If you're Intel, self-driving cars look an awful lot like PCs Intel's vision of the computing architecture of autonomous vehicles is similar to that of PCs, with pricey models getting better hardware and the latest software, and cheaper self-driving cars getting the bare minimum. The segments of premium and mid-range cars will need extra compute and over-the-air update capabilities to …
I assume the added value will have nothing to do with safety and function regarding traffic and driving laws and regulations.
There needs to be a thorough and well regulated set of standards that will apply to all self driving/autonomous vehicles, any superfluous bits beyond those will be for the status driven.
The regulatory system will also have to specify how long manufacturers support software updates. If the support lifetime resembles that of most Android phones then the autonomous capability will be useless, dangerous or both within five years. It also needs to regulated what happens once updates cease so that it's impossible to drive the vehicle in autonomous mode.
Frankly, autonomous vehicles need to be built with lifetime updates in mind. Not necessarily for new features, but certainly for updates to core function.
Anything less, and the autonomous functions will degrade to the point of uselessness and/or danger, and I would strongly foresee lawsuits being bought against the manufacturers that let their vehicles get into that state.
Although that seems like a good idea and it would reduce the scourge of on-street car storage, er, parking, it would dramatically increase the miles driven.
Instead of driving your own car A --> B then B--> A, it will be
Depot--A--B--A--Depot,
or even D--A--B--D--B--A--D.
Granted sometimes it might go D--A--B--E--F--E--G--H--D, but not every time and hardly ever in rural areas.
Which would shorten the life of the car, in terms of actual years of whether it's used or not, not the total years of use. So if there was only 5 years of updates, it might work as the car might not even last that long.
5 years is too short for cars these days, but when you're not buying them it may not matter as much if most of it can be recycled.
"using them like taxis, instead of being something personal"
Good luck with getting your subscription car to take you to work in rush hour when everyone else wants to do the same. In order to guarantee that your subscription will approximate to that of owning a car except for the addition of somebody's profit. Unless the pattern of usage changes the number of vehicles , the need to store them outside of peak demand and the consequent economics won't change.
This post has been deleted by its author
The regulations must have something like this in them:
A car must be able to drive itself safely without using any technology or services located outside the car. It must have the ability to disconnect from any external services without special permission or equipment, and the method to do so must be made public so the safety testing can verify that it is safe without those connections. Any defect resulting in safety risks in this mode requires an immediate recall.
If it doesn't have that, the products will end up being unsafe or someone will have to take them off the users to prevent that. Either way, that's not acceptable.
> ... the autonomous capability will be useless, dangerous or both within five years
Or, like MOT tests, meaningless the moment you leave the testing centre.
No problem though, it's all part of our government's long standing desire to stop the proles from having cars, which goes back to the Red Flag act and beyond.
I don't see how this is going to be very different to today. All cars must meet a minimum standard defined by the regulations, such as crash safety, lighting, performance (the UK MOT test checks this) etc. And if you pay more, you get more: better brakes, better lights, more airbags and so on.
If cars become more like PCs, then I just hope it doesn't mean my car will need continual hardware updates and memory increases to carry on working whenever I install a now OS, I mean, whenever I drive along a new road.
>I just hope it doesn't mean my car will need continual hardware updates and memory increases to carry on working whenever I install a now OS, I mean, whenever I drive along a new road.
Based on current practice its not a matter of new hardware or software but whether you're paying the monthly payment and what level subscription you have.
You may have noticed that PCs are edging in that direction.
As long as it is clear that the bare minimum is being able to arrive at one's destination without plowing through a tree, another vehicle, a cyclist or a pedestrian, then I'm fine with that.
If, however, your "bare minimum" includes a monthly subscription to avoid baby strollers, you can fuck right off.
There is no bare minimum in autonomous vehicles. Either it does the job perfectly, or it is useless.
Strippers are a bonus. Millionnairs can pay for that. The rest of us just need it to work.
>There is no bare minimum in autonomous vehicles. Either it does the job perfectly, or it is useless.
The bare minimum for current modern cars is ABS, stability control, 87 airbags, automatic braking, lane departure warning, blind spot warning - we don't ban all older cars that don't have this.
"The bare minimum for current modern cars is ABS, stability control, 87 airbags, automatic braking, lane departure warning, blind spot warning - we don't ban all older cars that don't have this."
First of all, that's not the bare minimum at all. Many cars come with some of those listed "features" not included. Secondly, the "bare minimum" is a properly licenced driver in a fit state to drive. THAT is the bare minimum required for autonomous cars too, even if the "driver" is a computer.
This post has been deleted by its author
No electronics of any kind, no fossil fuel, no batteries, no IOT shit, just a reconfigured bicycle with a bench seat & a metal shell around me. I'll get one that resembles a fire truck, I always liked fire trucks. Bonus if it includes the loud clangy bell to ring while I shout at people to get out of my way...
"While the intel envisioned *server on wheels* might have some merit; how much power will that require?"
That might not be a concern after paying Apple for the wheels,
What will be the defaults rules in crashes.
Pedestrians and cyclists get to live.
Or car owner lives no matter who else needs to die to make that happen. Or will that be a selectable option, only available in the premium offering. With the default setting being "everyone outside is allowed to die, but the people inside this vehicle must live."
For the vast majority of human drivers, I suspect they would put themselves and their passengers above others, so AI may well do the same. On the other hand, this has been a matter of strong debate for some while now and no proper consensus has been reached, primarily because no matter the consensus, they will be accused of being heartless bastards by the sector of society most likely to be in the "expendable" group.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
