Ford’s billion-dollar self-driving car AI deal
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I'm not really a fan of the shared economy. It may be what's coming, but I'll stick with my own car for as long as I'm able to safely.
I'm not thrilled about a fully autonomous vehicle, less thrilled about vehicles being "connected" (which is mandated in a shared economy). Why?
Not because I'm a Luddite, folks.
The concept is fine. The tech is fine. The implementation sucks balls. Privacy, safety and security issues still have to be adequately addressed before folks start beta-testing their tech "out there". If those issues are properly and adequately addressed, fine. I'm good with it. I may not like it, but that's just me, and I'll get used to it.
But UNTIL then, fuck no. I'd be pissed as hell if the neighborhood hacker sent me off a pier the next time I tried to take my connected, autonomous vehicle to the store because he didn't like the way I shouted at him to get off my lawn.
I'm not thrilled about a fully autonomous vehicle, less thrilled about vehicles being "connected" (which is mandated in a shared economy). Why?
Not because I'm a Luddite, folks.
The concept is fine. The tech is fine. The implementation sucks balls. Privacy, safety and security issues still have to be adequately addressed before folks start beta-testing their tech "out there". If those issues are properly and adequately addressed, fine. I'm good with it. I may not like it, but that's just me, and I'll get used to it.
But UNTIL then, fuck no. I'd be pissed as hell if the neighborhood hacker sent me off a pier the next time I tried to take my connected, autonomous vehicle to the store because he didn't like the way I shouted at him to get off my lawn.
Upvote
7
(23
/
-16)
If an attempted murder charge isn't a deterrent for preventing somebody just hacking your car to kill for the fun of it. Why would people wait?
Why not just create a slow leak in your brake line? Why not screw with some other physical part of your vehicle now?
While I don't deny that there are likely some sick fucks out there and that vehicles should be secure I have my doubts the difference between someone being malicious with your vehicle or not is a wireless chipset.
Upvote
20
(31
/
-11)
I wonder what will happen to those of us riding around on two wheel motored transportation.
Will we be a nuisance or will we have safer streets to ride? I would suspect far fewer cases of the "sorry mate, I didn't see ya" but if we get to a point beyond traffic control things won't look good for us.
Will we be a nuisance or will we have safer streets to ride? I would suspect far fewer cases of the "sorry mate, I didn't see ya" but if we get to a point beyond traffic control things won't look good for us.
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
Because requiring physical access (to cut the oil line or mess with the brakes) means restricting to very few hundred or thousands of people.
If murder can be committed across the globe anonymously and aseptically by someone hiding the great billions, it will.
Upvote
18
(24
/
-6)
SDCs are already more conservative around bikers of all types than humans. I'm pretty sure it's a net gain.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
Ford's a little more tech savvy than most automakers. They reserved an entire Class A IP block back in the day.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
You're off your rocker.
A). Besides the blatantly obvious ECU that controls the engine and transmission in every car for the past twenty years, Ford(and virtually every other manufacturer now) has level 2 autonomous functions, i.e. lane keeping, crash avoidance, adaptive cruise, parking assist. Who the heck do you think wrote the software for that stuff?
B) if you RTFA you would know their investing in a company comprised of people who have been working on autonomous functions for years.
Upvote
36
(37
/
-1)
That doesn't mean much, my experience was with a company that made computer hardware. You don't get much more "tech savvy" than literally building the tech. Doesn't mean they understand software development.
Upvote
-15
(1
/
-16)
Shared cars are like hot desk offices. They are ok and match demand/supply in a broad sense.
But sometimes you just want to leave stuff on your desk or in your car and not have to pack everything up or carry everything around.
But sometimes you just want to leave stuff on your desk or in your car and not have to pack everything up or carry everything around.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Except when some of the best talent happens to be brown and come from countries with a much better, cheaper, and more focused education system that just happen to be filled with people who pray to the wrong god.
Then the best talent gets to go to Canada and money doesn't mean a god danm thing.
