[Kosfactor]

Boon, magic etc can be used to describe it.

My daily driver has no ABS, no way to lock the cabin, no airbags , the only piece of software it has is running the engine and the thing does that job so beautifully - I love it, I also love how competent it is at absolutely blitzing throught the highway , night or day, rain or shine.

I also have access to vehicles that when you take the Keyfob 1 - Sets the music, adjusts the EQ, sets the AC temp, changes the screensaver, App drawer etc on the infotainment system as per what is programmed to that keyfob and then another keyfob can have all kinds of different settings - this is called driver profiles of the Adrenox system as first seen in XUV7OO.

Not to mention that the seats welcome you and then goes back to correct driving position

Love the software and hardware that makes it all happen, seems like magic and then it also instinctively knows what gear I want to be in as well as if you want to let it take over the highway crusing for sometime, it will do that as well.

Recently happened to see this on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/JQllw_Oj_9Q

All this and more is available at a reasonable price now in our country , I say Yes to software that works.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by padmrajravi

When technology progresses, more and more subjective decisions will become objective decisions. What you mentioned as an objective decision was a subjective decision years back. Now autopilot has taken it over. I don’t think the second one is a subjective decision, but even if it is , the subjectivity will transform itself to objectivity when the autopilot systems becomes more mature. Lot of these objective decisions were once considered subjective decisions that only human can take. Machines provide repeatable decisions.

This is a myth, because of the misconception that AI = all human intelligence.

Ram into the rear of a stopped container truck without an underrun bar, and be certain of your own death (OR) swing into the neighbouring lane and collide with the rear of a school van carrying children (where there is a high probability of injuries only, but cannot rule out death of one or more children). What will AI do ? How will the 'learning engine' be steered towards one v/s other by the programmer ?

A bit too much importance is given to 'logic' , which is only one facet of the human intellect. More than 50% of decisions, even on the professional front, are ruled not by logic, but by things we call 'instinct', 'gut feel' etc. Hence, I believe AI should only be limited to 'driving assistance' and not 'self driving'.

AI aficionados won't agree with me.

[AjayJoshuaN]

I think it is the implementation of removing human control that is a Bane, while software is always a boon.
E.g.

https://youtu.be/uIXfp7pVFV4

There should always be a provision for manual control in addition to software where ever possible.

[fhdowntheline]

Let me offer a perspective that I learnt just today. With my parents in the back seat, I went off on a somewhat adventurous off-the beaten road near Mahabaleshwar today morning. This was a road that went past Baghdad Point, off the Medha ghat road. While the tarmac was ok, there was a steep downslope with a breathtaking view of the Tapola/ Bamnoli valley.. At one point we decided to turn back. Not having sufficient width for a U turn, I backed up some distance and then made a three pointer, but the only place where I could do so had some gravel. So I had to do this very carefully engaging the EPB and putting the Creta in S mode just in case. I instantly realised how much better I would have been in a manual car. I simply did not get the right feedback from the engine/ AB pedals while modulating in order to control the three point turn. Whereas in a manual, I would have engaged a handbrake, and the A and C pedals. It wasnt scary but definitely not a confortable situation for me, inspite of over 25 years of driving. Now, if software is deciding external parameters as well as driver response, it would be evem worse in my opinion.I would trust a fully automatic ILS Cat 3 landing but not higher levels of autonomous driving.

[amitayu]

I appreciate the developments in ECS/BCS that modern cars have.
Today an engine is so 'smart' we often donot even realise the difference of a 'cold start' in winters for instance. One had to keep in mind such issues in older cars (we had an Amby when I was kid, anyone who has driven cars of such vintage would understand what I am talking about).

I also appreciate things like auto wipers and headlights as it eases the driving experience.

However, I find some tech to be too intrusive, especially the ICE systems. I am yet to experience the connected car phenom so not quite sure how helpful it really is.

[Apex1815]

The nature of every industry is to be progressive.

