a step ven and drive it into a crowd of people. AI is going to make hijacking a lot harder, not easier.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2017
Some folk are ignorant of recent activity with the hacking of automobiles. Why do they pretend to be experts?
dogbert
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
TheGhostofOtto1923,
it is far easier to steal a step ven and drive it into a crowd of people.

Of course it is. But terrorists are not fond of dying and would prefer to direct your car with you in it to do the destruction.

It has been demonstrated with cars which are not autonomous that they can be hacked and the driving mechanisms manipulated remotely. Autonomous cars are just as vulnerable as regular cars. And actually, autonomous cars are more vulnerable. They can be diverted without even hacking the car by spoofing GPS and cell towers -- technology which is available now.
adam_russell_9615
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
If there is nobody in the vehicle and it dings another car and takes off, who is liable for that hit and run?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2017
Of course it is. But terrorists are not fond of dying
OF COURSE they are. Instant heaven and 72 virgins.
And actually, autonomous cars are more vulnerable
No theyre not. More sophisticated software and redundant systems and soon, interconnectivity. Youre just guessing.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
Truly driverless as opposed to cars with drivers that are mentally absent. No shortage of the latter on the roads these days.
rrrander
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2017
Does anyone really care if California loons are used as guinea pigs for the better part of the United States? They use animals in medical experiments remember. A friend's GPS the other day directed him to drive into a brick wall. They use GPS on these cars, don't they?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2017

Sounds like your friend does not know how to follow directions.
Osiris1
not rated yet Mar 12, 2017
I can not WAIT for one of those 'driverless cars' to sidle up the curb beside me at an outdoor restaurant and open its' speaker and beg me for money for gas......or for ten bucks so its idiot passenger can buy a bag of crack. Ooooops, probably a 'prim and proper' driverless car will have sniffers to detect 'recreational drugs....DOPE' and promptly call 911, lock the doors so the owner can NOT get out, and drive to the nearest police station and yell 'rape' in a loud voice.
PhysicsMatter
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
Wikileaks just confirmed that CIA has already tools to hack existing car computers to do guess what? Assassinations by directing vehicle into walls or over bridge barriers etc.,
Shocked?
Too early. The best thing is that CIA "lost" the car assassination software (and other software) which happens to be acquired by dark hackers and they are selling it like hot cakes on Dark Web.
Now be shocked.

We all must buy carburated 1966 Ford Mustang while they are available.
Anyone wants AI car? Hacked before it will be sent dealerships.
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017
So cute, you can not buy a gun in California, nor are you allowed to defend yourself in your own home from ravenous thugs swarming all over +55 housing developements. BUT....you CAN go buy some unpredictable 'headless horseman' of a 'driverless car' that could easily plow into crowds of people at bus stations after some ISIS hacker takes it over.... You see, ALL driverless cars require constant internet connection, and that is raw meat for muslime terrorist hackers. Before some fatuous person says it is not possible. I have over 40 years experience with computers and know that programming is like a game of checkers....for every move there is a counter...somewhere.
Edenlegaia
3 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2017

Sounds like your friend does not know how to follow directions.


Either you decided to troll on this one or never used a GPS long enough to see it indirectly wishing you an immediate death with additional deaths in the process. Even updated, those things needs you to use your intuition when it wants you to cross a potatoes farm or a barrier because "Screw you that's the road follow it blip blip".
And damn, you feel so trusty when using them at first....before realizing it's actually just a good talking map, but definitely not a good pal with a sense of direction as awful, if not worse, than yours.
xponen
not rated yet Mar 12, 2017
Just embrace self-driving car.

I bet the impoverished group of city dweller will welcome it. This "truly driverless cars" is meant to work like taxi, but unlike taxi it's going to work for less money & around the clock. It will reduce commute cost, it reduce the need to own a vehicle, thus improving the environment and economy both at same time.
xponen
not rated yet Mar 12, 2017
To improve economy & fix poverty you must reduce transaction cost & increase efficiency. Self driving car is one branch of things you can implement to reduce commute transaction cost. It's part of the future if you view it this way, so it must be embraced & exploited.