Fun Fact: MS announced that they were forced to lay of 72 American workers because the h1b visas of the 24 people they work for are in jeopardy, and they have no way of replacing them because there is no one at their talent level in the hiring pool. They were forced to cancel the projects they were in charge of, and the junior engineers are now redundant.
Upvote
4
(16
/
-12)
The problem is the crime of opportunity. To physically tamper with your breaks, some kid has to shit his pants while doing it. And then try not to cry when he sees your brains at that corner every day he goes to school. To hack some sensor from far away in Russia or France or Poland and then release a worm to infect all cars, and then watch on the news how the world is going crazy is ... exciting.
Upvote
10
(13
/
-3)
snowman<ca>
Ars Praefectus
The C level executives that seems to complain that the most about not being able to find talent often want experienced people to come for at beginner or well below the average wage for the jobs and are not exactly known for giving raises to keep up with inflation.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Critical thinking isn't your forte', is it?
Least I point out, the reason most of the above-mentioned things aren't done all the time (not that they're not done at all), is the extremely high likelihood of being SEEN doing it. Crimes rise in proportion to the ability to "get away with it" as well as how easy it is to pull off.
Given the current state of vehicular security, I'm going to say that any exceptionally bright three year old could probably hack any connected vehicle - and no one would know.
I have a security system that records what goes on around my home. But protecting a vehicle that can receive OTA updates while fucking parked in my garage is a hacker's wet dream. Most people today lack the skill set to screw with a car in a manner that would likely be fatal (or, for that matter, inconvenient). It's part of the "shared economy" thing that requires specialists rather than a society of more self-sufficient "Renaissance men" who can do most anything with some degree of competence. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to hack a car (at least so far). It simply takes the knowledge of how to download the tools, most of which, if I'm not mistaken, come with step-by-step "how-to" instructions for idiots who don't really know what they're doing.
So, that's the world we all live in. Yes, someone COULD mess with the car, but it's more likely going to be at a distance (pellet gun, rock, rifle) and the car will be damaged - not so much me. One plays the odds. With hackable vehicles, that opens up an attack vector accessible by anyone, pretty much anywhere within range.
And that's the problem I see with connected vehicles.
Besides, Captain Oblivious, I was being facetious...
Upvote
-19
(3
/
-22)
I completely agree. Recent years have shown that the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory extends to the real world in just about every area where the digital world and the real world intersect, and it isn't just limited to verbal abuse.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
And remember, doing something illegal isn't a crime if you are doing it from the safety of your own home.
I still find it mind-boggling how people will do things on-line that they'd never consider doing in a million years outside the house. Our brain just can't seem to truly grok the concept of there being real people on the other side of that network connection.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Sure. But an automated car would make us a one-car family, not a two-car family. Once or twice a month use a rental/pool/public/whatever.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
I don't see how fully autonomous vehicles can share the road with humans, who are so error-prone. Seems like there are too many variables. Or can a computer hooked up to a bunch of sensors anticipate any situation? What about bad visibility, snow, flooding, and the like? Believe me, I would love to be able to take a nap or read on the way to wherever and leave the driving to the robot. Will it really be here in only ten or so years?
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Personal attacks aside.
It is much easier for me to "accidentally drop" something and puncture your brake line with a knife than it is to hack your vehicle.
If im targeting you specifically it would be spectacularly easy for me to wait until your car was parked in an unsurveilled location.
If I was doing it for laughs why not simply fuck with cars where I know they're not being watched.
It is one hell of a stretch to claim that someone can easier hack a vehicle than just drop something under the car and make a quick swipe with a knife. Just as easy to get away with as well.
Just for reference a brake line is right near the rotor of your vehicle. Location found with a 5 second google search.
I'll also restate that yes cars need to be secure, but idea of en-masse homicide by vehicle is laughably overstated. Especially in an industry where every little safety issue results in a recall.
Upvote
-5
(3
/
-8)
You have fallen into the perfection trap.
The self-driving car only needs to be better than the average human drivers.
