Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva, for Donating to support the site

Musk endeavours

The Big Picture Place
odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251279

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 7:45 am

BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
When you consider that a 14 year old is often physically capable, but not legally allowed, to drive there is not much experience needed to gain a driving licence and that all happens within the limits of human vision, reaction times and other aspects of the human emotional condition. Computers have much better vision, reaction times many orders of magnitude faster and do not have emotional inputs to deal with.

It seems to me unlikely that computers will not be able to drive cars in next few years at better levels than average human driving.
,


Ody, you would do well to learn more about the brain before testing to compare it to silicon and AI. It's all already been covered in this thread.


Arguments used to predict that computers could not become invincible in chess & Go, were often about how much more complex is the human brain than a machine, but those arguments were wrong.

There may indeed be reasons why a computer can not drive better than a human, as we have covered before on this thread, but no one knows & we now have more & more of the world's scientific & human capital focused on AI.

Robotic driving may happen far sooner than many experts believe and just because it hasn't yet happened does not mean that we can ignore it & assume it never will.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251356

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 12:37 pm

S sets fastest lap time (not official) for 4 door passenger car at Laguna with new plaid power train:

https://www.techspot.com/news/81860-tes ... laims.html

Regards,

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3134
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3633 times
Been thanked: 1519 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251359

Postby ReformedCharacter » September 12th, 2019, 12:55 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
Arguments used to predict that computers could not become invincible in chess & Go, were often about how much more complex is the human brain than a machine, but those arguments were wrong.

There may indeed be reasons why a computer can not drive better than a human, as we have covered before on this thread, but no one knows & we now have more & more of the world's scientific & human capital focused on AI.

Robotic driving may happen far sooner than many experts believe and just because it hasn't yet happened does not mean that we can ignore it & assume it never will.

Regards,

I don't recall anyone worth listening to suggesting that computers would never become better than humans at Chess or Go only disagreements about how long it would take. IIRC the ability of a computer to beat the best Go players happened sooner than predicted.

I happen to think that 'better than human' autonomy will take quite a few years to achieve, probably longer than you do. I also think that the task will be unnecessarily difficult without relatively inexpensive and relatively technologically achievable additions such as inter-vehicle communications and smart road 'furniture' that can relay information to vehicles. To try to achieve autonomy without those things seems to make that objective harder than it need be.

RC

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251366

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 1:23 pm

ReformedCharacter wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
Arguments used to predict that computers could not become invincible in chess & Go, were often about how much more complex is the human brain than a machine, but those arguments were wrong.

There may indeed be reasons why a computer can not drive better than a human, as we have covered before on this thread, but no one knows & we now have more & more of the world's scientific & human capital focused on AI.

Robotic driving may happen far sooner than many experts believe and just because it hasn't yet happened does not mean that we can ignore it & assume it never will.

Regards,

I don't recall anyone worth listening to suggesting that computers would never become better than humans at Chess or Go only disagreements about how long it would take. IIRC the ability of a computer to beat the best Go players happened sooner than predicted.

I happen to think that 'better than human' autonomy will take quite a few years to achieve, probably longer than you do. I also think that the task will be unnecessarily difficult without relatively inexpensive and relatively technologically achievable additions such as inter-vehicle communications and smart road 'furniture' that can relay information to vehicles. To try to achieve autonomy without those things seems to make that objective harder than it need be.

RC


I used to lecture the digital computer option in Oxford before computers became world chess champions & there were then respectable experts including senior Don's there who claimed that computers would never be able to beat humans. One could have some sympathy with such views in that the initial methods of calculating very large numbers of possible moves & then trying to optimise needed very large & powerful computers. The mistake was not to realise that more efficient neural net processors would be created that over came many of these troubles. The primary reason for this being that a lot of the early neural net theory was wrong.

Much of the current limitations in robotic driving come from pattern recognition failures. If the robotic systems can become better at this almost all the other aspects have already been solved and the evidence I am seeing indicates that they are becoming better at pattern recognition in terms of things like face id.

I may be completely wrong & yes vehicle to vehicle systems might make the whole business better but a young human soon learns how to ride a bike & does this via pattern recognition & brain limb coordination. Computers do not seem so far away from this. The more complex stuff about child to child & child to adult actions is currently much more challenging for computers imho.