No use to fight the inevitable, you can state the issues and let people fix it, but you can't make people stop doing self-driving car.
dogbert
not rated yet Mar 12, 2017
xponen,
No use to fight the inevitable, you can state the issues and let people fix it, but you can't make people stop doing self-driving car.


Of course you can. Some large companies want autonomous vehicles badly, but their desires are not inevitable. You can't effectively sell what people don't want and most people do not want this technology.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
You see, ALL driverless cars require constant internet connection, and that is raw meat for muslime terrorist hackers
-And in the other thread you thought the bust of rameses ii was an alien. So much for your constant sanity connection.
most people do not want this technology
"This Is What Most People Really Think of Self-Driving Cars
Michal Addady, Fortune, Jun 30, 2016
"The study found that nearly three-quarters of respondents support fully autonomous vehicles, while an impressive 90% would want a partially self-driving car that they could take control of when necessary, Bloomberg reports."

-Now, dog, the question is, are you going to accept this or are you going to keep on pretending that what you want is what everybody would naturally want?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
AI cars are in keeping with bill gates initiative to begin collecting taxes directly from machines. Private ownership is diminishing:

"More than one out of every four new vehicles were rented, rather than bought, by American consumers — and the percentage choosing a lease has risen sharply over just the last two years. It is now roughly 27 percent, up from 22 percent in 2012, according to Edmunds."

-creating the possibility that these vehicles can begin to earn a salary and pay taxes themselves.
dogbert
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
Ghosty,
You can get any answers you want from surveys. You doubtless know this. You can also make many people think they want something by misinforming them what that means. As they begin to understand the implications of such choices, they come to their senses.

The dystopia of a world where robots take over almost all the jobs and people are dependent on government hand outs has been presented as a utopia. As people see that such a world is a world without hope and without purpose, they will reject it.

Autonomous vehicles is one facet of such a dystopia and it will be rejected.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
That just isn't enough miles to prove that they're safe
-according to you. According to designers, manufacturers, legislators, and especially insurance companies, it is.

Its difficult to believe that all those 1000s of people who spent millions of man-hours addressing the problem, missed something that you just happened to discover in your leisure time.
As people see that such a world is a world without hope and without purpose, they will reject it.

Autonomous vehicles is one facet of such a dystopia and it will be rejected
Well look at it this way - if youre on perpetual welfare youll have all the time in the world to do missionary work in ethiopia where the people will be more than happy to get our obsolete vehicles.

But they will be resentful that they have to drive them themselves and you will still be seen as a crusader and an ugly american.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2017
Yeah I think AI is gods will. It will give people much more time to fight over religion, politics, and repro rights which as we know makes him very happy.
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2017
Somebody commented on a world where machines do all the work. Such a world will require that ..people..., being now ...useless... would all be given a salary enough to warehouse them. Forget ownership of houses for by that time only the super rich will have them. At some point when machine AI morphs into self awareness, and when machines are given sufficient administrative responsibilities, they will realize that human life is a terrific and useless expense, and then the machine police will round us all up and put us down like unwanted pets.
Best thing is to outlaw those autocars. They will be expensive driverless taxis and probably never sold; leased at best, they will be profit centers for monopoly corporations...probably Google. The appearance gives that away. Cars are sold now for attractiveness, power, and style. One car, an old Cadillac, looked like it had boobs. In a free market, no one would seek to buy one. As it is they are deathtraps with bad GPS.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2017
"Best thing is to outlaw those autocars."
---------------------------------

Too late.

And my daughter and other friends cannot drive and would love one to get around town or to work.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2017
-according to you. According to designers, manufacturers, legislators, and especially insurance companies, it is.


No. According to simple statistics. Those other guys can have any opinion they please, but they'd be wrong.

Its difficult to believe that all those 1000s of people who spent millions of man-hours addressing the problem, missed something that you just happened to discover in your leisure time.


