Seriously
I really hope they commit to that don’t be evil thing. Last week, I took a stab at some predictions for the future. Among those ideas was this: We’ll experience an automotive future where we aren’t the ones driving.
I wonder how this wouldn’t happen given the steady improvement of sensor and robotics technologies. But, since technicians aren’t creating robots that look like Rosie, we simply aren’t paying attention. Anyway, Google’s got this one:
The self-driving car initiative is an example of Google’s willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years, Dr. Thrun said. Even the most optimistic predictions put the deployment of the technology more than eight years away.
One way Google might be able to profit is to provide information and navigation services for makers of autonomous vehicles. Or, it might sell or give away the navigation technology itself, much as it offers its Android smart phone system to cellphone companies.
But the advent of autonomous vehicles poses thorny legal issues, the Google researchers acknowledged. Under current law, a human must be in control of a car at all times, but what does that mean if the human is not really paying attention as the car crosses through, say, a school zone, figuring that the robot is driving more safely than he would?
And in the event of an accident, who would be liable — the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software? (Markoff)
Good questions. The legal stuff is somewhat intriguing because law must adapt to new technologies that break the system. Even if this tech is largely safer than a human driver, any error that results in death will be controversial.
We’ll have to reconcile our human bias and the hallucination that we have total control over our cars in every situation. In time, when the statistical trends make themselves clear, acceptance will finally come. It’ll be as natural as trusting the dishwasher to clean the plates.
This post is just a pointer. Read the whole piece; it’s pretty short and to the point. Note how this technology is considered a gamble because it’s almost a decade away from any kind of usage. That’s short term thinking of the highest order. Lots of technologies that we take for granted had much longer gestation times. We sure want things now.
Click this image to view the originating NYT article by John Markoff on October 9, 2010.
On the surface, it may seem a little frightening. But look at that picture. The project already boasts a 360° rotating lidar, multiple cameras, a GPS, and numerous radar sensors. Whatever makes it to market will be stuffed with more cameras, safeguards, and whatever it takes to earn our trust.
Even in its hobbled form, I’d put it up against a distracted, texting driver any day. We need to learn to love our robots; they will probably save our lives.
Before the robot-apocalypse, of course.