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251394

Postby BobbyD » September 12th, 2019, 2:57 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:
When you consider that a 14 year old is often physically capable, but not legally allowed, to drive there is not much experience needed to gain a driving licence and that all happens within the limits of human vision, reaction times and other aspects of the human emotional condition. Computers have much better vision, reaction times many orders of magnitude faster and do not have emotional inputs to deal with.

It seems to me unlikely that computers will not be able to drive cars in next few years at better levels than average human driving.
,


Ody, you would do well to learn more about the brain before testing to compare it to silicon and AI. It's all already been covered in this thread.


Arguments used to predict that computers could not become invincible in chess & Go, were often about how much more complex is the human brain than a machine, but those arguments were wrong.

There may indeed be reasons why a computer can not drive better than a human, as we have covered before on this thread, but no one knows & we now have more & more of the world's scientific & human capital focused on AI.

Robotic driving may happen far sooner than many experts believe and just because it hasn't yet happened does not mean that we can ignore it & assume it never will.

Regards,


None of that has anything to do with your ability to make a comparison between something and the human brain, which you clearly don't have a great understanding of. Your logic on the potential of AD doesn't make your comparisons to meatware systems valid.

BobbyD wrote:The human brain is the most complex known thing in the universe, it contains about 86 billion neurons each of which is connected to an average of somewhere north of 1000 other neurons, it is massively parallel and contains areas of deep specialisation whilst retaining levels of functional plasticity which allow it to come back from devastating injury, and while it is at it it creates the entire universe as you know it. The processor in a Tesla can manipulate 1's and 0's quickly, it's a pretty decent calculator.


BobbyD wrote:I don't want to unnecessarily recycle old arguments, but meatware and silicon solutions aren't directly comparable because of the fundamental difference in the processing units. That isn't to say that AD's can't outperform humans, but those AD's are not going to be human drivers rendered in silicon and algorithms, making direct comparisons misleading.


...and do we really have to cover the difference between a game with a defined playing area, defined pieces with defined properties and absolute rules and the Scorch Hill junction during school run again? Chess and Go both have massive numbers of permutations, in the same way that if you properly shuffle a deck of cards it is likely that the cards in your deck are in an order that has never before existed in the universe. But each of those permutations obeys rules. Black can't have 8 pawns and 3 bishops, even if all the bishops are on black squares. White can't place his stone on top of a black stone which is already on the intersection he wants to occupy. If in a chess match you turn the corner to discover a pram rolling down the e file while a football bounces out from behind the rook on c5, and a knight casually steps on to the board at h2 you raise your hand and inform the referee.

Chess and Go are both games of perfect information. Both players not only know how many pieces are in play, what those pieces are, whose those pieces are, and how they are allowed to behave they know every possible permutation of pieces which will be possible for the entire game from this point. If you gave them enough time, and we are talking fantastic amounts of time here, each player could logically derive every possible board state allowed from the present position. Chess and Go are inherently calculable.

This makes them incredibly bad comparisons for driving a car in the real world, which is a game of very limited information, unlimited players with unlimited properties, and rules, the most solid of which are optional on a good day, and even then subservient to greater principles like not running over the old lady lying in the middle of the road even if you have to make a prohibited lane change to avoid her.

...and please bare in mind before you set off on the potential of AD that I am one of the strongest advocates for AD on this board. These are not arguments against your conclusion, they are perceived weaknesses in the justifications you use to support it.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251425

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 4:08 pm

BobbyD
This makes them incredibly bad comparisons for driving a car in the real world, which is a game of very limited information, unlimited players with unlimited properties, and rules, the most solid of which are optional on a good day, and even then subservient to greater principles like not running over the old lady lying in the middle of the road even if you have to make a prohibited lane change to avoid her.

...and please bare in mind before you set off on the potential of AD that I am one of the strongest advocates for AD on this board. These are not arguments against your conclusion, they are perceived weaknesses in the justifications you use to support it.


Your assumptions that robotic driving is a game of limited information, unlimited players and unlimited properties is an interesting one.

Cars, people, most things that matter in the real world obey Fermion statistics.

In the driving world all things are necessarily limited by available space which is limited by the known dimensions of humans, roads, cars and their performance parameters. There are not unlimited possibilities, there is a limited set of possibilities.