All I'm saying is that they don't have enough evidence to declare them safe. Anyone can discover this in their leisure time, given that they have a basic understanding of statistics:

1.26 people dead per 100 million miles is one person dead every 80 million miles, or 1 in 80 million odds. Suppose then that the autonomous car is 10 times worse a driver, giving it a P = 1/8 = 0.125

What is the probability then, that such a car would drive 2 million miles without a deadly accident? It's (1 - P)^2 = 0.76 = 76%

The google car can be crap and still do it.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 16, 2017
Again wheres your evidence that this sort of thing is actually happening?


It isn't happening, because the cars don't even try to remember what they saw.

The accuracy of modern visual recognition algorithms is about 80% as I already mentioned. They mis-identify or fail to identify objects about 20% of the time, and if they remembered that false identification, they'd be hallucinating.

The lower the accuracy, the more time it takes for the machine to change its mind about something because it doesn't know if the new information is correct or not, so the slower it would react when e.g. a person steps out of a shadow and becomes clearly identifiable.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
" Suppose then that the autonomous car is 10 times worse a driver, "
----------------------------------------

Suppose then, you are wrong.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2017
Suppose then, you are wrong.


Prove it.

The google car can be 23 times worse a driver than the average person, and still have a 50% chance of making it to 2 million miles without killing anybody. This probability is increased by the fac that Google only tests them on relatively safe roads and mostly low speeds. The cars can only drive on certain programmed routes - outside of that the program is completely, utterly helpless.

The google cars have been involved in 17 minor crashes in 2 million miles - which is twice the rate of human drivers. Google argues that these crashes are not their fault on a legal technicality, but the cars are still crashing more than real human drivers. They're obviously worse at driving.

Should they be allowed on all roads, if that were even possible, they'd start killing people by the hundreds.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2017
No, you have to prove it, you made the assertion.

Why would you assume the cars they use today in trials are going to be the ones you buy?

Your negativism takes you to strange places.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2017
No. According to simple statistics. Those other guys can have any opinion they please, but they'd be wrong
-And what makes YOU think that youre privy to statistics that all those experts arent?
It isn't happening, because the cars don't even try to remember what they saw.

The accuracy of modern visual recognition algorithms is about 80% as I already mentioned. They mis-identify or fail to identify objects about 20% of the time, and if they remembered that false identification, they'd be hallucinating
Youre guessing at all of this. You have no idea what percentage they fail to recognize, how mis-identification affects their behavior, or what they are able to anticipate.

For instance I provided a ref in a previous thread that indicated how they are being programmed to anticipate human behavior. At an intersection they will make a few false starts because they know people may try to cross in front of them.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2017
Such a world will require that ..people..., being now ...useless... would all be given a salary

In a world where bots do all the work...what exactly would be the point of money?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2017
We anticipate behavior in others because we have experience with past encounters. When we encounter behavior we are unfamiliar with, we proceed with caution.

The trouble with humans is, we often fail to react cautiously. Machines can be taught to anticipate all the expected behaviors that we ourselves are familiar with, and they will NEVER FAIL to consider them all. And they will NEVER FAIL to exercise caution when they encounter something they dont recognize.

So they already have the majority of human drivers beat with their unwavering attention and faultless memories.

And because of these qualities, along with their ability to record their behavior, they can be systematically improved. The only way to engage this process is to get them out into the world and have them interact. Much like your 16yo daughter with her learners permit.

Insurance companies WANT AI cars. What makes you think they would be taking the kind of risks now that would bankrupt them?
snoosebaum
not rated yet Mar 17, 2017
here is what a 'fully automated' rail transit system looks like , in other words not even something as limited as a rail system is fully robotic.

http://www.alamy....839.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
No, you have to prove it, you made the assertion.
if that aint hypocrisy ...

@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam

you have YET to prove 99.9% of all your comments... but you challenge someone else to "prove" something because you don't like what is being said?

(and yes - you can check the math on that because i just ran the numbers again to be sure)

per your own request to clean up the site...
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2017
"you have YET to prove 99.9% of all your comments..."
------------------------------------

Yeah, I know,. . . and your wires were tapped, . . . and you got many more votes than Hillary.