Today ECU/Electronics is used in almost every critical component of a car so as to achieve optimum performance/safety/comfort. Right from the Brakes, Steering, Engine, Transmission, Air Bag etc every mechanism has some kind of Software or ECU.

If you want completely Mechanical car, you will probably have to go back to 80s era or before that when purely Mechanical Cars were built.

[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Ram into the rear of a stopped container truck without an underrun bar, and be certain of your own death (OR) swing into the neighbouring lane and collide with the rear of a school van carrying children (where there is a high probability of injuries only, but cannot rule out death of one or more children). What will AI do ? How will the 'learning engine' be steered towards one v/s other by the programmer ?

This has nothing to do with the capability of machines. Rather it is the question of what policy to follow. A machine will always choose the outcome with lesser risk exposure. Risk exposure is probability of an outcome multiplied by impact of the outcome.

The numeric value chosen as impact of outcome will decide the machine's choice in this case. Deciding the value of these two impacts is not a programmer's job. It will be defined by regulators or the top management of the company who develops that system. The choice is between tuning the machine to become its passenger's slave or the society's slave.

And it is not like all humans encountering this situation always chooses the same. There have been atleast a few people in the history who chose the tougher path to give us our current life. So even in case of humans there is no right or wrong answer here. My point is that this has got nothing to do with the capability of machines and is a policy decision.

Originally Posted by venkyhere

A bit too much importance is given to 'logic' , which is only one facet of the human intellect. More than 50% of decisions, even on the professional front, are ruled not by logic, but by things we call 'instinct', 'gut feel' etc. Hence, I believe AI should only be limited to 'driving assistance' and not 'self driving'.

Gut feel, instinct etc are words humans use when they take unexplainable decisions. Those gut feel decisions are taken based on the probability that a human subconsciously estimates about a successful outcome. That probability is decided based on several factors like the number of successful outcomes in the past while taking similar decisions, recency of those outcomes etc. That does not mean it is a right decision. It can go either way. The whole point of replacing humans with machine in case of high impact scenarios is to eliminate such instinct decisions and take only explainable repeatable decisions.

Having said that, the next question is whether the current self driving AI is explainable or not. It is not. But it will reach there. I think this is where we have a difference of opinion. You think it won't ever reach that state. I think it will eventually reach that state. Even the current auto pilot systems would have been thought of as black magic some decades back. But we are here now. So I am hopeful that we will reach that state. Let's come back to this thread in say 2050 to check who was right

[gharika]

I believe there has been a few wrong connections here, a few points to share.
1. ECU in most cars is only controlling engine, ABS, EBD are seperate systems, and they can't be usually controlled externally as they have no connectivity, unless you are into racing and it's a must have
2. Software would be geared for accident avoidance and risk mitigation, the vehicle should not be in a situation where all options are bad, so the idea is to detect what can go bad before it goes bad
3. We only have 1 brake pedal, controlling braking on 4 wheels individually is not feasible without a computer, unless you are a rally driver
4. Competition is forcing Manufactures to add features, without thinking practicality and safety

So it's not black and white, we need the softwares and they are not optimal yet.

[SR-71]

My response is the same mantra I follow for my own product - Any software is only good as long as it works fairly well and intuitive to use. If executed well and if it performs flawlessly with intuitive choices, software centric car can indeed be a boon, else it can your worst nightmare. Alas my experience also tells me 8/10 software products are crap, thanks to poor design and even poorer execution.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by gharika

1. ECU in most cars is only controlling engine, ABS, EBD are seperate systems, and they can't be usually controlled externally as they have no connectivity, unless you are into racing and it's a must have.

Well, yes and no. My twenty year old Jaguar has already some 12 computers. They deal with different aspects of say, engine management, AbS, ESP, transmission, Airconditioning etc. But all of these systems are heavily integrated and are also interconnected on one and the same electronic bus.

Many of your cars sensors are used by multiple systems too. Think speed sensor. Your ECU, PCM and BCM use the same signal.

So within the car all of these system are connected. They use the same power, the same ground (these two common points alone can cause problems), they share many sensors and are also interconnected on a signal level both analogue and digitally.

