Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All I am saying is it uses software. I am sure at one point, someone would not get into an automobile because "they are mechanical and could break," and proceeded to get on their horse and ride away.
[doublepost=1497380777][/doublepost]


The point is, software is used in highly critical applications where a software bug would be devastating and we still manage to get by alright.

My point is that the autopilot is an assistive system, not autonomous. Assistive systems in cars are by no means anything new. The difference here is that the systems being developed will be autonomous, controlling the vehicle fully, in all situations, without human intervention. A drive by wire-system is not autonomous, it's just a different way of direct control.
Assistive systems are great, offload work from the operator to a system and free up the human to do what is difficult: situation awareness.
It is when you rely on a system for situation awareness it gets complicated.
 
You do realize that tens of thousands of planes traveling near the speed of sound are piloted 99.9% by software every day, don't you?

I wonder how safe air travel would be if there were 100 million planes flying over the US?
 
Assistive systems in cars are by no means anything new.
No they are not anything new. Neither are computers. An iPhone is just a computer. No more or less a computer than what was available in the 1940s.

It is when you rely on a system for situation awareness it gets complicated.
Situation awareness is one of the things that differentiates current state of the art assistive systems from the more primitive ones of the 20th Century. Cars like the Tesla models or the test versions of the Chevy Bolt are being built with the sensors needed to be have even more situational awareness in the future.

This is sort of like the "microevolution" that intelligent design proponents used to concede. Organisms can evolve in small ways, which can be seen in traditional lab experiments. But that doesn't mean they can ever evolve into a different species. The question is over time the microevolution changes accumulate to make the descendent too different from its ancestor to be called the same species.

With assistive systems in cars taking over little by little in more and more situations, eventually the "driver" becomes the one assisting when the systems can't handle the situation. And with the evolution of the system the number of situations the system can't handle shrinks until the only ones it can't handle are also too difficult for a human driver. At that point there's no reason to require the driver to pay attention to what the car is doing. The driver is just another passenger.
[doublepost=1497394673][/doublepost]
I wonder how safe air travel would be if there were 100 million planes flying over the US?
We'd definitely need to computerize air traffic control. No barnstorming allowed.
 
Not very scientific of you. How can you objectively state anything about your driving safety when there is only one of you driving around? It could be a fluke that you made it to a million miles without an accident or maybe it's just where and when you choose to drive. There are several hundred autonomous vehicles driving all over the world currently. Collectively averaged, they are much better drivers than you and any other human alive and they are only getting better. You haven't finished your driving career yet so statistically, you are due for an accident. Be careful.

It's not a fluke. I take driving far more seriously than anything else I do, and my job involves split second life or death decisions every day I'm at work. As does driving, however most people do not see driving that way because most people aren't especially bright. And I have some ok times around the ring. Not great, but ok.


And as to when/where most of those miles were driven? The worst imaginable traffic in DC, Baltimore, LA, the Bay Area, and Houston. It comes down to having an excellent handling vehicle with sticky tires, total situational awareness at all times, split second creativity at the edge, the ability to correctly predict the moves of stupid people that could never obtain or keep a license in Germany, and always having a way out.
[doublepost=1497397129][/doublepost]
A few thoughts:

To those who are touting their own stellar driving experience and many miles driven without an accident as a reason self-driving cars shouldn't be developed... It's great you're a good driver. Me too. We're above average! Guess what? Half of the drivers out there are above average, and except for in Lake Wobegon, the other half are below average. All of us out there behind the wheel start on a learning curve, accumulate experience, most get better and better, until they peak, and then as we get older, response times slow, and we get worse and worse, until we plow into some pedestrians or someone in the family sees it coming first and takes the keys away.

Software isn't infallible, and neither are you. I'm not, either. At some point, well-developed software will get better than the average driver (it might already be there) and will keep getting better. As more and more of these cars are first tested and eventually put out on the road for consumers, they will cumulatively accumulate experience at a rate of millions of miles driven per year. No matter how good and how experienced a driver you are, you won't be able to match the level of experience accumulated by the AI built into some future Apple car. Unlike a blank-slate fifteen-year-old human with a new learner's permit, every new self driving car will come off the dealer lot with millions of miles of driving experience.

It's also pretty inevitable that this technology will employ better means of driver-to-driver communication than a blinking light, a horn, eye contact, or 'the finger.' So the AI will accumulate more experience than is possible for you or I, plus it will be able to communicate directly with other AI drivers using far more data points than you or I can convey.

