Why Google Made Its Self-Driving Car So Darn Cute | Hacker News Reader

Why Google Made Its Self-Driving Car So Darn Cute

techcrunch.com

62 pointssunilkumarc76 comments

Being a programmer, a sci-fi fan, and always excited by new developments even from a young age, I thought I'd never reach a time where I would find it difficult to accept new technology. Clones, immortality, interstellar travel, tech-enabled telepathy, bring it on.

I now realise that sitting in a self-driving car will cause me to press on the ghost brake pedal while sweating with anxiety every time it needs to slow down, while kids who will grow up with these things will not even raise their pulse by 1 beat per minute.

> I now realise that sitting in a self-driving car will cause me to press on the ghost brake pedal while sweating with anxiety

No it won't. :) In next versions you will probably not be facing the road anyway. Do you "ghost brake" when driving in the back of a limousine?

Hah - when travelling in the passenger seat I often see my dad try and brake when I leave it a little later than he would.

He also grips on to the handle above the window.

I do this myself, but I really experience it as bracing myself using my feet, to avoid having my torso and head move forward when the car brakes. The handle is handy (!) for the same purpose.

People always seem to think that I'm "ghost-braking", but I'm pretty certain I'm just trying to stabilize my body because it's uncomfortable to be jostled around. I don't "ghost-blinker" at corners ...

Do you "ghost brake" when driving in the back of a limousine?

Yep. I'm frequently uncomfortable when someone else is driving. There's a handful of people in the world who don't make me uncomfortable when driving... my parents, a few friends who drive "safely"... Oh, and taxi drivers (where somehow my lizard brain appreciates that though I am not in control, the creature that IS in control has 100+ times more experience of driving than me, and is therefore unarguably a better driver). Though not all taxi drivers - some of the minicab (as opposed to licensed black cab) drivers make me nervous.

So for this technology to work for me and not make me nervous each time I step into it, I'll have to really get to trust it.

I'm not sure putting a cute face on the front of the car is gonna do that for me, but the effort is definitely worthwhile.

> the creature that IS in control has 100+ times more experience of driving than me, and is therefore unarguably a better driver

Bingo. A self-driving car will have millions or billions of times more experience driving than you.

Another key thing about cars - microsecond response as opposed to millisecond response. There are a number of (but not all) situations where that 1000x reduced latency will make a difference between a collision and a miss.

More importantly, the automated car will be able to scan 360 degrees for endless amounts of time with that same microsecond response.

The tipping point for automated cars is going to happen faster than anyone today would ever imagine.

Don't get me wrong - I totally support self-driving cars and I will - once the technology is cooked enough - feel much safer in those than in normal cars... well, as long as we get all the other non-self-driving idiots off the roads, of course.

I was just responding to the parent of my reply that yes, I do "ghost-brake", and so yes, efforts to make the car appear safer are a great idea, that will impact more people than the parent thought.

Self-driving cars will have reflexes and driving skills so great that they will be able to navigate complex obstructions and other machine driven traffic using nanosecond turning choices and G-forces that will leave you as jelly on the side of the car, in no capacity to do any backseat driving, and then pour you out at your destination microseconds faster.

Nothing to be anxious about it will all be over soon.

Just a guess here - how about "driving" in an elevator? Would you brake if you didn't see the outside and feel the movement? The glasses can be dimmed on request pretty easily...

My point was that self-driving cars change the paradigm completely. What was once necessary is now no longer so... so there are plenty of new options to explore. All in all, I am guessing it won't be (much) worse than it is now. (well, apart from privacy standpoint and similar... :)

I understand that facing backwards is safer in a head-on collision but a lot of people suffer from motion sickness (myself included).

It has a lot to do with ability to see where you are going and hence predict/be aware of the vehicles movements. To put the extent of this in perspective, I am noticibly more likely to feel motion sick sitting in the back seat compared to sitting in the front seat. This effect is reduced by sitting in the middle, where there are no seats/people obscuring your view. Additionally sitting in any seat except the drivers seat while travelling on windy mountain roads is a surefire way to bring up lunch. Reading while in a car is completely out of the question.

Comfort should be a consideration of any type of transport and the thought of facing backwards in a car makes me uncomfortable. While this shouldn't outweigh safety, it certainly shouldn't be ignored either.

