Audi A8 will be the first Level 3 autonomous car on the road

[Ttaskmaster]

Personally, I think that by the time they sort all this stuff out, I'll be commuting to work in a flying car!!

[Ozaron]

I have heard stories of a long departed relative from many many years ago who was a milkman with a horse drawn cart. Supposedly the horse would take him home if he had been to the pub, as the horse knew the way. I sometimes wonder if we have really come such a long way when our ancestors trained neural nets by giving them a sugar cube, seems much easier than matrix differentials

Can confirm, I never got a chance to meet him but apparently I had a grandfather whose horse did just this. Seems modern technology makes available what we could have had a century ago at orders of magnitude higher cost. Personal preference on whether you prefer leather seats and music player or 4 legged friend with entertainment potential.

[wazzickle]

While I've no doubt some people are completely comfortable with autonomous cars i don't see them having mass appeal, i suspect most people will have difficulty giving up partial control for levels 2 and 3, both those levels require the human component to work together with the machine, something history has shown humans struggle with, both level 2 and 3 risk humans depending on the machine too much and not being willing or ready to take control in an emergency.

I think you're completely wrong. A lot of people view driving as a burden and an anxiety-inducing responsibility, so to have those things lifted will be of large appeal. Also, every technological change throughout history of this nature (things that take the workload off humans, making things safer and more efficient, like the loom, or cars, or the internet, etc etc) has been greeted by luddites coming up with reasons why it'll never catch on. Self-driving cars will be a huge revolution, even before fully autonomous cars. They will be much, much safer, free up productivity time, reduce pollution by a huge amount, encourage cyclists, and there are no practical reasons why they can't catch on in a wider sense - car ownership will become less popular or necessary and there will be a lot more ride-sharing going on a la uber, or, really, the original ride-sharing tech - buses. It'll be like sending a bitcoin transfer - you want to spend more, you get more privacy/speed/carrying capacity, you want to spend less, you'll have to slum it.

My prediction will be that by 2035/2040 human-driven cars will be a rarity on the roads, and I greatly look forward to that day. Driving will be for racing and maybe some more advanced jobs like farming and stuff like that.

[Corky34]

They will be much, much safer, free up productivity time, reduce pollution by a huge amount, encourage cyclists, and there are no practical reasons why they can't catch on in a wider sense

Those are some very optimistic predictions there, being safer has yet to be proven and as i already said history has shown humans struggle when it comes to sharing responsibility with computers, something level 2 & 3 require.

Saying it would free up productivity time also seems a strange claim to make as level 2 requires the driver to monitor the driving and be prepared to immediately intervene at any time if the automated system fails to respond properly, and level 3 means the driver must still be prepared to intervene within some limited time, neither of those levels mean you can abdicate the responsibility of driving, at most level 3 allows you to perform a task that you could stop doing within seconds and take back control of the car.

I'm not entirely sure why an autonomous car would reducing pollution and encouraging cyclists, firstly you seem to be conflating autonomous cars with electric cars, that arguably create more pollution than their petrol driven brethren, and secondly why you believe having potentially lethal weapons operated by not only fallible computers but also sharing the responsibility with fallible humans who, i assume, like yourself believe a computer can't make a mistake and will probably happily watch the car their sitting in drive headlong into someone because in their eyes computers don't make mistakes.

If you want to see how bad things can go wrong when humans share responsibility with computers you only have to look to the skies as there are many documented cases of crashes being caused by simple failures exacerbated by pilots who either put more trust in computers and/or faulty readouts from failed electronics than their own senses, and we're talking about trained professional with thousands of hours experience hear, not average Jo Blogs.

[wazzickle]

Those are some very optimistic predictions there, being safer has yet to be proven and as i already said history has shown humans struggle when it comes to sharing responsibility with computers, something level 2 & 3 require.

Saying it would free up productivity time also seems a strange claim to make as level 2 requires the driver to monitor the driving and be prepared to immediately intervene at any time if the automated system fails to respond properly, and level 3 means the driver must still be prepared to intervene within some limited time, neither of those levels mean you can abdicate the responsibility of driving, at most level 3 allows you to perform a task that you could stop doing within seconds and take back control of the car.