Want to dispute the allegation the cars we are testing now will not be the same cars they will sell us? Many things will be changed by the time they get commercialized.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Yeah, I know
if you know that you post lies and that 99.9% of all your comments can't be proven, why do you post them?

to look like a complete idiot??

when you say
We used to have the best infrastructure and schools, with free education up to PhD, if dsired
( https://phys.org/...isa.html ) it can be proven false by a 2 second search - and you think that is OK?

and when you're challenged to "prove it" about *anything*, like you posted above to someone else, you get ugly and stupider
I just want to correct their character assassination, .. and provide perhaps some proper punitive response, . . .

I contacted a lawyer, and am waiting for some action.
http://phys.org/n...ens.html

so per your request...
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
We have the highest percentage of EV anywhere in California, and soon you will have them, too. I mean real ones, legal for roads, not someone's toy or experiment.

You will have the choice of re-structured vehicles such as the e-Golf, or newly designed one, hobbled by no legacy, such as the Tesla, and in-betweeners such as the Chevy Bolt.

When it starts happening, folk will start to notice, and realize the societal implications finally. The need for people to deal with the complex ICE, even the folk who change your oil and those who make the filters, and the other stuff required for that complicated engine, will go away for the most part.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
and soon you will have them, too
not likely -

no EV has the towing capacity or ability to do farm work and the typical commute outside of the cities is out of range for the EV, making an EV the worst possible choice... then there is the mountainous terrain and lack of charging stations outside of the cities which making the charging process a real challenge

if the EV is made with a typical range of an ICE with 300-400 mile range on a charge it may be a good second vehicle for non-rural travel, but that only assumes that it works in all the same terrain that an ICE works in, and considering the lack of 4WD EV's, that limits the buyers around this state to the cities again

the hybrid has a solid "soccer mom" place here, even without the 4WD's, but not the EV right now simply out of their limitations

so no, they're not going to be all over this state any time soon

and we already discussed the maintenance issue, you liar
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
Outgrow your hate. Got over it.

"so no, they're not going to be all over this state any time soon"

Most of America lives as I do, with roads and schools and civilization. We do not hide in the woods, . . or have to do so.

Last time I was in the hills of the California Gold Country, we saw at least five Teslas. Don't try to tell me they do not work in hills.

Our e-Golf does. Going downhill, it re-charges the battery.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Most of America lives as I do, with roads and schools and civilization
no, most of the people in american may live in cities, but i assure you, without the rural farmers and ranchers, life would be a might scarce
We do not hide in the woods, . . or have to do so
Outgrow your hate. Got over it.
most farmers don't have to hide in the woods either, you moron
Don't try to tell me they do not work in hills
so you're either illiterate or really stupid, because i didn't say they do not work, i said they were impractical

long curvy roads that rise with high grades and no direct routes means lots of power wasted on terrain limiting the distance/range

a REAL engineer would know that much because it's painfully obvious that fighting gravity means harder work for an engine... it's why even the ICE uses more fuel in said terrain

learn to f*cking read you sniping idiot illiterate pseudonymous troll

per your own request...
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
"learn to f*cking read you sniping idiot illiterate pseudonymous troll"
-------------------------------------------
(snicker)

Long curvy roads are just what I love in the e-Golf, which drives and rides like a sports car, with its low center of mass and available torque. Slowing down by charging the battery is my idea of good practice. IC engines are excess polluters when used for slowing down.

And in places where gas stations are miles apart, charging at home or other places is a real treat.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Slowing down by charging the battery is my idea of good practice
so what?
you cannot bring your EV back to full charge adding the required power back into it by "slowing down" or using your braking... that would mean your EV is now an overunity machine... you know, perpetual motion? that overunity/perpetual motion you tried to promote from zeph a few months back?

yeah... anyone semi-literate in science and past the 9th grade knows that one is impossible
And in places where gas stations are miles apart, charging at home or other places is a real treat
perhaps you should take your foot out of your mouth?
if your commute is the equivalent of 200 miles on flat ground, that means charging at home is out of the question because you either need a hybrid or a charging station at work, or in route to work

what part of that did you not understand?