It'd be interesting to see if visual cues predicting the steering would counter motion sickness, I suspect so. A projection on the windshield could signal all upcoming steering movement over a threshold, giving your body time to brace.

I don't think safety is even an issue here - I think self-driving cars will be MUCH safer by default, so this kind of safety precautions (turning the front seats) will probably not be needed. I am thinking more in terms of travelling comfort (talking with fellow passengers, playing cards,...).

That said, I agree with your comment on motion sickness. I am guessing that there will be much research in this area - it might be possible to eliminate sickeness by properly adjusting tilt of the car through curves and when braking / accelerating. It would love to play with this, though not in a role of a tester. ;)

This happens because of lack of trust in the new driver - like in real life. When you see that the new driver is driving well, you'd forget it and start reading a book instead.

I don't really like driving. I like it on an empty road, but it just never is. I, for one, look forward to being driven by computers :)

That happens to me when the driver is braking later than I would have. However I suspect that self-driving cars will, at least initially, be much more conservative and defensive that most human drivers, so that effect may not be triggered as often as you suspect.

I can't get beyond the second slide. Possibly because

> TypeError: a.adsReloadAd is not a function

Edit: Oh, I can if I turn adBlock off.

If you click on the list button in the top right you get a much superior reading format. :)

You can also press that button to see them as a top-down list.

Totally hate the format... what is this, Buzzfeed meets TechCrunch?

As if TechCrunch's main stream of news wasn't "mainstream" enough already...

20 page slideshow with forced ads! Nice.

What is the ANCAP rating for these? Cute they might be but they look to be quite flimsy in construction. Maybe that's one of the reasons why they are so slow, not just to avoid the risks of high speed impact but also so that they don't have to be tested right alongside the output of the rest of the automobile industry. That gives google time to perfect the software in a real world traffic without all the costs and competition with regular car manufacturers.

It is reminiscent of the Aixam line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aixam) of microcars.

I doubt they have done the ANCAP/NCAP ratings (given the recent story about how lots of AUDI models are not NCAP rated it could be a while).

There is a tubular 'roll cage' type of thing going on with it, reminiscent of rally cars and kit cars. Given that rally cars have roll cages and normal cars do not, I for one look on a roll cage as a good thing, even if the rest of the box is prototype bits of plastic.

Part of a safety rating is the effect a car has on pedestrians. People can get killed by hood ornaments even at a relatively low speed. To date very few cars have been specifically designed with pedestrian safety in mind. One of the few was the Austin Metro and that was a long time ago. It does look as if the Google people have thought of pedestrian safety - it is a big part of the self driving concept and it also appears to be part of the implementation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the final implementation of the driver-less car is in a whole new level of safety compared to regular cars with the difference being like the difference between 'tame' and 'wild' animals.

It has a tubular cage like that because space frames are about the easiest way to build the primary structure for a one-off or low production vehicle.

It's not a particularly safe way to build a car for passengers without helmets. There's no padding on the cage either. Every race series that requires cages also requires helmets and padding.

Pretty sure while they may look flimsy, these care are anything but. I believe there are several micro-cars on sale now that have a very safe inner structures as well as advanced safety features despite looking "cute". Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_%28automobile%29#Safety

It looks conceptually similar to the Smart Fourtwo in size and design, and that car managed to score 4/5 on the ANCAP. So I don't see any reason why this car shouldn't manage the same.

As a low-speed vehicle capped at 25mph, the car is exempt from most federal regulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle#United_State...

"In many cases, doors may be optional, crash protection from other vehicles is partially met compared to other non motorized transport such as bicycles because of the use of seat belts. In 2011, a Time magazine article concluded that the lack of passenger safety protection made most LSVs unfit for city driving, despite their excellent maneuverability.[6]"

I suppose rationally I should consider these safer than bicycles or motorcycles, and therefore feel comforted, but without crash protection I would fear being side-swiped from drunk drivers. I hope they are building these to regular-car standards, despite not being required to.

I actually think it's a pretty smart idea. You don't have to "own" one of these, so it's not like you'll care much about the design suiting your style. They will be used more like taxis or delivery cars. You don't have to like that all taxis are yellow and look the same.

A future with no taxis! No Lyft or Uber either.

Less and less humans tied up doing work that can be done by a "bash script"[0]. I look forward to this!

[0] Or highly advanced AI for that matter. Same final impact.

