A self-driving 6-passenger 15mph vehicle in mixed ped/bike/e-skateboard etc. traffic seems dicey to me. These characters on the e-boards and e-bikes scoot around like maniacs. And most bike paths are only one lane wide at best, usually lessI want self-driving 6-passenger 15mph shuttle-on-bikepath to provide "last 2 mile" service:
- Alewife to Arlington Heights
- Wellington to Malden
- Assembly to Encore Casino
- Winchester to Woburn & Stoneham
- East Boston to Suffolk Downs (west short of the peninsula)
- Watertown-Harvard Sq-Kenmore-Charles MGH-North Station
- Grand Junction BU to MIT
- Wonderland to Point of Pines
I would add a two branch Anderson/Woburn to Burlington and Billerica, and to Lexington via Woburn Four Corners via the power line rights of way to that list. A narrow path to accommodate such a shuttle could be built at a fairly low cost, though it would have to contend with passing through the Mill Pond Conservation Area and its eponymous reservoir, which might run into some environmental and land use issues. (This might be more of a crazy transit pitch)I want self-driving 6-passenger 15mph shuttle-on-bikepath to provide "last 2 mile" service:
- Alewife to Arlington Heights
- Wellington to Malden
- Assembly to Encore Casino
- Winchester to Woburn & Stoneham
- East Boston to Suffolk Downs (west short of the peninsula)
- Watertown-Harvard Sq-Kenmore-Charles MGH-North Station
- Grand Junction BU to MIT
- Wonderland to Point of Pines
It's hard to guess what the traffic dynamics would be. An engineering study with modeling and test runs would be needed to assess the feasibility. But it may turn out to be doable with increased controls. restrictions, signage, striping, etc.1) Even averaging 8mph to adapt to mixed path traffic a shuttle would do 2 miles in 15 minutes-- about half the time of walking
2) Most of the paths could be widened cheaply and easily, since the vehicles are lightweight and narrow. --and quiet
I don't see that "characters on e-boards and e-bikes" should be any harder than any other kind of mixed traffic, and given the low average speeds of all in involved, should be easier to do safely
^ Whenever a driver is intervening, the driver is training the AI.
not sure about that. I was an early Alexa adapter about 7 years ago and the difference is pretty noticeable.They say this. But theres no real proof.
For YEARS they said every Tesla had "shadow mode" where the AI was learning what drivers were doing.
Either they lied, or what they learned was garbage.
It reminds me of online translation software. A DECADE of "learning" and yet it still makes 2nd grade mistakes
The other example I point to are voice assistants (Siri etc). Frankly, theyre still crap. Amazon, Google, and Apple have ENORMOUS amounts of data. And they do a great job of "set an alarm for 9am" but anything more complicated and they just run a google query.
not sure about that. I was an early Alexa adapter about 7 years ago and the difference is pretty noticeable.
Every now and again she asks me if she's responding from the right device and other questions designed to learn. The advances in home automation have been huge. It's a good example of seamless affordable technology becoming commonplace and growing in place. I find Siri completely annoying tho.
All this to say that I've no idea how much a tesla learns but I'd say there's a fair amount of bluffing till someone else has developed the tech. But it is coming.
yea, seems like Tesla are trying to run before they can walk. Having an automated system for private drivers in parts of Boson is mad.I think it's absolutely fair and correct to point out where advances have been made, and I would agree from my own experiences that things like voice assistants and home automation have certainly improved over the years (though it's out of my wheelhouse to say how much of that is programming versus learning AI).
On the other hand, there's an enormous difference between something like Alexa or any kind of home automation and autonomous vehicles. Apart from potentially a home automation system that can control the heating (or a stove, I guess) there's not likely to be any safety implications if those technologies screw up (whether from bad programming or poor AI performance), whereas an autonomous vehicle's screw-ups can easily kill people. So it only goes so far to point out where advances have been made, because it's equally clear that they haven't been sufficiently made to ensure safety - and it's also quite clear that Tesla either doesn't realize that or (in my opinion more likely) doesn't care enough to treat that fact with the responsibility required. That they may well get it right eventually doesn't justify not doing enough to keep people safe while they figure it out.
Very good comment. Permanence in that sense is a solved technical problem, in that we CAN teach a computer how to make inferences based on semantic context, but it takes some processing oomph. For Siri, the extra server processing power would cost Apple too much, so they limit the functionality. For Tesla, it just can't fit in their little onboard computer. Perfect example of one of the things all that extra computer in a real AV is doing that Tesla isn't doing.
It's also a good example of a way they could make Siri better by investing in more/better servers without changing your hardware.
Also, the train is a good example of a place where some gosh-darn lidars would have helped if Tesla didn't have an irrational hatred of them.