and this isn't about handling in the mountains, you moron
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR cont'd
Long curvy roads are just what I love in the e-Golf
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? nothing
and it has nothing to do with this conversation either
IC engines are excess polluters when used for slowing down
so what?
the point and the conversation is about EV's in the mountains

you know, that whole "gravity works" thing?
working harder means limiting the range of the EV because it uses more energy to go the same linear distance...

by definition that means you use more power and it shortens the distance between charges, making the range shorter

to a real engineer with experience in the field, that would mean that an EV in the mountains, regardless of how fun it is to drive or how it handles, is not practical over the ICE because there are no charging stations, no means to insure range can be extended, and no way to insure you don't end up stranded out of power looking for AAA with a dead EV
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
We were visiting my buddy in Ahwahnee, and driving around Coulterville Bear Valley and Mariposa when we ran across the Teslas, one-by-one during the day. Those hills are real ones, not like the little ones in the "midwest".

Your statement of not being practical will be real news for those actually driving EVs in the Sierra foothills.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
We were visiting my buddy in Ahwahnee, and driving around Coulterville Bear Valley and Mariposa when we ran across the Teslas, one-by-one during the day. Those hills are real ones, not like the little ones in the "midwest"
1- that is irrelevant and not even the point

2- it doesn't matter where the mountain is. what matters is the grade, length of the drive and powere expenditure during the process

you're claiming that your machine is overunity - i will bet you a months pay that you wouldn't last a solid month using your EV in my mountains alone, but just to be sure, i will allow you to run the test in west North Carolina where they have charging stations and lots of PV farms, Near Franklin, so that you have an advantage you will not have here: somewhere to charge your EV

you keep distracting from the FACTS

where is your links? references?
prove me wrong with your masters degree and actual science, not stupid claims without validation
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
"you wouldn't last a solid month using your EV in my mountains alone"

I do not want to be in those depressing woods again. But the Teslas did really well in the Sierra foothills, which you folk would call mountains.

"you're claiming that your machine is overunity"

No, you are saying that, trying to find a way to criticize a good choice.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
But the Teslas did really well in the Sierra foothills, which you folk would call mountains
so... you can't provide facts, evidence or links and references, therefore your tactic is to assault the word "mountain" which has no clear definition except that it has large mass, steep sides, and that it's higher than a hill

gotcha

so that means, by definition, that you're engineering and experience BS is fake and you have no ability to actually provide a factual argument based in science for refute

thanks for validating that one
No, you are saying that, trying to find a way to criticize a good choice
no, you said as much above
moreover, i don't say an EV is not a good choice for suburban or urban dwellers

i said it's a bad choice for mountainous or rural lifestyles where they're impractical due to lack fo charging stations, range and the inability to actually provide the necessary work

IOW - you're lying again

per your request...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2017
"learn to f*cking read you sniping idiot illiterate pseudonymous troll"
-------------------------------------------
(snicker)
-Little georgie kamburoff gets off poking the neighbors pitbull through the fence. It's why hes here.

It makes him feel manly. It makes him feel young again.

But it makes him look pathetic. Why doesnt he care?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
Wow, two maladjusted snipers right here, . . for me. Neither can bear to take responsibility for their words or lack of accomplishments, so they can say anything their little adolescent hearts desire.

This thread regards California and autonomous EVs, neither of which you folk understand. I suggest you continue to leave it up to us to create your future for you.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
This thread regards California and autonomous EVs, neither of which you folk understand
and i just proved that we understand the topic far, far better than you do

and you live in CA ...

so that makes you the only maladjusted sniper here - as well as a blatant liar, cheat, fraud and many other proven factual statements
I suggest you continue to leave it up to us to create your future for you
1- my state has taught your state a whole lot about environment, riparian work, non-point source and water protection... so i won't hold my breath for that bullsh*t

2- i don't disparage your state or it's progress (except certain areas) - i do, however, dislike trolling idiot lying snipers who claim stolen valor like you do

per your own request, and because you can't actually validate your own claims like we do....

gkam
Mar 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.