ALVINN, an autonomous land vehicle in a neural network (1989) [pdf]

Re:ALVINN, an autonomous land vehicle in a neural network (1... by Animats on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @04:59PM (#13990542)

Absent mandatory standards, that's going to vary with the manufacturer. Volvo says they have redundant computers, sensors, and actuators. They've probably tested fall-over to backup. Google has some sensor redundancy, but it's not clear how well they protect against component failure.

If I were designing this, I'd have three independent control systems. System A does regular automatic driving. System B monitors system A, but it's only as smart as a stock anti-collision system braking system is now. No AI. It has info from the radar and can slam on the brakes. Maybe steer a bit to get to the side of the road and stop. System C is purely a watchdog - if it detects that systems A and B have failed, it cuts propulsion and applies the brakes. If system C takes over, you may hit something, but won't run away out of control.

I'd ride in a Volvo or Google self-driving car. Uber, Otto, or Cruise, no.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ALVINN, an autonomous land vehicle in a neural network (1... by jacquesm on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @05:30PM (#13990764)

So, something along the lines of the Shuttle computer design. That makes sense. Thank you for answering. I'm wondering about this because I expect the MTBF demon to kick in when the numbers go up. Right now the numbers are so small that equipment failure is negligible, but as soon as the numbers are high enough that these failures become more common the better architectures will start to stand out.

[ Parent | on HN ]