I have a 12-page piece appearing about now in a magazine famed for being (in the view of many) unreadably 'intellectual'.
I toyed with the idea of posting it here for those interested, but decided against. The piece itself won't tell most people here anything they don't know already, and some will be annoyed by its iconoclastic attitude to the subject of autonomous or self-driving cars, and its scepticism about the technologies involved most of which are already highly developed. I can almost taste Number_Cruncher's waspish accusations of Luddism... although the magazine in question has asked if I want complimentary copies sent to anyone, and I did think of him. But I haven't got his address, so he will be spared.
Of course the rest of the magazine would be useful and instructive to almost anyone short of Ban Ki Moon... but hard work perhaps.
Ponce ponce.
:o}
|
|
So which magazine is it ?
|
The Economist, you can read it in your next Business Class adventure... ;-)
A trip to Ann Arbour would help with research if not already undertaken...no pun intended.
|
|
My next flight will be to Cyprus on Easyjet - don't think they'll stretch to that
|
|
It does not appear to get a reference in the online version of the main publication of the 24th. Publication delayed?
|
|
it might be in a supplement called Technology Quarterly which is out in September ????
|
I'll have you sent a copy for the C4P files Rob, unless there's a more central address which you can email to me.
Please note, if you read it, the reference to The Economist, heh heh...
|
So this is a post about a piece of journalism which we cannot read, as we don't know where to find it, and it's something about self-driving cars, but we don't know what exactly, but it might prove controversial amongst the brethren here present.
A pretty pointless post then? Or have I just swallowed the bait?
|
>> A pretty pointless post then?
Yup, afraid so. A tiresome and foolish bit of preening really. Pretend you haven't seen it.
|
Please spare us the 12 pages, but, what's the nub of your thesis?
|
>> spare us the 12 pages,
12 pages with lengthy and detailed footnotes explaining things that you and most here would regard as bleeding obvious. Not intended for car people at all, but the second essay I have done for that magazine on the automobile, explaining it to an 'intellectual' readership in a detailed but readable way. Anyway that's the intention.
You would pick up on all sorts of elisions, exaggerations and even the odd inaccuracy, and be scornful. But it's really just a piece of gizmo journalism, opinionated and deliberately provocative here and there. Not meant for people like us. But not grossly misleading either.
There isn't a thesis and it doesn't have a nub. But I am distrustful of much of the existing technology for making cars better than us. I don't even like or trust ABS. I don't mind letting that show as you may have noticed! Driverless cars have a lot of heavy sugar behind them but I'm not holding my breath waiting for affordable ones that work.
|
I find it a bit odd that you consider your views iconoclastic, when really, I think you're taking the easy and conventional path and massaging most motorists' egos in suggesting that they're better suited to the control task than computers.
It's easier to tell people what they want to hear.
|
>> It's easier to tell people what they want to hear.
I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying humans are responsible for vehicles including 'autonomous' ones.
>> suggesting that they're better suited to the control task than computers.
I don't say that either. I say people are worse suited to the 'control task' than computers. But the task isn't just a control task, or seamless succession of control tasks, is it? And computers aren't the only technology involved are they? Looks to me like technological hubris, Heath Robinson carried several steps too far.
I quite look forward to being proved wrong in a way. But I don't expect it.
|
Good thing is they could extend the Volvo heart monitor detection system to rush you to hospital if you have an abnormal arrhythmia with the automatic emergency services pre-programmed response.
You won't get to where you planned on going but you can always tell the hospital you were diagnosed by Bosch or whoever supplies the system.
|
The question of responsibility is problematic.
However, it only need be temporary. During the early use of autonomous vehicles, there would be some systematic accidents - reproducible bugs in the software and/or hardware.
As an example, if autonomous vehicles must by legal requirement contain a "black box" recording instrument, then, the accidents could be investigated, and the bugs fixed.
Yes, some people would lose their lives in the interim, but, this would be much less than the numbers we're currently inured to.
I do see the task as a seamless succession of control tasks - although I'm rolling the sensing and deciding the priority of events, and the optimization of response into that definition. What else is there?
I've read you mentioning things like the elegance of path choice in corners, and the fluidity of control, but, I think you may not be taking into account quite a bit of the optimization research which has been done, but not yet implemented in real time.
For me, the question is not whether autonomous vehicles can deliver zero fatalities - of course they can't, but, can they offer a significant reduction?, and I can see that's likely.
|
>> For me, the question is not whether autonomous vehicles can deliver zero fatalities - of course they can't, but, can they offer a significant reduction?, and I can see that's likely.
Perhaps N_C, when they arrive in 12 years or so... but they will be slow too, and hesitant, with many functional glitches. Proper cars will have to go round them until they are a majority. I'll probably be dead by then so I don't have to worry about it.
