[carapace]

> Most of these companies run closed-circuit tests (aka nerf-golf-carts) and 1000's of hours of simulation.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I mean build a machine that, in the real world, can't hurt people.

Make it light.

Make it soft.

Program it to limit its speed such that it can always stop before colliding with whatever (whoever) might leap out in front of it.

If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it.

The safety driver is wrong too. But she was there because Uber wanted to put car-shaped robots onto public streets.

Really the insane thing is that we mix car and pedestrian traffic at all in the first place. Oddly enough, it's the result of a deliberate campaign of propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s "Adam Ruins Everything - Why Jaywalking Is a Crime"

> Adam reveals the derogatory origins of jaywalking and explains how the auto industry made it illegal.

[pj_mukh]

"If the top speed is five miles per hour, so be it."

You are not really testing though. The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit. You can test all you want at 5mph, but let me assure you, most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

[carapace]

> The whole point is to build a machine that can go the speed limit.

Sure, eventually, when the machines and sensors and algorithms and so on are good enough. When the infrastructure can be rebuilt to accommodate them (e.g. Boring company tunnels for auto-trucking, sensors and comms in the roads and signage, &c.)

The rush to market is the whole problem. Not the ultimate concept.

I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.

Let the experiences with the toy cars guide the incremental graceful adoption of faster machines.

> most of the real issues will show up when you go 45 in the real world.

Right! So don't go 45.

[pj_mukh]

Sorry you’re asking for a completely different concept. Asking for the infrastructure to change to adopt AV’s is a pipe dream. Never going to happen.

“ I want a machine that can take my mother to her doctors appointment now that the dementia has gotten to the point where she shouldn't take the bus on her own anymore.“

This meanwhile is already happening[1]. We’ve been testing on toy cars for 15 years. We’re not ready to remove the safety driver but we are ready for the road.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/10/16874410/voyage-self-driv...

[carapace]

> you’re asking for a completely different concept.

Yes! Exactly! Robot-shaped cars that weigh multiple tons at travel at 45mph are a bad idea! It's too soon.

> Asking for the infrastructure to change to adopt AV’s is a pipe dream. Never going to happen.

Sure it will. There will be "smart dust" in the asphalt, etc.

> This meanwhile is already happening

Fantastic!

> We’ve been testing on toy cars for 15 years.

How about 30?

If my robots go out into the world and kill people I'm going to feel bad for making killer robots even if they look like cars, have people inside them, and everybody else is killing people with their cars.

Is that so goddamned crazy?

Don't make killer robots.

"Am I going crazy? Or is it the world around me?"

> We’re not ready to remove the safety driver but we are ready for the road.

That sounds wrong on the face of it to me, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.

Build yourself a city, populate it with people who have signed waivers, and use that as your test lab.

Self-driving Lark? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_scooter

[pj_mukh]

"Sure it will. There will be "smart dust" in the asphalt, etc."

Even if you want this, the best way to get the government to move is to deploy, prove customer demand/appetite. Everythings going just to plan and early statistics are showing fewer people will die with each autonomous car on the road (with zero infrastructure changes).

The killer robots are already out there, they are being driven by distracted humans killing 35000 people per year (who signed those waivers?!). This is trying to rapidly fix that problem.

"How about 30?"

Yup. Like I thought, moving goalposts. If we did 30, you'd say why not 45? So I gotta move on.

[tom-_-]

I imagine reducing the weight of the vehicle would effect it's stopping distance, traction, turning radius, a bunch of other car physics that would in turn produce unreliable data to train on.

I assume much of the training is done in simulation or within a controlled environment but unfortunately the only way to train for city driving is to gather as much real world data as possible and that means "testing in production" with a hopefully alert humans (one for backup) behind the wheel.