In one other related thought, it's important to realize how self-driving cars will be a game changer for all of us as we get older. Most people don't live in urban areas sufficiently served by public transportation. We they get old enough that they shouldn't be driving any more, the loss of independence can cause their lives to start on a dramatic downward spiral. Others have to take them places or bring things to them when they can, which is probably not when the older person wants or needs it. Social lives are diminished and the inability to get out and do things hastens physical and mental decline. Other options include moving to various levels of elder care living places, where independence is still pretty limited and you're constantly surrounded by old people waiting to die.

It will be a revolutionary change when an average 90-year old can get up in the morning, slide into the Apple car and go do whatever they want with others of all ages, like anyone else. They'll be able for much longer to continue living a life at home without being a burden on others. That is going to be incredible.

Oh I will probably crash someday. But I'll still be beating, by far, the average crash rate of the current state of the tech, which is about, last I looked, one crash per 120,000 miles.

And what about snow and ice and black ice? The current tech is TERRIBLE on ice.
 
Last edited:
I this really a profitable service of the future? I don't know much about it.
I don't think so. Even though automobile works on standard or week known concepts, every company has their proprietary way of creating their unique blueprint for efficiency etc. integrating a third party generic system like Apple will be a major headache. It's one thing to build a infotainment system and one thing to build an autonomous system.
 
Whether you know it or not, all cars drive with software today, some with more, some with less:

If mankind could master the silicon and the bits necessary to deliver the tech that makes you a better driver and safer passenger, why do you think it's beyond them to tie many of these extant systems together to deliver tech that, while not perfect, will massively improve the current state of safety on our roadways?

That's probably because most drivers on today's roads vastly overestimate their driving skills, and underestimate how much help and aid car software is doing in today's cars. They simply do not know how capable technology is, and would rather trust human driving over computer driving (even though computers already drive so much of the car today). Good point!
 
I rather have a car made by say Audi that's powered by Apple technology than a car made by Apple.

You're probably not that far off imo. I think Apple paused their car manufacturing project because they realized how long it will take to mature the autonomous driving software. When the software is close to ready, Apple can simply swoop in and acquire a well respected car manufacturer and build their features in.
 
I wonder how safe air travel would be if there were 100 million planes flying over the US?
Probably even safer because they would be fully controlled by air traffic computers instead of people. They would also probably form lanes and have much more structure. There would be more crashes but that's only because there would be so many more planes in the sky so that number would have to rise but only because of technical failures due to, you guessed it, mechanical problems stemming from humans designing and repairing the planes.
[doublepost=1497413947][/doublepost]
No they're not. Every aircraft has a pilot in command who is in control at all times. The software assists are just helpers no more than speed control on cars.
Same with an autonomous car but like a fully autonomous car, you can set it to take off and land and completely fly free without any human intervention. The pilots are there because airlines, insurance companies and most passengers insist on them. They are not necessarily needed however.
 
That's probably because most drivers on today's roads vastly overestimate their driving skills, and underestimate how much help and aid car software is doing in today's cars. They simply do not know how capable technology is, and would rather trust human driving over computer driving (even though computers already drive so much of the car today). Good point!

That is BS. I use 2 assistive systems on my car, neither is essential. It's power steering which is nice, and cruise control which also is nice. I rarely have to use ABS, but it's nice to know it's there.
The computing involved in those 3 systems are minimal. Heck, the power steering is 100% mechanical using a pump and hydraulic valves.
There's not much tech driving my car. Yes, if you go for a Tesla, you get a lot more tech, but most cars: no, not much tech.

No they are not anything new. Neither are computers. An iPhone is just a computer. No more or less a computer than what was available in the 1940s.


Situation awareness is one of the things that differentiates current state of the art assistive systems from the more primitive ones of the 20th Century. Cars like the Tesla models or the test versions of the Chevy Bolt are being built with the sensors needed to be have even more situational awareness in the future.

This is sort of like the "microevolution" that intelligent design proponents used to concede. Organisms can evolve in small ways, which can be seen in traditional lab experiments. But that doesn't mean they can ever evolve into a different species. The question is over time the microevolution changes accumulate to make the descendent too different from its ancestor to be called the same species.

With assistive systems in cars taking over little by little in more and more situations, eventually the "driver" becomes the one assisting when the systems can't handle the situation. And with the evolution of the system the number of situations the system can't handle shrinks until the only ones it can't handle are also too difficult for a human driver. At that point there's no reason to require the driver to pay attention to what the car is doing. The driver is just another passenger.
[doublepost=1497394673][/doublepost]
We'd definitely need to computerize air traffic control. No barnstorming allowed.