AI has to discard the impossible and determine what is the most likely probable from what is left.

In essence it has to use the methodology of Sherlock:

When ever you have eliminated the impossible, what ever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.

Regards,

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8948
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1313 times
Been thanked: 3688 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251438

Postby redsturgeon » September 12th, 2019, 4:54 pm

Computers have recently cracked poker against multiple opponents, a game of limited information and the element of bluff.

John

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251444

Postby BobbyD » September 12th, 2019, 5:23 pm

redsturgeon wrote:Computers have recently cracked poker against multiple opponents, a game of limited information and the element of bluff.

John


A game of limited information within known parameters and a tightly defined rule set which is applied absolutely, and whose ultimate outcome is the averaged result of thousands of mini outcomes, none of which is catastrophic.

If you break down a session in to hands the outcome of any one hand contributes to the total outcome but you can get one-outered on the river, or completely misread your opponent's strength and drop your stack whilst drawing dead. The only consequence is that you have to reach in to your pocket and take out your roll. If you break down a car journey in the same way, you obviously can't rely on the average quality of your decisions over the journey. If you run over a little old lady on turn 2 it doesn't matter if you drive perfectly for the next 10 minutes and you don't get to run that overtake twice to average out the chances that a child will appear from behind a parked car on the other side of the road.

You can give the best player at a table the best starting hand, every hand, and they aren't guaranteed to come away from the table without having had to refill their stack, which is why what separates profitable players from the perennially broke grifter has as much to do with bankroll management as table skills. Your viability as a player is judged by your average outcome over hundreds of thousands of hands, not how you fare in a single session or a single tourney.

Again, its a bad analogy.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251448

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 5:37 pm

BobbyD wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:Computers have recently cracked poker against multiple opponents, a game of limited information and the element of bluff.

John


A game of limited information within known parameters and a tightly defined rule set which is applied absolutely, and whose ultimate outcome is the averaged result of thousands of mini outcomes, none of which is catastrophic.

You can give the best player at a table the best starting hand, every hand, and they aren't guaranteed to come away from the table without having had to refill their stack, which is why what separates profitable players from the perennially broke grifter has as much to do with bankroll management as table skills.

Again, its a bad analogy.


My first experimental night shift as a PhD student was to fire protons against 23Na, to make 24Mg, but we kept seeing 28Si. My supervisor swore repeatedly that it was a contaminated target. I naively asked if the beam was striking the aluminium shroud around the target.

No, this was impossible, but no matter what target we put in we still saw 28Si. Eventually I suggested putting in a blank target. This was resisted for a very long time and then we did, we again saw 28Si and finally it was agreed that the beam was hitting the aluminium and I was given the job of making a tantalum shield and then the 28Si went away.

In this case it was nothing to do with account management, nothing to do with faulty apparatus, and everything to do with my supervisor having a daft thesis.

How is this relevant? Because until something is tried one does not know what will happen. Arguing that one approach can't work even though some think it can is not how things progress.

No one knows if robotic driving is possible, just as no one knew that computers would be world Chess, Go and Poker champions.

Or as Winston Churchill put it, to paraphrase "No matter how beautiful the theory, one has to occasionally look at the results that are being obtained."

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251456

Postby BobbyD » September 12th, 2019, 5:59 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:Computers have recently cracked poker against multiple opponents, a game of limited information and the element of bluff.

John


A game of limited information within known parameters and a tightly defined rule set which is applied absolutely, and whose ultimate outcome is the averaged result of thousands of mini outcomes, none of which is catastrophic.

You can give the best player at a table the best starting hand, every hand, and they aren't guaranteed to come away from the table without having had to refill their stack, which is why what separates profitable players from the perennially broke grifter has as much to do with bankroll management as table skills.

Again, its a bad analogy.


My first experimental night shift as a PhD student was to fire protons against 23Na, to make 24Mg, but we kept seeing 28Si. My supervisor swore repeatedly that it was a contaminated target. I naively asked if the beam was striking the aluminium shroud around the target.

No, this was impossible, but no matter what target we put in we still saw 28Si. Eventually I suggested putting in a blank target. This was resisted for a very long time and then we did, we again saw 28Si and finally it was agreed that the beam was hitting the aluminium and I was given the job of making a tantalum shield and then the 28Si went away.