Humans driving poorly are already killing as many Americans as the 9/11 attacks - every month.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
Yes, I suppose if vehicular accidents immediately will be reduced over-all, there is no reason not to implement an imperfect system.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
There will still be a place for motorcycles. The autonomous car will result in fewer road fatalities, therefore fewer organ donors. I would expect the licensing and training barriers that have been setup to discourage motorcyclists will go away. No more helmet laws.
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
Ford is run by snobby schmucks who only hire programmers from ivy league universities.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
We don't have helmet laws in my state but I wear one, I ride in full gear all the time (even in 120 heat, mesh FTW) but that's not incase I smack a car, it's incase I get a little crazy and make my own mistake!
Extending things out if we get to a point where traffic lights go away because the cars all self adjust would that system accommodate the randomness of a human element?
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
It'd sure as hell better, since getting rid of traffic lights means requiring pedestrians to walk out into the middle of traffic and trust the auto-cars to stop if they ever want to cross a street.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Considering that a shared economy implies somewhat of a connected-car ecosystem, it would seem that Tesla, not Ford or Argo AI, is at the forefront of this technology. Yes, Ford and GM have incredible means of producing, integrating and deploying vehicles - far and above what Tesla has managed. But in terms of connected systems and automotive security, Tesla leads the pack.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
No. I mean a pimple-faced youth doing stupid (we've all been there) and wrecking someone's life using only electrons from afar.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
There is this thing called "competition" and smart companies pay attention to it and go forth and hire people with new skills so they can better compete. Tesla may have a nice lead now in automation and security, but clearly Ford is seeing an opportunity here and is sinking some money into catching up. Tesla needs to keep running hard because resting on its laurels is a sure way to end up being the next Studebaker.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
This point needs to be made a lot more often. I know my family could easily get by with a single car if that car had the ability to move around on its own. When you think of the price of a car and the amount of time it spends just sitting there, it is hard to imagine a worse cost-per-function gadget.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
This. The only people that think shared cars will be a thing are people that live and work in the city limits of SF, NYC, Chicago, Boston and DC. The entire concept of shared cars betrays how people actually use them. Like you said its moving storage because Mom is just going to love taking into and out of the office Jrs Soccer stuff and Emma's band stuff every morning and afternoon. She will really love it when she forgets something and has to track down the auto car. People are just going to love it when they have to wait an hour to get a car from work because everyone else wanted to leave at 5.
Or use the example of commuter rail which is faster and cheaper yet people still drive downtown to their office.
Upvote
-5
(2
/
-7)
Completely misses that my wife and I will be able to own and share 1 car instead of 2.
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
If it's such a lousy cost-per-function gadget, why does it dominate passenger transportation in the industrialized world? There's more than just $ in the cost-benefit analysis.
And as naive Uber drivers discover, the real operating cost of a vehicle is incurred when you drive it. When it's sitting there, it's really not costing you very much.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
There, fixed that for you. Privately owned automobiles only really dominate in the USA, except in cities that have a decent mass-transit system, and in rural areas of the rest of the first world outside the reach of mass-transit. Cars dominate in the USA largely due to the fact that back in the 30's, GM bought out and dismantled much of the passenger rail lines in the USA in order to create a market for their motor coaches, which means that people became more dependent on automobiles for travel, and then in the '50s the federal government started the interstate highway system because the rail system was no longer sufficient to handle the increased amount of people and cargo traveling across the country. This created a feedback of car ownership that led to the suburban revolution and wholesale redesign of urban areas to accommodate automobiles instead of pedestrians and mass-transit. Had we maintained our investment in rail like Europe did, we would probably have similarly lower levels of car ownership and dependence. The simple fact is, we're dependent on cars because our infrastructure and society was essentially designed to be dependent on cars.
Upvote
5
(8
/
-3)
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
As Bad Monkey pointed out, there is a lot more that just utility going into the decision to buy a car. Do you really think anyone actually needs an Aston-Martin other than to show off? And even beyond that, there is the convenience factor. No matter how nice it is, public transportation is less convenient than a personal car, and at least in the US, only a handful of cities actually have respectable public transportation.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
- Status