I'm not entirely sure why an autonomous car would reducing pollution and encouraging cyclists, firstly you seem to be conflating autonomous cars with electric cars, that arguably create more pollution than their petrol driven brethren, and secondly why you believe having potentially lethal weapons operated by not only fallible computers but also sharing the responsibility with fallible humans who, i assume, like yourself believe a computer can't make a mistake and will probably happily watch the car their sitting in drive headlong into someone because in their eyes computers don't make mistakes.

If you want to see how bad things can go wrong when humans share responsibility with computers you only have to look to the skies as there are many documented cases of crashes being caused by simple failures exacerbated by pilots who either put more trust in computers and/or faulty readouts from failed electronics than their own senses, and we're talking about trained professional with thousands of hours experience hear, not average Jo Blogs.

The being safer doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious. Humans have slower reactions and are much more susceptible to making mistakes.

Can you give examples of humans and AI struggling to share responsibility?

Level 2 and for the most part 3 won't free up any productivity time, but level 4 certainly will, when people are otherwise driving to work, and then they'll be able to do stuff.

Fully autonomous cars will reduce pollution by being much better at achieving optimal fuel efficiency, and reducing the number of vehicles on the road by virtue of increased car sharing and reduced car ownership. Fuel efficiency in terms of man-miles per gallon will increase because of that alone.

Of course computers make mistakes, but they make (far) fewer; they don't 'care' about people in the sense that people care about people, but given we can program them, we can program them to 'care' about people. The software will inevitably have bugs, but we're human, we're full of them.

Even if, at the beginning of the self-driving car revolution, we go through a bad patch of lots of fatalities (and they - the media, and so on - will probably not be comparing AI-driven cars to humans, they will be lamenting every single fatality as if it's the end of the world), as long as the right people are in charge, the self-driving revolution will power on through regardless and the world will be safer and cleaner as a result.

I'd say 'mark my words' but I doubt you will.

[Saracen]

.....
Of course computers make mistakes, but they make (far) fewer; they don't 'care' about people in the sense that people care about people, but given we can program them, we can program them to 'care' about people. The software will inevitably have bugs, but we're human, we're full of them.

....

I'd say 'mark my words' but I doubt you will.

I am minded to point out the Popeist-based epigram (Alexander Pope, not the Catholic head dude)


To err is human, but to really foul up requires a computer.


Just sayin'.

[Corky34]

The being safer doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious. Humans have slower reactions and are much more susceptible to making mistakes.

It does need to be proven and it's not obvious, just because you say it's so doesn't make it true.

Sure humans have slower reactions and are more susceptible to making mistakes, but computers don't exactly handle situations they've not been programed with very well, they can't make moral decisions like when faced with an inevitable crash and choosing between the car in front with an 80 year old driver or the school child walking on the pavement, and that's just one scenario.

Can you give examples of humans and AI struggling to share responsibility?

No because AI is nothing more than marketing speak and doesn't exist, it's nothing more than a computer program that attempts to mimic human cognitive functions.

I can however give you plenty of examples where computer programs and other automated system intended to work in tandem with humans have failed, either because the human overly depended on the supposedly infallible computer or because the computer misinterpreted the information is was being fed.

Level 2 and for the most part 3 won't free up any productivity time, but level 4 certainly will, when people are otherwise driving to work, and then they'll be able to do stuff.

Isn't that what i said, i have no problem with autonomous cars, what i have problems with is level 2 & 3 where the responsibility is shared, like i said that (IMO) is the equivalent of having a provisional license holder driver and you being in the passenger seat, sure they maybe a good provisional license holder but ultimately you're responsible for everything they do.

Fully autonomous cars will reduce pollution by being much better at achieving optimal fuel efficiency, and reducing the number of vehicles on the road by virtue of increased car sharing and reduced car ownership. Fuel efficiency in terms of man-miles per gallon will increase because of that alone.

I can certainly see autonomous cars achieving better fuel efficiency but I'm not sure how they'd reducing the number of vehicles on the road by virtue of increased car sharing and reduced car ownership, if anything autonomous cars will increase ownership and usage by virtue of making it simpler, historically the simpler you make something the more accessible and widely used it becomes.