What makes you think you won't be calling a self driving car to pick you up on the Uber app?

I'd love for that to happen! But I always thought Uber/Lyft's equation worked only due to idle cars and underemployed humans, at least in a large part?

Sure, but if I own a self-driving car and I'm not currently using it, I wouldn't even have to get out of bed to send my car over to you and get some money :)

A future with self-driving cars makes more sense if all cars are taxis (of some form). Why leave your car stationary overnight (except perhaps to charge) when it can be out driving people around and earning money?

I'd like to see a system where one could purchase a guarantee that you'd get a car of a particular class to take you where you need to go within a given time (shorter time, higher cost; if you decide you can always wait 60mins for a ride from the time of booking the management of availability is far easier). Or, you'd just book journeys in advance - cheaper if you match logistical requirements. Then car ownership can be far more optimally managed.

Book a car in advance? Stone age!

Google Now will figure out where you need to be, and have a car waiting for you when you open the door.

Google Tomorrow will figure out what you needed to do at the remote location, do it for you, and avoid the need for a trip altogether.

Google The Day After Tomorrow gets rid of the need for you to exist at all!

It'll still want me to sit at home looking at ads. If it wants to do everything else for me I'm OK with that.

Maybe they're actually going after the Asian market, and not the US one?

It never ceases to amaze me how narrow minded much of the North American market is about the dichotomy between cute and cool/powerful. (You could quite easily make the case some markets are the extreme opposite). The console market has this too, which is one of the reasons the XBox brand has a sort of imposed low ceiling on success outside of the English speaking world.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaPeRo They supposedly worked quite hard to balance cuteness, which was regarded as a necessity, with functionalism, and it's got enough echoes I wonder if the people behind this car had seen it.

Apple is your counterexample. Made in the US for US markets first. Apple products have always been cutsie.

It looks like a small robot Jason that will track me down and murder me.

Cute? Personally, I think it is fugly.

Agreed, and that enormous thing on the roof just shouldn't be there. "Google plans to build 100 to 200 of these prototypes, and work towards safety approval by the end of the year. The future’s coming a lot faster than we thought."

If this is the future I hope there will be time travel, so I can go back.

Seriously, your big problem with self driving cars is you think a giant laser on top is ugly?

I can kind of understand that. Cars are not only a motor on 4 wheels. Design is one of the most important aspects when man building and selling cars, so it is not strange that people think of the camera as something that doesn't fit.

Until Tesla came and showed an electrical car that actually DID attract car / driving fans, the majority of people wouldn't consider an electrical car because most of them were plain ugly, even if the technology underneath was plain neat.

Same thing with self driving cars. I know it's not top priority for now, but I think the real breakthrough will be achieved by a completely redesigned and appealing car.

> I think the real breakthrough will be achieved by a completely redesigned and appealing car.

Hopefully, on a Tesla. Tesla range and safety design + self driving. I'd pay six figures for that.

But part of the point of Tesla is that lots of hobbyists and researchers and failed companies already did the work for proving that electric cars are feasible on a basic level. They could take that work and on top of it build cars that are beautiful and have refined engineering.

Aside from the DARPA challenge in the desert, Google has had to start from square 1, so it needs to accept that it will build ugly cars first.

Does the signalling and branding on top of current taxis have you turn to your time travel device rather than just get inside and give the driver your destination?

Agreed, but the point here is that it makes people more trusting towards it. I am guessing that if it looked more sleek (think: Ferrari) people would be more scared of getting in the vehicle. Big eyes, round shapes, smile without teeth... it doesn't look dangerous at all. That was also one of the points of this article (as I understood it).

I wonder how would it look if Apple made one too? I am sure it would be much more stylish.

Nice catch about the shape minimizing blind spots for the roof-mounted lasers.

Every time a self-driving car story pops up, I think of Rush's Red Barchetta. I have a sinking feeling we're eventually going to get to a point where traditional cars are completely outlawed. I definitely would love to be driven to work every morning, but I know I'd miss having the option to drive myself with the windows down. Driving can be fun!

I'm sure they'll have historical districts where you can rent an old time car and drive manually on weekends, with the appropriate waivers and insurance forms signed :)

A future where personal freedom and autonomy is treated as a dangerous and obsolete quirk?

Where do I sign up?

You can still ride a horse just not on public roads. I expect driving to be no different.