In this case it was nothing to do with account management, nothing to do with faulty apparatus, and everything to do with my supervisor having a daft thesis.


In this case it was to do with your supervisor confusing his mental model of the experiment with the actual experiment. Which is exactly my point. Comparing AD to Chess or Go, or even NLHE is indulging in exactly the same fallacy as your professor. You are taking a 'clean' conceptual model as a basis for predictions about the real 'chaotic' world.

odysseus2000 wrote:No one knows if robotic driving is possible, just as no one knew that computers would be world Chess, Go and Poker champions.

Or as Winston Churchill put it, to paraphrase "No matter how beautiful the theory, one has to occasionally look at the results that are being obtained."

Regards,


For the 4327th time, I'm not arguing AD is impossible, but your analogies are not relevant or useful.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251457

Postby odysseus2000 » September 12th, 2019, 6:04 pm

BobbyD
In this case it was to do with your supervisor confusing his mental model of the experiment with the actual experiment. Which is exactly my point. Comparing AD to Chess or Go, or even NLHE is indulging in exactly the same fallacy as your professor. You are taking a 'clean' conceptual model as a basis for predictions about the real 'chaotic' world.


Yes, and I am nothing that your prejudice against one approach to robotic driving is purely theoretical.

You may be right, but without someone trying we will never know what the practical limits are.

Regards,

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251469

Postby BobbyD » September 12th, 2019, 6:41 pm

Five cars we want Nissan, Tesla, Ford, BMW and Seat to fix for free

We’ve found cars with issues so prolific, we say manufacturers should act


Tesla Model S (2013-) – handle/lock/exterior problems

The Tesla Model S is one of the most advanced luxury cars on the road. You’ll pay at least £77,000 for one. It has some very showy features – including door handles that automatically pop out as the keyholder gets close. But it has some less-than-impressive stats: based on owners with a Model S aged 3-8 years, it’s the brand with the highest percentage of faulty cars (67% of owners had an issue – two per owner, on average). Tesla is also the brand that makes its customers wait the longest for their car to be repaired. Tesla owners told us they waited an average of five days for their car to be repaired, which is three days longer than the average wait time for cars of the same age. And it’s those flashy pop-out handles that may just be the cause. We dug into our data and looked at how many owners of cars aged between three and eight years old said they had an exterior-based issue with the door handle, lock, fuel cap or boot. We found: 2% of people across all of the cars in our survey reported an issue. 22% of Tesla Model S owners told us they had the same issue – 10 times higher than average. How the Tesla Model S compares with other cars in our survey What Tesla says ‘We review every vehicle before it leaves the factory. Our warranties cover any repairs and replacements necessary for door handles for up to four years. Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla can perform repair work via mobile service, which can be done at a customer’s home or office.’


- https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/09/fi ... ree/#Tesla

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251516

Postby BobbyD » September 12th, 2019, 9:54 pm

The Porsche 911 Is the Most Profitable Car of 2019

Meanwhile, the electric Taycan isn’t expected to turn a profit till 2023.


- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ar-of-2019

Howard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2192
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 886 times
Been thanked: 1020 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251534

Postby Howard » September 12th, 2019, 10:46 pm

The problem with forecasting the future of robotic/autonomous driving is that it probably doesn’t depend on solving the relatively easy engineering issues. Yes huge strides are being made in controlling cars but anyone looking at the latest Tesla videos of a driver trying to use Autonomous control can see how inadequate it is for everyday driving in the UK and in Europe.

The problems are in the legal and safety areas.

Our road systems are not logical. There are huge anomalies in our traffic legislation which humans are coping with but which will be hugely time-consuming to build into the software needed to safely drive cars autonomously. Building a computer to play chess is an easy task compared with building the controls necessary to safely transport humans at high speeds on different countries’ roads with laws which go back centuries.

Let’s face it, engineers still haven’t solved these issues for planes and trains to be controlled autonomously. And these vehicles’ situations are massively easier to map.

Just dealing with speed limits is difficult legally speaking. When the UK situation is examined, there are a huge number of legal issues which our “manual” drivers skirt round every day. I have a friend who is a senior figure in an international road safety body and their view is that legislation for robotic cars is lagging far behind the technology and will slow down the implementation of large-scale robotic driving, except in very controlled situations.

