The Ardent Belief That We Need A Line In The Sand Deadline For Attaining AI Self-Driving Cars Else We’ll Never Get There
Deadlines.
You either love them, hate them, or experience both sentiments at the same time.
A deadline can be handy as a focal point that aids in rallying together everyone towards achieving something great. On the other hand, a deadline can turn each person against the other and fester a bitter fight that leaves all involved forever scarred and upset due to a seemingly arbitrary and reprehensible line in the sand.
Deadlines do decidedly set expectations, though at times the expectations are out of whack with reality.
There are those crazy deadlines that just cannot be met.These are the outsized and wildly chosen deadlines that are so ridiculous that they are nearly laughable, except of course if you are part of the team that is supposed to make it happen. In that case, you are supposed to tough it out and make sure that the deadline is achieved. The deadline might not be based on any semblance of knowing what is reasonably feasible and was selected at the whim of some lofty character, but by gosh, it is the proclaimed deadline and no one dare challenge it.
Maybe the deadline declarer knows something you don’t know.
Perhaps the deadline is indeed thoughtfully chosen and can be achieved. There is always that self-doubt that others might be better at setting deadlines than you give them credit for. Meanwhile, it sure appears that the deadline has about a zero chance of being attained. And, like a punch to the stomach, you’ll be bearing all that endless effort leading up to the deadline as though the deadline is a must-do, when you are sure all along it is absurd and completely unattainable.
That is a bit hard to take by some.
Working tirelessly under a knowingly calculated false deadline is something that few would later on agree was a wondrous idea. They will feel cheated. They might also never believe any future deadlines that are proffered by the declarer. People will realize that there was a prior crying of the wolf, as it were, and won’t fall for the same trickery twice. Thus, they will seem to be on board with the latest deadline, while in their hearts they are unwilling to do the death march that they once thought made sense to undertake.
Whoa, say those that relish deadlines, you are missing the boat, or perhaps missing the point about having a deadline.
Deadlines strip out complexity. The world is a much simpler place when you have a deadline. This is when things need to be finished. Period, full stop. No need to think further about that. Just take it as a given. Your aim is simplified now, keep your eye on that deadline.
Resources can be channeled accordingly. You can also keep track of progress. How far do we have yet to go toward the deadline? Are we behind? Are we ahead? A sense of urgency can be fostered by the deadline looming at the end of the rainbow. Go, go, go.
Prioritization comes to play too.
If the deadline is going to be met, which it has to be, you need to prioritize the efforts underway. Some say that deadlines bring forth creativity. Yes, the idea is that while under the pressure of a deadline, people will have creative thoughts about how to get things done soonest. Without that purposefully applied pressure, the creative juices would not have been otherwise flowing (well, others contend that those outsized pressures clamp down on creativity and suppress it since you don’t have the latitude of playful avenues to be creative when confronting a harsh and unrelenting deadline).
Some assert that deadlines are necessary to get people off their duff. The unwavering heat from having to achieve a deadline will turn lackadaisical into the furiously hard-working. We all have an innate notion of seeking to arrive at the finish line. Getting to the finish means the glory of victory.
But wait for a second, all this talk about achieving deadlines begs a rather blatant and yet unstated question, namely what happens if there isn’t a deadline at all.
Does chaos reign?
Without a deadline, there is a solid chance that whatever is taking place will meander, some would say. Take your time would be the outspoken mantra. There’s no rush. However long it takes, it takes. Don’t get yourself all wound up and wrapped into a tizzy when no one has put their foot down about a rock-solid deadline.
So, we have the tradeoffs associated with sensible deadlines versus ostensibly nonsensical ones, plus we have the other side of the coin that deals with the lack of any deadline whatsoever.
Dizzying.
Some say that you especially cannot put deadlines on achieving new inventions or brand-new innovations.
When attempting to do something that has never been done before, the use of a deadline is argued as being entirely misplaced. Deadlines are only rightfully established when you are doing something that is generally known to be accomplishable. Endeavors treading onto new territory that is essentially unmappable would be construed as unwisely tied down by presumed wild-guess off-the-cuff deadlines (so it is intimated).
Is that really the case that deadlines are wholly incompatible with seeking outstretched innovations?
You would get quite a pushback on that contention. There are plenty of examples, notable ones, that seem to showcase that a deadline was instrumental to making progress in circumstances that were abundantly new, unproven, and for which the path forward was fraught with innumerable unknowns.
Use this quote as a basis for thinking about that brazen point (can you guess who said this?): "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieve the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” You might recognize that quote as being the famous words of President John F. Kennedy. He made that remark on May 25, 1961, during a joint session of Congress.
As you know, this became one of the most controversial and outstretched “new innovation” deadlines of all time.
Yes, to be clear, it was a deadline. Maybe at first glance or initial mention, it was inclined toward being a hoped-for hazy notion. Over time, it became a deadline. A deadline that gripped an entire nation. A deadline that riveted the entire world.
Many at the time thought this was unmitigated crazy talk.