If autonomous cars is the future, a future some here seem to believe is just a few years away, how come there is zero talk in the flight industry? I haven't heard anything suggesting we would have autonomous aircrafts anytime soon, actually I haven't heard anything about anyone even suggesting such a thing (now I have :) ).
Interesting article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/has-the-self-flying-plane-arrived/472005/
Quote:
But when it comes to flying planes, humans are still better than computers at quickly assimilating unrelated facts and acting on them. Consider, for example, Captain Chelsey Sullenberger’s landing on January 15, 2009, when he successfully avoided a crash by navigating an Airbus A320 into the Hudson River. Or the United Airlines crew at Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989, artfully steering their crippled DC-10 to a survivable crash landing after the center engine exploded, disabling the plane’s redundant flight controls. When the first autonomous plane rolls out of the factory with no cockpit windows, I hope it can match the performance of those crews. Until that’s a possibility, the idea of “doing everything with nothing” will remain just an idea, and the cockpits will stay filled.

I think the lessons is: reality can actually be more "creative" than fiction. Therefore, it's extremely difficult to design a system that can adapt to that "creativity" like a human can. Perhaps computers can be programmed to have creativity, but I think that when that day comes, autonomous cars is not where that tech will end up, and I'm pretty sure it will be the "end" to more things than just driving cars...
 
In the US, human drivers kill about 40,000 people every year. For some reason we are not to upset about 40,000 deaths. But what if we switch over to driverless cars and the software AI killed 4,000 people. My bet is the public, being "math challenged" would complain loudly about the "unsafe cars" but of course they would be 10 time more safe with 10 times less traffic deaths.

We don't know yet but I'm predicting that driverless cars would need to be better than 10 times safer, even if they were 100 times better and killed only 400 people we'd likely hear people saying they should be banned

I'm predicting that the public accepts 40,000 fatal accidents if they are caused by humans but would find 400 unacceptable if cause by software.

Funny the arguments that cars need a human driver in case of emergencies. It is just in those rare cases where software would be far better tenth human. Human drivers have set the bar VERY LOW. They are by and large horribly un-skilled. So much so that for young and healthy people car accidents are the number one cause of death.

The AI does not need to be perfect. It only need to be about 10 times more skilled then the average human driver. Humans are good at some things but driving is just not one of them -- Like I sad driving is the leading cause of death in some demographics. All the AI has to do is not be the leading cause of death,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jeremiah256
Lets be clear 40k (38.3k in 2015 and dropping) people are killed by cars each year - not all of which are the fault of human drivers..
 
Probably even safer because they would be fully controlled by air traffic computers instead of people. They would also probably form lanes and have much more structure. There would be more crashes but that's only because there would be so many more planes in the sky so that number would have to rise but only because of technical failures due to, you guessed it, mechanical problems stemming from humans designing and repairing the planes.

The same humans that write the software and build the computers.
 
The rest of us who have gotten over the thrill of everyday driving (we're well north of our 20s) want this. Most of the US doesn't have the density to have the same rail systems of EU or Japan so automated driving is a good solution. I want to be able to go out and drink adult beverages at a restaurant and not have to worry about driving home. AI can handle other bad drivers than I can, mostly because it won't be susceptible to road rage.
I'm well out of my 20's and don't want this, I want less tech in my car not more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epca12
And what about snow and ice and black ice? The current tech is TERRIBLE on ice.
Most people are terrible on ice. If what you say is true and the "current" tech is also terrible, what about future tech?

Ice limits the maneuverability of a car, so even a good driver or good tech probably won't be able to avoid every crash, especially when another car is sliding toward you. Swerving out of the way isn't going to be an option, no matter how good you are.
 
The last thing I would do is to let my car be driving by a software. It is going to fail. In the street you need skills. Is not of what you could do but about what every one else could be doing. On top of that... it is a software with bugs. Would you be riding at 80 MPH on a software?
This made me laugh! You think human brains don't have bugs! Approximately 40,000 automobile fatalities per year indicate otherwise.
[doublepost=1497442976][/doublepost]
No one. In Life. Has ever asked for self driving cars.

LOL. This push is so bizarre to me. Who in the world would want this? These are like Red Light Cameras.
:confused: Yeah, and no one thought health care could be so complicated! :confused:

Have you seen the videos of happy Tesla drivers using Autopilot? Do you think the only reason there are over 500,000 people in line for a Model 3 is that it's electric? Many of those people could get a Model S, but the 3 will come with all the hardware for self-driving, and the ability to download updates. That's a big draw.
 
I'm well out of my 20's and don't want this, I want less tech in my car not more.
Then you should have the option of not using it. I don't think this tech is all or nothing, AI should be able to play nice with the human drivers. Of course politicians will jump in at some point and mandate this for the good of humanity.
 