Ha...I've been through Amish country and obviously they still do the horse/buggy thing. It has me thinking of a neo amish faction that will still drive cars on the side of the road at 60mph while all of the self-driven cars blaze by at 500mph.

No need to outlaw anything. But getting a human driven car insured for urban traffic will be quite likely seen as a luxury/leisure expense someday.

Since less youth are getting driver's licences/cars than before, I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happens. A family buys a self-driving car that drops off and picks up everyone when needed. Driver's licences will drop within a generation, the tests for a licence will get harder and more costly. Inspections and registrations will also have higher qualifications, so old cars will be either scrapped or kept as a hobby or collectors item. Thinking more and more about it, I'm loving the potential future.

It looks similar to a VW Beetle/Bug, an economy car produced by the German auto maker Volkswagen (VW) from 1938-2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle (scroll down to the prototype and influence sections and compare the photos)

I love the cute, organic design. It'll make it more approachable for a lot of everyday users. But I wonder if they're shooting themselves in the foot with the automotive set: people passionate about their cars, who have a lot of their identity tied to their relationships with their automobiles.

I remember when the Aptera[1] was announced and "car people" slammed it for not looking like…a car. They wouldn't be caught dead driving such a strange-looking vehicle.

Does Google have a plan to address these criticisms and stop them from poisoning the discussion around the product?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_2_Series

I've been amazed at how persistent animacy is.

http://ai.ato.ms/MITECS/Entry/hatano.html

Seeing life in inanimate things provides a deep source of recognition.

Suddenly, that Boston Dynamics purchase clicks into a bigger picture.

The shape reminds me a little of an older marketing campaign from VW. They promoted the strength of the VW Bug's arc.

http://www.alanpafenbach.com/vwminisite/webroot/websites/rfa... (Warning - Flash)

http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-01/vin-amp-vin-vs-sup...

As my old AI lecturer put it "If a person driving a car runs over a person that driver is at fault, if an AI driving a car runs over a person that AI will probably never be used again in any car.", so it's interesting to see the 'cute' approach they are taking to, as the article says "minimize the fear".

I looked at the images and my initial gut reaction was "aww, I can't be afraid of _that_!" even if I still find the idea scary.

I think it's a very successful design.

I'd agree, except that quote stuck with me!

One software change could rule out that same accident ever happening again. You can't retrain every driver everytime an accident occurs, but you can reprogram every automated car.

Rationally yes, it's probably easy to argue that point, but his point, as a huge believer in AI applications, was that emotionally the 'killer robot cars' sentiment would break a fragile trust, as against the implicit common humanity of human drivers.

I realize this, but I disagree with the conclusion. I think just like today we have scarred individuals that refuse to drive, ride, or even take left turns, the same thing will happen with AI cars. Some people won't use them, but vast majority will realize we're better off, or at least feel that way. Some say we may be better off going back to the forests, and I don't know if I disagree with that some days!

I can understand your point, but I think the biggest differentiating factor when it comes to AI is that for maybe the last 20-30 years the biggest cultural touchpoint for the term 'AI' was the concept of 'it going nuts and taking over the world, enslaving/killing humanity', so I expect that to play into the public perception a little bit. It could be as simple as 'AI has a brand problem Google are working on solving', once that's been eroded in some way I'd essentially agree with you, I just think it's a looming perception issue.

They must have hired a PR person to join the team :D there's some noticeable features missing. I would have loved to see a giant LCD screen showing me whatever I might want to know... but I think that would make people insinuate that google's going to use it to bombard them with ads.

I wonder what car it is based on, if any. Is it electric or gasoline powered?

The seats look like they're from a Fiat.

Is all the gapping, creases, and folding a feature of the Fiat?

A little extra work on tension/tucking would have given a better fit and finish.

Is this made by Tesla?

The seats and the look of the factory is very similar... just wondering

Cup-holders in a future car aren't the hallmark of timeless design. This makes me curious to know more about this inappropriate decision.

Why are they out of place? Sports cars lack them because you're supposed to be focused on driving. If the you aren't driving, I would think cup holders would make more sense than ever.

s/Cute/Ugly/;

> The cute design minimizes fear about the risks of self-driving vehicles

I'm sorry but no cute design can repair the damage done by this episode of Silicon Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eAONrlcfJg

Sorry Mr. Car

Reply on news.ycombinator.com