There was no tangible path to attaining the deadline. It seemed as though this was plucked out of the air and had no basis in reality. Yet, as we all know, ultimately, the Apollo 11 mission successfully landed on the moon in July 1969, and two astronauts walked upon the moon at that historic time. The before-the-decade-is-out aspirational deadline was attained.
For my coverage about how the Apollo 11 mission provides insights to today’s AI systems and especially the advent of self-driving cars, see my discussion at this link here.
By the way, some cynics or malcontents today try to claim that the moon landing was all doable from day one (i.e., knowing so in 1961, when JFK made his speech) and that this was entirely obvious at the get-go. I can only say that this ranks up there with those that believe we never reached the moon and harbor those conspiracy theories about the matter. Anyway, believe as you will.
Would we have reached the moon and put humans on the moon if we had not had a deadline.
Seems like a deadline was crucial.
You can argue about whether the deadline was a reasonable one, such that maybe JFK should have said that by the end of the following decade was the goal or something later than picking the end of the decade such that a wee bit more wiggle room was allowed for. The entire activity during the 1960s was continually focused by the end of the decade declaration, for which some might well argue pushed past obstacles that might have otherwise become quagmires.
In essence, each time an obstacle arose, there was dedicated attention toward overcoming the obstacle, in the soonest feasible manner. If the deadline had provided an additional say ten years, perhaps the same type of energy and drive would not have arisen. It is hard to say and we can only speculate about such matters.
This does though remind me of a noteworthy quote by Henry Ford, the venerable maker of cars: “Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal.”
I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with another one of his indubitably quotable lines: “If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you are right.
Speaking of cars, consider that the future of cars consists of AI-based true self-driving cars.
Allow me a moment to tie together the topic of self-driving cars and the theme of setting deadlines.
For AI-based true self-driving cars, there isn’t a human driver involved. Keep in mind that true self-driving cars are driven via an AI driving system. There isn’t a need for a human driver at the wheel, and nor is there normally a provision for a human to drive the vehicle. For my extensive and ongoing coverage of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and especially self-driving cars, see the link here.
Here’s an intriguing question that is worth pondering: Do we need an all-in steadfast deadline for attaining AI-based true self-driving cars, which today there isn’t any such overarching deadline?
I’d like to first further clarify what is meant when I refer to true self-driving cars.
Understanding The Levels Of Self-Driving Car
As a clarification, true self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.
These driverless vehicles are considered Level 4 and Level 5 (see my explanation at this link here), while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).
There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.
Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some contend, see my coverage at this link here).
Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).
For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.
You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.
Self-Driving Cars And Deadline
For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.
All occupants will be passengers.
The AI is doing the driving.
One aspect to immediately discuss entails the fact that the AI involved in today’s AI driving systems is not sentient. In other words, the AI is altogether a collective of computer-based programming and algorithms, and most assuredly not able to reason in the same manner that humans can.
Why is this added emphasis about the AI not being sentient?
Because I want to underscore that when discussing the role of the AI driving system, I am not ascribing human qualities to the AI. Please be aware that there is an ongoing and dangerous tendency these days to anthropomorphize AI. In essence, people are assigning human-like sentience to today’s AI, despite the undeniable and inarguable fact that no such AI exists as yet.
With that clarification, you can envision that the AI driving system won’t natively somehow “know” about the facets of driving. Driving and all that it entails will need to be programmed as part of the hardware and software of the self-driving car.
Let’s dive into the myriad of aspects that come to play on this topic.
First, please be aware that there is no overarching deadline associated with attaining true self-driving cars. There is assuredly an amorphous desire to soonest possible achieve true self-driving cars, but no specific deadline.
You might already know some of the reasons cited for seeking to produce self-driving cars.
For example, it is assumed that self-driving cars will essentially save lives by reducing the number of annual fatalities associated with car crashes. Right now, in the United States alone, there are about 40,000 deaths due to car crashes, see my collection of related stats at this link here. Many of those car crashes are attributed to driving while drunk, driving while drowsy, driving while distracted, and so on. Self-driving cars should not exhibit those same human foibles during the act of driving.
There is also the strident belief that we will potentially arrive at an era of mobility-for-all via the advent and prevalence of self-driving cars. Those that today are mobility disadvantaged or that are mobility marginalized will be able to affordably make use of self-driving cars. It is assumed that the cost per mile or price per mile for using self-driving cars is going to be a lot less than that of conventional human-driven cars, principally due to excising the need for the human labor of the driving chore.
Okay, the point is that the sooner we can bring about self-driving cars and have them roaming our public highways, byways, and streets, the better off we will be. As a side note, not everyone agrees with that heralded viewpoint, see my analysis of the counterarguments at this link here.
Soonest is best, one might nonetheless ardently argue.
What kinds of deadlines have been proffered?
There are a plethora of them. And they pretty much are vacuous. Each automaker and each self-driving tech firm is able to freely decide upon whatever deadline they wish to establish.