More and more cars have over the air interfaces as well. Your radio is the obvious one, but for instance navigation systems might get updated over a Bluetooth and or WiFi type of connection. And guess what, that goes on that very same bus as all those other systems and computers are connected too!

More and more cars, especially EVs, have their computers and various systems updated over the air as well. Tesla being a prime example. Part of their attraction is getting new features over time.

We have also seen companies such as BMW and Mercedes starting with monthly fees for certain features. E.g. you want a month worth of seat heat? You pay a small amount and and BMW will, remotely, enable your seat heater!

So interconnecting within the car and external interconnectivity is already well established in the car industry. Lots of software!

Jeroen

[Livnletcarsliv]

Boon or Bane depends on what is the measuring criteria, what is it compared to, and what is the purpose of that so-called software/function/feature.
Machine-controlled human (or) Human-controlled machine? - I only want the latter. Period.
Technically, every automobile in this world is software-centric (ECU, ABS, etc.).

It cannot be BLACK (or) WHITE. It will always remain GREY for anyone anywhere.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Livnletcarsliv

B
Machine-controlled human (or) Human-controlled machine? - I only want the latter. Period.
.

You might want that, but I doubt very much you will get it. Do you still retard and advance the ignition timing of your engine with one of these sliding levers mounted to the steering wheel?

Important function! It determines how well your car accelerates, fuel efficiency and to some extent determines emissions.

Not to put to fine a point to it but a computer does a much better job at mixing air and fuel and subsequently igniting it, than any of us ever could. Even on pretty basic cars you will find lots of stuff automated already. Even my 40 year old Mercedes W123, whilst still having a carburettor, has electronic ignition and advancing.

Mind you all the door locks are pneumatically operated. Maybe that is better than electronics?

Jeroen

[Livnletcarsliv]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You might want that, but I doubt very much you will get it. Do you still retard and advance the ignition timing of your engine with one of these sliding levers mounted to the steering wheel?

Important function! It determines how well your car accelerates, fuel efficiency and to some extent determines emissions.

Not to put to fine a point to it but a computer does a much better job at mixing air and fuel and subsequently igniting it, than any of us ever could. Even on pretty basic cars you will find lots of stuff automated already. Even my 40 year old Mercedes W123, whilst still having a carburettor, has electronic ignition and advancing.

Mind you all the door locks are pneumatically operated. Maybe that is better than electronics?

Jeroen

That is why I said this is always a GREY area. You can neither be this side nor that side. It depends on the application and its purpose. However, either way, the purpose of a machine/software/computer is ONLY to aid/assist/support a human.

[PreludeSH]

Bane if something like Jeep recently did on their plug-in hybrid where the engine stalls when there is loss of communication within their diagnostic system. This is just an example and could be hardware or software.

It could be any company if testing is not right. Its the only way to know how good the software really is.

Software has helped in implementing new features in every module of the car including safety.

[gharika]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

You might want that, but I doubt very much you will get it. Do you still retard and advance the ignition timing of your engine with one of these sliding levers mounted to the steering wheel?

Important function! It determines how well your car accelerates, fuel efficiency and to some extent determines emissions.

Not to put to fine a point to it but a computer does a much better job at mixing air and fuel and subsequently igniting it, than any of us ever could. Even on pretty basic cars you will find lots of stuff automated already. Even my 40 year old Mercedes W123, whilst still having a carburettor, has electronic ignition and advancing.

Mind you all the door locks are pneumatically operated. Maybe that is better than electronics?

Jeroen

Sharing a common bus is not the same as being accessible or configurable. A sensor is a output, so you can take them out of the picture here, software don't alter their behavior. Counting all semiconductors as processors is similarly faulty logic.
Think about things that can be altered, like disabling ABS, but that does not disable the brakes.
So the system won't accept a command to disable brakes, or switch off a sensor, they are not built into the system. Hence, a belief that more sensors and semiconductor leads to less control or chances of externally contrloed cars has no basis.