Think too of the aerospace-standard maintenance that will be required almost certainly by law, but by anyone who was going to entrust their little pink bum to a machine. The things will be pretty damn dear to buy and maintain.
Actually I'm not ashamed of that piece and I will get RP to forward it to you. It's not so bad. The first essay is all right too - the automobile through the ages, inside and out, hung on five literary texts and a number of minor references. Likewise resolutely non-enthusiast and mid-Atlantic in tone, to suit the readers who can of course read English. It would seem weird stuff to some here but others might like it. HJ did.
|
If RP's going to get a copy and is prepared to forward via email, i'd be glad to receive one please.
Can't abide the rapidly advancing taking away from drivers their responsibilities and control.
Some new generation lorries are going to be reading the route ahead to help with automated gear selection, can't wait, further dumbing down of the steering wheel attendants skills which if you haven't already noticed is blindingly obvious to proper lorry drivers out on the road.
The 'driverless' lorry (and one could be forgiven for thinking its already here) is one to avoid if your car allows you any input, luckily my lorry time will be coming to an end as it takes off in a grand scale, best of luck to those involved.
I know many want the gadgets and gizmos and they can have them by all means, but some of us don't want or need them and won't be buying into it as long as we draw breath.
|
|
Well, if AC sanctions a wider distribution...
|
>> Well, if AC sanctions a wider distribution...
+1!!
|
>> >> Well, if AC sanctions a wider distribution...
>>
>> +1!!
>>
+2
People are speculating about The Economist but as far as I can see AC hasn't confirmed that. perhaps Razzle or Reader's Wives commissioned the piece?
|
>> sanctions a wider distribution...
Anyone can read it if they're interested. But it's not for knowledgeable car people. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I feel it's a bit of an imposition on RP to expect him to email it to people. And he says he can't open the link thing I sent him. I may be able to cobble an electronic version together and try that. But I can't do a tinyurl or anything like that.
|
|
What's the name of the publication AC?
|
Cobble away AC, you're in good company here.
Healthy distrust in spades round here, surprised so many of 'em vote liblabcon but there you go.:)
FM2R, agree with ABS as it happens, only in one or two exceptional and abnormal situations have i found it to make the situation worse.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 25 Aug 13 at 18:50
|
>>Don't say I didn't warn you.
Somebody who writes for a living is only going to be successful if they can successfully target a specific audience.
However, targeting one audience usually means alienating another to one degree or another. So I'd support AC in exactly that comment - do read it (if we are able, and I would like to) bearing in mind that you are perhaps not the target group.
|
>> but some of us don't want or need them and won't be buying into it as long as we draw breath.
I don't know about that; I'd agree that technology is work missing in its earlier days, but it normally settles down pretty well in the end.
I don't know how long I've had ABS on cars, many years, and I've never had an issue with it since it became mature.
On the other hand I was driving a pickup without it recently. Its traumatic. A whole set of considerations and complications that Id got out of the habit of dealing with.
|
>> Perhaps N_C, when they arrive in 12 years or so... but they will be slow
>> too, and hesitant, with many functional glitches.
The mind boggles at the thing blue-screening on the M25........
|
>> >> Perhaps N_C, when they arrive in 12 years or so... but they will be
>> slow
>> >> too, and hesitant, with many functional glitches.
>>
>> The mind boggles at the thing blue-screening on the M25........
>>
Which is why (AFAIK), generally - such applications don't use the software famed for the BSoD. If their wares are in your car (some Fords I believe) then they are confined to the infotainment systems.
Giving my favourite sensors and actuators quote, "software eventually works, hardware eventually fails".
|
>> Which is why (AFAIK), generally - such applications don't use the software famed for the
>> BSoD. If their wares are in your car (some Fords I believe) then they are
>> confined to the infotainment systems.
Not cars perhaps, but I remember being a bit surprised some years ago when I went up to a cash machine only to see a Windows (VBscript IIRC) error message :o
Last edited by: Focusless on Sun 25 Aug 13 at 13:22
|
>> >> Which is why (AFAIK), generally - such applications don't use the software famed for
>> the
>> >> BSoD. If their wares are in your car (some Fords I believe) then they
>> are
>> >> confined to the infotainment systems.
>>
>> Not cars perhaps, but I remember being a bit surprised some years ago when I
>> went up to a cash machine only to see a Windows (VBscript IIRC) error message
>> :o
At one time, some of the were little more a PC ( I mean a complete PC, same you could buy in PC world but running NT) with the peripherals (card reader, dispenser, customer screen/keyboard) cabled to it, all in a steel safe.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Aug 13 at 13:31
|
>>
>> At one time, some of the were little more a PC ( I mean a
>> complete PC, same you could buy in PC world but running NT) with the peripherals
>> (card reader, dispenser, customer screen/keyboard) cabled to it, all in a steel safe.
