[tfinniga]

The conclusion about map generation is a bit naive. Yes, if google's self-driving car requires them, and google can't currently produce them at scale, then maybe google's current solution isn't going to explode onto the marketplace. But could the current solution be used in certain cities? (start with San Francisco, then expand city by city as the demand exists) Sure. Could google come up with a different solution? Sure.

There are other companies working on self-driving cars - BMW, Audi, Tesla, others. The darpa grand challenges in 2005 and 2007 didn't rely on this kind of detailed map data.

Will self-driving cars ever be able to handle all possible driving situations? Probably not. But humans can't handle all driving situations either. A more relevant question is whether self-driving cars will be better than human drivers. It's silly to say that we need strong AI for that, since we've already seen several prototype systems that do better than humans in many situations without strong AI.

The other thing that this conclusion ignores is what the changes to the road system might be. If everyone gets semi-autonomous cars for commuting, and they work fine except for one intersection where people need to pay attention and negotiate it themselves, then there will be pressure to change the intersection. Maybe besides the carpool lane, you might eventually get autonomous lanes. It's a bit chicken-and-egg, but if there is a system that is useful enough in some situations for people to buy, then it will progress from there.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Yep. To take a step back, the whole point of tarmac roads is that they are designed to be easy to drive on compared to cross country, footpaths, goat-tracks, wagon-trails etc. It's not hard to see a tipping point where roads are designed for robot cars not human-driven ones.

Also economies of scale take over. If 100 robot cars an hour drive down a road, the details of it can and should be mapped in real time and shared among the robots.

[toomuchtodo]

Google has almost 1 million miles on the road with its self-driving cars. I would be shocked if they don't add or improve their mapping data with each mile those vehicles travel.

[jinushaun]

I'm guessing that's how the new version of Google Maps is able to tell me which lane to be in.

[j42]

I think the author is also missing the implications of static mapping being only a partial paradigm in the car as a whole.

While I can't speak for the specific project, I imagine in addition to static/procedural mapping, there are generalized machine-learning algorithms & gradients which take into account arbitrary weights on context (traffic laws, potential loss of life, traction & other situational data, avoidance costs, actions of surrounding drivers, etc) and optimally, produce a decision that is as close to a human reaction as possible, while boosting efficiency and minimizing for injury.

And I imagine the resources are available to test the edge cases in simulated conditions more extreme (though perhaps less variable) than those encountered on public roads.

It may be another 5 years, but the solution is simply one of technological advancement--better static routines combined with more efficient behavioral models that produce better outcomes than the reaction of a human nervous system.

(And this is somewhat disheartening for an admitted 'petrolhead,' but innovation is an unstoppable force)

[Vivtek]

The German automakers have been working on a sliding scale of automation, with driver-assist systems sort of transitioning into full automation sometime in the near future. (There's a nice table on page 166 of the 2014 annual report of the VDA, the German automobile manufacturer's association: http://www.vda.de/en/downloads/1225/?PHPSESSID=fvu1lhmadgb23...) (Note the incredibly good translation job - not just anybody could have managed that.)

[reddytowns]

The main point is still valid. In an emergency situation, as long as a self driving car has to choose between hitting a ball and a kid chasing after it, or a woman and a shopping cart, or a laid down motorcycle and its rider, and not know which is which, there is no way these cars can be deployed in mass. And this is an extremely hard problem.

[icoder]

I for one don't trust myself with that judgement call either (given the expected very short timeframe you have available).

For example, avoiding the kid that appears out of no where might crash me into an upcoming car, killing that driver while the kid in the corner of my eye turned out to be a dog or in fact stopped/retreated just in time to prevent a collision in the first place. Your fastest reflexes bypass a big part of your brain.

As long as the cars drive safer, on average, than we do (and I think that's achievable), rationally we should hand over the controls (or we should find a way to combine both and end up even safer).

[jfoster]

One might make the same argument about the cars we have now. If we cannot guarantee that there will be no deadly accidents, they cannot be deployed in such great numbers. Yet, car accidents are a major cause of death, and almost everyone drives one regularly.

[tfinniga]

In an emergency situation, just stop. Don't hit the ball or the kid. Let the human take over, or wait for the emergency to pass. The car will break faster than a human could. If the car can't drive itself safely in a given situation, make humans drive.

There are valid points to be made about liability and legal concerns, increases in road congestion, etc. But technical considerations are not really an issue.

You don't need to completely solve all potential problems before entering the market. You just need to provide enough value.

If you've got an hour commute over highways every day, even being able to do highway driving automatically will be a huge win.

[marvy]

That's usually the right answer, but you have to be careful. For instance, you say the car will break faster than a human could. But if it does, the human-driven car right behind it is in trouble.

[tfinniga]

Yes, you'd want to have some sort of sensors behind the car as well, so that if it's possible to avoid hitting the object and avoid being hit by the car that you would brake at that speed. If it's not possible, well, it's still an improvement over a human driver.

[thrill]

People "often" (for made up values of often) hit kids instead of balls bouncing into the street, as their eyes are drawn to the ball and never notice the kids scampering after it. A machine can be given enough resources to have the scan of a tree full of owls - no single driver can.