"DIY self-driving cars are closer than they appear"
Yes, about two feet away!
[Boom, boom (crash)]
Develop a self-driving car and regulatory trouble may follow, as Uber has discovered. Develop a self-driving car kit and the situation is the same. George Hotz's Comma.ai tried this with its $999 Comma One kit to give recent Honda Civics and some Acura models adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist capabilities. But …
There is a problem with "intent". We can own certain things, like knowledge and energy. But how we use them is the problem.
Nothing wrong with a self driving car. Or even a broken one. It's the people putting them on the road, or selling them.
And "open source" one is just knowledge, with some mechanical application too. But using it on the road without testing and confirmation it won't crash? That's the hard part.
I believe that's called totalitarianism (or more euphemistically a Nanny State), and is equally applicable to the non-autonomous forms of vehicles.
Sorry, but no, the majority should not be treated like idiots and/or criminals just because a handful of us are.
since obviously no insurance company is going to cover a DIY self driving car.
It's entirely possible that in the event of an accident the insurance company might call the policy null and void, leaving the driver/owner with 100% of the liability.
Open-source self-driving HW and SW? Nothing good can come of that.
It's all a con really. Time/energy/effort etc. We are swapping people for automation. While it's a luxury, it's not a necessity.
Automated dishwasher/washing machine is a nice luxury. It's not a disaster should they fail. It's replacing human work.
Self driving cars, are either a luxury, or a disaster. Thing is, they are just trying to move the work from one place to another. Sometimes the user still has to work the same hours, but in the office, to pay the cost of the "time saving device", depending on costs/contract/servicing.
Let's keep in mind that this "DIY" kit only works with vehicles released in the last 2 years. All of the necessary sensors and cameras are already in the car, the only thing you "do" is plug in a magical box to control it.
Call me when someone starts selling a DIY kit that includes the cameras and sensors that you can retrofit on a pre-2016 model year. Regulation is now a shit show thanks to Obama, and I wouldn't trust any vehicle made after 2007, especially if it contains Takata air bags. Did you idiots forget that the 2016 ILX is part of the air bag recall?
Right now I would be more concerned about thoses cases that have been properly handled such as icy roads, snow, etc. So far all the major testing has been done under about as an ideal situation as possible: California and Arizona. I would like them to try Buffalo during a lake-effect snow storm or Atlanta after a major ice storm for starters. Buffalo is prone to heavy snows before Lake Erie freezes over. Atlanta is a very hilly city. If the automation can handle those situations I will pay more attention. Until then we are years away from being autonomous cars no matter what the hype machine says.
"... to give recent Honda Civics and some Acura models adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist capabilities."
So what this says to me is that all these cars already come with the needed equipment but it doesn't have the right software or computing power. It's like my cousin's base model '09 Fit, it didn't come with remote entry but it's just a matter of buying the $20 key blanks with the radio in the fob and programming the car or paying the dealer a few hundred bucks to "install" it.
Wonderful. Have these people never heard of GIGO?
Send it enough 'fake data' and you will soon see the consequences and the insurance bills.
All this stuff seems to rely on always being connected to some form of mothership which apart from the tracking issues, would be a fantastic target.
Remember how (in)secure IOT stuff is...
There is a really long way to go before I trust this stuff. People get wierd when the get behind the wheel of a tin box. Catering for variances in that wierdness in a data model is just not going to happen.
Really, Uber are the Google of transport. Put the AI in the infrastructure, and the humans in the actual driving seat. (Googles search success is using user data and automating the collation of it, see as another example captcha with tasks for the user to complete that are small workloads).
News story from South Australia just over the weekend.
"Eventually, this will allow Comma.ai to offer self-driving as a service. "As the system gets better, we'll charge a monthly fee," said Hotz."
Guess I'll have to check the "Open Source" license, but considering the improvements are being made by via open source, how are they going to sell it? I assume it is one of those modern licenses that basically read "we'll get you to work for free, and profit" (i.e. any Google license). It's either one of those shady licenses or there shouldn't be anything from you or even I from selling the software ourselves... or selling it "as a service".
It must be "proper" open source. Otherwise it wouldn't have been enough to get around the regulator. Remember, these guys weren't allowed to sell the kit. No court or regulator is going to accept "OK that's illegal but you can give it away to get around the law whilst you finish R&D and then reclaim ownership of the IP once it is legal.".
"Guess I'll have to check the "Open Source" license, but considering the improvements are being made by via open source, how are they going to sell it?"
If you release your own software under an Open Source license, you are in no way precluded from also releasing it under a commercial license and for instance offer support contracts with the latter.
Also you are under no obligation to release any or all future versions of that software as Open Source as well. For instance you are perfectly free to open source v1.0 but to release v2.0 as Closed Source only, as long as 2.0 includes only your own code (or code released under a "permissive" OS license such as BSD).
"Charge a fee"? Now, we know what the big push for "self driving cars" is really about. It's not "safer". It's not more reliable. It's not something that will allow punters to do "something else", while the car drives itself. It's something that will create more expensive cars, higher insurance fees/premiums, and allow these clowns to charge "monthly fees" for your car to drive itself. I'll pass on all of that, as well as any "connected tech", beyond terrestrial radio. You want a Self driving car? Buy one. Have fun with that...
"Charge a fee"? Now, we know what the big push for "self driving cars" is really about. It's not "safer"
It's something that will create more expensive cars, higher insurance fees/premiums, and allow these clowns to charge "monthly fees" for your car to drive itself.
We need some laws protecting us from the kind of behaviour exhibited by TalkTalk (not that they are alone here), where refusing to pay for a non-existant or crap service puts your credit status in danger.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022