I wonder how safe air travel would be if there were 100 million planes flying over the US?
Wrong question. How safe would air travel be if those computers weren't available? Answer: far less safe. Automation is why at a time when airlines are spending less on training, air travel is still getting safer. This is a tough pill to swallow, but most jobs done by humans are likely to be replaced by machines, and not in the distant future. That is what technology is for: reducing labor.
[doublepost=1497455890][/doublepost]
Then you should have the option of not using it.
As self-driving cars take hold, the risk pool of human drivers will shrink, and since they're far less safe than computers, their relative risk will rise. Expect to pay much more for insurance in ten years if you still want to manually drive.
 
My point is that the autopilot is an assistive system, not autonomous. Assistive systems in cars are by no means anything new. The difference here is that the systems being developed will be autonomous, controlling the vehicle fully, in all situations, without human intervention. A drive by wire-system is not autonomous, it's just a different way of direct control.
Assistive systems are great, offload work from the operator to a system and free up the human to do what is difficult: situation awareness.
It is when you rely on a system for situation awareness it gets complicated.

I am not necessarily disagreeing, but we all know full autonomous driving is coming whether you like it or not. As machine learning and artificial intelligence improves for these tasks, situational awareness of humans will become less effective and eventually considered dangerous.

And this is coming from a car and motorcycle enthusiast!
[doublepost=1497463125][/doublepost]
Hence why they are supervised or assistance systems and not fully autonomous.
No way in hell would i trust Apple software to operate fully autonomously in a car. I'd not even want to walk anywhere either for fear of being run over by the latest bug or hack.

Sounds like you will do an awful lot of staying at home in the future then.:rolleyes:
 
...situational awareness of humans will become less effective and eventually considered dangerous.
I'd say it's already considered dangerous, which explains the push to get autonomous driving in place. Since the still rudimentary Autopilot reduced Tesla's crash rate by 40% and it isn't even used all the time, it's clear that fully autonomous driving will make traveling by car much safer.
 
And which automaker is going to incorporate this? They're all already working on their own stuff. No way are they going to turn over something as important as this to a 3rd party. And when has Apple ever been successful being a piece of technology in someone else's product? Yes Apple is a platform company but most often its companies building on top of Apple's hardware products. Apple Pay is only available if you use Apple's hardware. The W1 chip isn't available for 3rd parties to use. Outside of Apple Music on Android and iTunes on Windows what Apple technology can you use without owning Apple hardware? And the only reason iTunes was ported to Windows is because most people owned Windows PCs and the iPod requires a PC to sync music to the device.

IF Apple can nail the software powering these autonomous/self driving vehicles then I'm not worried at all about their ability to build a car. The software is the much more difficult part IMO. I'm surprised people think Apple can nail that but can't actually build a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cwt2nospam
I'd say it's already considered dangerous, which explains the push to get autonomous driving in place. Since the still rudimentary Autopilot reduced Tesla's crash rate by 40% and it isn't even used all the time, it's clear that fully autonomous driving will make traveling by car much safer.

Agreed. For me, I would love it on a commute in traffic or a long road trip, but I will always want to be able to turn it off when I want to have a little fun or go off the beaten path! The day autonomous driving becomes required would be more of my worry, but that is a long way off I imagine. The good thing is I assume they will not be touching motorcycles for a while.
 
The day autonomous driving becomes required would be more of my worry, but that is a long way off I imagine.
I don't think it will ever be "required" but it won't be long after most car makers have fully autonomous cars for sale that insuring a car without it on all the time will start to get expensive.

Fully electric, fully autonomous is the future. I wouldn't buy a new car now if it couldn't easily be upgraded to that in a few years. I think Apple knows that if they build a car it has to have better AI than a Model 3. They also know they'd need to build a fast charging network, which may be why they shelved the idea of building the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksnell
I don't think it will ever be "required" but it won't be long after most car makers have fully autonomous cars for sale that insuring a car without it on all the time will start to get expensive.

Fully electric, fully autonomous is the future. I wouldn't buy a new car now if it couldn't easily be upgraded to that in a few years. I think Apple knows that if they build a car it has to have better AI than a Model 3. They also know they'd need to build a fast charging network, which may be why they shelved the idea of building the car.

I admit, I am on the Tesla bandwagon. Awesome technology. I don't know why people think Apple or Google will sweep in and destroy Tesla.

A.) Autonomous electric transportation is Tesla's main business. They cannot afford to let it fail like Apple or Google.
B.) They have products in the market collecting data now for years. Their head start will be miles. Kind of like Google Maps on Apple Maps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cwt2nospam
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.