>>
I must confess to having some knowledge of both ATMs and PoS systems through my work. Indeed most ATMs and many PoS systems currently use an embedded version of Windows XP. Previously OS/2 was very common but has gradually been replaced since the late 1990s (although the most common OS in PoS is probably still IBM 4690 - can't remember what that's based on but it's DOS-like). Linux or other real time OSes are common in other embedded applications but the lack of a 'common' Linux and the support challenges that ensue have hampered its adoption in ATM and PoS. Indeed much of the componentry in these systems is off the shelf PC stuff.
At a basic level an OS doesn't need to do very much so a stripped out Linux kernel will suffice as indeed will a stable build of something like XP. I still wouldn't want anything from Msft running my car mind you, or indeed my home - but I have a bias, I like Linux and my wife & kids like Mac. In fact - to drive well off topic, neither of my kids will use Msft software unless compelled, they generally use Apple Pages / Numbers / Keynote and 'save as' Msft format despite having Office on their Macs. I don't think this is my influence (honestly) and wonder whether a new generation is less inclined towards Msft products than their elders ?
|
>> XP. Previously OS/2 was very common but has gradually been replaced since the late 1990s
>> (although the most common OS in PoS is probably still IBM 4690 - can't remember
>> what that's based on but it's DOS-like).
It was originally based on Digital Research Concurrent DOS.
|
>> >> Which is why (AFAIK), generally - such applications don't use the software famed for
>> the
>> >> BSoD. If their wares are in your car (some Fords I believe) then they
>> are
>> >> confined to the infotainment systems.
>>
>> Not cars perhaps, but I remember being a bit surprised some years ago when I
>> went up to a cash machine only to see a Windows (VBscript IIRC) error message
>> :o
>>
I remember walking through Munich airport and seeing a Uniface error message on screen. Don't think it would have been obvious to the masses.
Car systems tend to be tested to death before release. Remember Volvo's embarrassment with XC60 launch. Would expect someone got a severe kicking for that.
|
Hmmm. I wouldn't get in an autonomous car unless every other car on the road was running the same software.
The Airbus autopilot software was rigorously developed and no doubt formally proved correct (wiki formal proof if needed) yet attempts to kill me or do something stupid on a regular basis. Therefore it needs exceptionally close supervision most of the time, something more tedious than doing the job yourself.
How closely will you be watching what your car is doing?
|
>>attempts to kill me or do something stupid on a regular basis
What about the couple of hundred poor sods sitting behind you?
|
>> What about the couple of hundred poor sods sitting behind you?
If FF takes good care of his own skin, bt, those poor sods will reap the benefit, no?
|
>>>The Airbus autopilot software was rigorously developed and no doubt formally proved correct (wiki formal proof if needed) yet attempts to kill me or do something stupid on a regular basis. Therefore it needs exceptionally close supervision most of the time, something more tedious than doing the job yourself.
There is not so far to fall in a car! :-)
|
>> There is not so far to fall in a car! :-)
>>
Less room for error though, as the routes are more densely packed...
|
>> do something stupid on a regular basis. Therefore it needs exceptionally close supervision most of the time, something more tedious than doing the job yourself.
>>
>> How closely will you be watching what your car is doing?
>>
This I fear is the biggest issue, one that we already see...
IMHO the more the vehicle does for us, the less notice one takes of our surroundings, and the slower our reactions are when needed.
Also, the more trust one puts in 'safety' systems, the more chances some will take, 'knowing' that should a problem arise the car will get them out of it.
Not always true I'm afraid, as on black ice for instance, the vehicle will slide no matter what ABS etc tries to do... as some of our bodyshop customers have proved!
|
>>I quite look forward to being proved wrong in a way. But I don't expect it
It's an opinion.
By definition it can't be proved wrong as infinite guff can be dredged up to support any opinion.
See also 'political viewpoints'
;-)
|
>>
>> It's an opinion.
>>
>> By definition it can't be proved wrong as infinite guff can be dredged up to
>> support any opinion.
>>
But some opinions remain swirling around in the current of accepted intellectual debate, and others drift off into dead-ends and lie there bleached and forgotten.
It takes decades, often centuries, to see which really had any value. And even then forgotten wise words can resurface.
As that ancient and largely-forgotten philosopher AC once said, "He who sells his soul to automation will become an automaton himself".
|
|
I think automakers will be too scared of being sued to provide fully automated cars, without it only being turned on in designated roadways or some such. They will remain ever advanced 'driver assistance' technologies, and the driver will be expected to remain the fall guy.
|
Ponce ponce - R.P.