Of course computers make mistakes, but they make (far) fewer; they don't 'care' about people in the sense that people care about people, but given we can program them, we can program them to 'care' about people. The software will inevitably have bugs, but we're human, we're full of them.

Even if, at the beginning of the self-driving car revolution, we go through a bad patch of lots of fatalities (and they - the media, and so on - will probably not be comparing AI-driven cars to humans, they will be lamenting every single fatality as if it's the end of the world), as long as the right people are in charge, the self-driving revolution will power on through regardless and the world will be safer and cleaner as a result.

I'd say 'mark my words' but I doubt you will.

Humans can deal with the unexpected, computers can't, humans can make moral decisions, computers can't, computers can be hacked, humans can't.

I'd say you're putting to much faith in the abilities of computers and don't understand humans.

[peterb]

Fully autonomous cars will (theoretically) make better use of existing road space by reducing the distance between vehicles. One of the main causes of conjestion is the delays in braking by drives, causing bunching and effectively causing waves of rarefaction in a traffic stream. If autonomous cars signal the car behind that it is braking, and so on, then all cars in a virtual convoy will brake (and accelerate) as one - effectively the vehicle will be connected via a virtual drawbar.

[Ttaskmaster]

Of course computers make mistakes, but they make (far) fewer; they don't 'care' about people in the sense that people care about people, but given we can program them, we can program them to 'care' about people.

But we cannot program them to predict and anticipate to the same level that we can, with all the variables factored in, including that 'Sixth Sense' that you get when you just know that BMW driver is going to suddenly pull across four lanes without indicating...

The software will inevitably have bugs, but we're human, we're full of them.

And who is writing the software?
Humans. Bug-ridden humans.

as long as the right people are in charge

Gotta stop you there - The 'right' people will never be in charge.
This whole technological revolution, in the car industry and all others, is being severely limited and only allowed to trickle through as and when someone can make money out of it.

[wazzickle]

Kinda a little shocked that this forum is populated by luddites

[Corky34]

Not as shocked as i am to find people on a tech enthusiast forum consider computers to be infallible.

[Ttaskmaster]

Kinda a little shocked that this forum is populated by luddites

We've already plenty of technology that removes all decision-making and even interaction from certain aspects of our lives.... There's a difference between fearing technological advancements that might improve our lives, and having little faith in technology that hasn't been anything but a headache.

[peterb]

We've already plenty of technology that removes all decision-making and even interaction from certain aspects of our lives.... There's a difference between fearing technological advancements that might improve our lives, and having little faith in technology that hasn't been anything but a headache.

Well, I suppose the most autonomous vehicle is a modern airline, which with the correct settings,will take itself off, flyitelf to its desination and land itself - with the pilot monitoring what is happening - which is boring for the pilot! IIRC (and I dont have a citation) the preferred mode of operation is for the pilot to fly, with the computer monitoring the pilot.

That said, automated landing systems can land an aircraft in conditions the pilot would find challenging (zero visibility for example).

But if you had a fully autonomous road vehicle, there wouldn't necessarily be any requirement (or capability) for manual intervention, leaving the occupant(s) free to do something more interesting/productive.

[Ttaskmaster]

But if you had a fully autonomous road vehicle, there wouldn't necessarily be any requirement (or capability) for manual intervention, leaving the occupant(s) free to do something more interesting/productive.

If... we need to make it work first, though, which is the current headache and why I think we'll move on to other, better solutions before this becomes a reliable reality... probably because Flying Car Gmbh can make more money from their more reliable solution than Self-Drive Inc.

[Xlucine]

But we cannot program them to predict and anticipate to the same level that we can, with all the variables factored in, including that 'Sixth Sense' that you get when you just know that BMW driver is going to suddenly pull across four lanes without indicating...

Image recognition for beemer or audi badges wouldn't be too hard to add to the car's computer

[Ttaskmaster]

Image recognition for beemer or audi badges wouldn't be too hard to add to the car's computer

Then put it to good use and add it to the weapon guidance system instead...