Tesla’s systems seem very primitive when faced with UK roads. Having driven two new BMWs for three years, their systems seemed to me to be far more familiar with our roads. The cars anticipate roundabouts by changing down as they approach. Mrs H’s PHEV switched the petrol engine on at the bottom of hills just before the car started to climb and it always switched to electric drive as the car entered a 30 mph speed limit. Looking at videos of Tesla Model 3s being driven in the UK it is clear that the software doesn’t “see” many roundabouts and the car sometimes accelerates to illegal speeds suggesting that the software doesn’t recognise the speed limit on occasions.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcGaVKy_ZMc

It will be interesting to see if Tesla has any success in acting as an insurance broker for State National Insurance in the USA. At the moment, reading Tesla owners’ accounts it appears that the US insurers like Geico know more about pricing the risks accurately. Insurance risks may also be very difficult to extract from auto software.

As an investor, it might be better to apply “strategic ignorance” at the moment, rather than assuming that the heavy investment in Autopilot will produce much of a return in the medium term.

For Tesla as a company, it may be worth concentrating their investment on increasing demand and margins to justify their growth rating?

regards

Howard

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251561

Postby BobbyD » September 13th, 2019, 2:19 am

Why Electric Cars Don’t Make Cents - Autoline After Hours 477 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w71YdR3qN3I

BobbyD
Lemon Half
Posts: 7814
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 1289 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251568

Postby BobbyD » September 13th, 2019, 6:57 am

EU Scoreboard 2018 (World 2500)

World top 2500 R&D investors - Automobile and parts

A really good info graphic showing who is spending what on R&D in the car business.

- https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard ... #modal-one (You'll have to select industry from the drop down, can't link directly)

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251573

Postby dspp » September 13th, 2019, 7:39 am

BobbyD wrote:EU Scoreboard 2018 (World 2500)

World top 2500 R&D investors - Automobile and parts

A really good info graphic showing who is spending what on R&D in the car business.

- https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard ... #modal-one (You'll have to select industry from the drop down, can't link directly)


That is a cracking navajo blanket data source. Thank you BD. regards, dspp

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 540
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 722 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251617

Postby onthemove » September 13th, 2019, 1:21 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:No one knows if robotic driving is possible...



They do, and it is :D

All the components (individually) now exist for a perfectly feasible, practical system to be built. The race is now on to get them developed far enough to put to market.

Waymo has already done 10 million mile of real world autonomous driving.

I look at the building blocks like this (overly simplified, but gives the idea_... if I were to be developing an AD vehicle...

1. Foundation Layer - Simple collision avoidance

Without reference to lanes, maps, navigation, human made rules, etc, this layer's responsibility is to avoid a collision on the basis of simple physics.
That simply means don't drive into something stationary. And don't move into the path of something else.

Obviously there are trade offs here. If you can see someone crossing the road 2 miles away, you don't stop immediately now. You make it sensible - ensure you can stop (with a margin) in the distance left between you and the obstruction.
Likewise for moving into the path of another vehicle.

This can generally be done with Lidar / Radar.

Both now relatively proven technologies.

2. Drive-able Area - Physical

OK, avoiding a collision with an object is handled above, but where can you drive. What road surfaces, curbs, etc.

There are now proven visual (computer) systems which can establish driveable area e.g. (quick random google search https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJPxgALx5eA I've seen a better example than this one previously, but can't re-find it now )

Irrespective of lanes, rules, etc, this in combination with layer 1 above (simplistically) should be enough to ensure a car only drives where it is able, and doesn't hit anything it shouldn't.

Now you can build the more complex parts on top of these layers..

3. Driveable Area - Lanes

There's plenty of research into lane identification. Some I've seen in the past I'm a little concerned by, and hope they aren't how real world cars will actually do it. But there are also plenty of examples o functioning systems.

My only concern is how they'd cope when the lanes are virtually gone. There's certainly some on my commute that drivers can no longer see because they are so worn... but then that's why everything is built on layers 1 and 2... those layers should act as a fall back to prevent collisions, and ensure the car doesn't drive somewhere it isn't physically able.