They can have a deadline or choose to not have a deadline.
They might opt to have an internal deadline that is kept secret and have no outwardly stated deadline. They might have an outwardly stated deadline that they believe internally, or it is merely a prop or display to the outside world and an entirely different deadline exists inside the company.
Many of the deadlines have come and gone.
Amazingly, this doesn’t seem to phase most people. An outspoken top executive or founder makes a bold indication about a deadline by which they will have perfected self-driving cars, and when the deadline passes, they seem to get a hall pass and are not held accountable for their missed deadline.
This at times happens because of short memories. You can get away with setting a deadline to the outside world and at the moment of the announcement, it is a big splash. Later on, perhaps years later, no one seems to remember that the big splash occurred. Or, bringing up the long-ago big splash is no longer worthy of a big splash.
Indeed, you could almost mockingly assert that making overt and splashy deadlines is the best thing you could do as someone in the self-driving cars niche. It gets you rapt attention at the time. Furthermore, you get almost no penalty for later on having been wrong. Sure, it will occasionally come back to haunt you by those that quote those prior deadline splashes, but this is not of much concern.
One can always contend that they were caught up in the excitement of self-driving cars. Thus, you are supposed to give them their due as someone that was an enthusiastic supporter, setting aside the misguided or mistaken deadline. They were optimistic. Don’t we relish optimism.
Plus, it is easy to blame something or someone else for having failed to attain the deadline. This is a deflection that seems to work most of the time. As I’ve discussed in my columns, using governmental regulations as a bogeyman is the seemingly slipperiest and most cunning of current deflections, see my coverage at this link here.
Anyway, getting back to the overarching question, if we don’t have any overarching deadline then maybe we ought to have one.
Similar to the landing on the moon deadline, perhaps we need to put a foot firmly planted down on terra firma and collectively come up with a deadline for the attainment of true self-driving cars. We need to provide a finish line goal. We need to rally the troops. We need to glean all the advantages and early stated benefits of having a looming and clear-cut deadline.
No more playing around. No more of those puffery deadlines that have no stake in the ground. Stop the incessant conga line of concocted deadlines that come and go.
Create a national deadline for the achievement of true self-driving cars.
And then work the heck toward achieving it
Whoa, that’s potentially crazy talk.
How could that be done?
One concern is that this would potentially force together governmental interests and commercial sector interests in a manner that we might regret. Imagine too the aspects of what is the prize for meeting the deadline and how would the monies be expended toward the deadline seeking efforts. It would be a morass within a quagmire of an abyss.
Some vehemently argue that we should leave things as they are. Let the efforts continue and see what happens. Companies will make deadlines, and the deadlines will come and go. So be it. The marketplace will eventually sort things out. If there is profit to be made from achieving self-driving cars, the market will find a path there.
Others believe that true self-driving cars are of such a vaunted and revered nature that we need to find a better way to reach attainment. The comings and goings of the marketplace have shown that we aren’t doing this right, they contend, and we need to try something new.
You might know that there are many comparisons often made to the moon landing and the achievement of self-driving cars. It is claimed by some that the incredible feat of being able to go into outer space and reach the moon is analogous to the brashness and newness of being able to attain true self-driving cars. Breakthroughs will be required. Those breakthroughs will not only be vital to the goal of achieving self-driving cars but will have tons of spillover, entailing all kinds of breathtaking AI advances and high-tech mechanizations.
In short, the need for a deadline is larger than just attaining self-driving cars per se, though that by itself is undeniably praiseworthy and essential.
Conclusion
There are a lot more twists and turns on this topic (lamentably, space limitations only allow a few more remarks herein).
Suppose that somehow the notion of setting a deadline for self-driving cars is actually undertaken.
One question is how will we know that self-driving cars have been achieved?
In short, are we going to say that Level 5 is the functionality associated with the deadline? Or would we be willing to accept some variation of Level 4? Etc.
The emphasis is that without squaring down the functional meaning, we would have a deadline that has little value. You would have everyone coming out of the woodwork to claim that they achieved the deadline and ergo showcase their alleged self-driving car as evidentiary proof. That would be a nightmare. We would need to pin down the rules beforehand.
Here’s another potential head-scratcher.
What date should we pick for the deadline?
It could be the kind of date that is plucked from thin air. That doesn’t though seem very sensible. Maybe we gather a herd of experts and get them to derive a date, allowing as much fisticuff activity (intellectually, of course) as needed to arrive at a consensus deadline. Anyway, some means would have to be devised and agreed upon.
Maybe you would like to partake in coming up with the deadline.
Sure, that seems fine. We can crowdsource the date.
Pick a year.
We all usually like to choose years that seem to be shapely and consist of round numbers, along the lines of 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, or 2050.
Do any of those strike your fancy?
I haven’t listed the years after the year 2050, since we’ll all be flying around with jetpacks by then and we won’t especially care about what is happening with those ground-based surface-going vehicles and whether they are autonomous or still being driven the old-fashioned human-driven way.
Post a Comment