4. Traffic Features

The next level is detecting road signs, traffic lights, and other features.

This and the layers above are what has been impossible for the most part until the past 5 years or so.

But that has all changed with the development of convolutional neural networks / deep learning. These are now able to recognise features in image in some cases better than humans. (In case you're wondering ... someone takes a picture of something they know and labels it... that picture is then presented to computers and different humans without the label, and they see who can work out what the label should be).

This technology can now easily identify road signs, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, etc. And a central controller (standard software engineering) amalgamates these into a single model of the world around the car.

And certainly for straight forward sighs - like speed limits, this is absolutely feasible now. Some speed limit warning systems in cars actually use a camera monitoring for, and reading, speed limit signs to warn you if you are speeding.

This is all now proven technology.

5. Local Awareness - The Rest

Using the same CNN / Deep learning technology, you can then decide just how fancy you want to make your system

Google / Waymo has done some development in identifying a police man directing traffic, and recognising the had signals.

There's also development aimed at recognising known hazards.. .like children, dogs, adults, cyclists, etc, and using the same CNNs / Deep Learning to identify these and to also recognise the potential risk.... just like a human driver will recognise that a child is likely to run into the road, etc.

This is all work in progress, and there are already proven working examples. It's no longer a question of will it work. It's now a question of how far to develop it before permitting it to be used for real.

The only bit that might be a little unproven, is the ability to read complex signs, written in English. But generally these aren't a critical feature. Road builders realise than sometimes holiday makers in hire cars will be driving, so rarely will you encounter a situation where you will need to read and understand complex English sentences while driving.

Simply sign understanding, is already feasible. I'm talking in the previous paragraph about extended English sentences.

6. The Rules

This is a little more difficult, but if you recognise this as a the final layer, built on the other layers, you can see how much of the risk is mitigated.

The above layers feed into a local world model. The model identifies the key features relevant for driving (from the inputs from the above layers) - road features like lanes, traffic lights, road cones, road works, etc, and hazards that the developers feel are particularly necessary to model ... like children, animals, other vehicles, etc. (Remember layer 1 should avoid collisions with objects where no special case has been made)

This layer is going to be more traditional software engineering. You wouldn't rely on a CNN / Deep learning network to assimilate the rules.

You may use on in part to 'smooth over' areas in the model where things are ambiguous, unclear, etc.

But you wouldn't use CNN / DL for handling rules like always staying in the left most lane in the UK, ete, or right turn on red (like in the US).

So, e.g, the speed sign detection CNN, bystander detection CNN, traffic light detection CNN, etc, all input into the model, and indicate where these specific features are in the world around the car.

There needs to be a more traditional approach to implementing the rules- they are then implement on this centralised model.

But these only build upon the other layers... so if the rules layer says turn right, and the bottom layer, layer 1, says there's an obstruction, the car won't turn right. Those bottom layers (1 & 2) act as safety fail safes.

Summary...

All the technology needed to produce an AD car now exists, and has been proven to a degree.

The challenge now is pulling it all together into the most appropriate complete system.

It's no longer "if" but "when".



(lunch break over, no time to proof read and this has been hastily typed without any real plan, so apologies for all the likely typos, etc, and poor structure, etc … would have liked to put links to example of the above, but haven't had time...)

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3246
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2226 times
Been thanked: 588 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251624

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » September 13th, 2019, 1:58 pm

Anyone of you peeps read this? Musk gets a really bad press.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08 ... ity?inline

Perhaps you have heard it all before, but it doesn't sound good.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6434
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1561 times
Been thanked: 973 times

Re: Musk endeavours

#251636

Postby odysseus2000 » September 13th, 2019, 2:39 pm

onthemove
Summary...

All the technology needed to produce an AD car now exists, and has been proven to a degree.

The challenge now is pulling it all together into the most appropriate complete system.

It's no longer "if" but "when".


I agree, except that I am still uncertain if a practical system can be made that is so reliable that cars will no longer need a driving wheel.

In principle I think it is a question of when, but I have heard these "it is only a matter of time" arguments many times and sometimes unexpected things scupper the whole thing. Nuclear Fusion has been like this for decades, but still remains "a matter of time"

I really do hope this happens quickly as it would stem the appalling death and injury rates on roads around the world.

Regards,


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests