DARPA Grand Challenge 3 127
Meostro writes "DARPA announced the 3rd "Grand Challenge" today, The DARPA Urban Challenge. "To
succeed, vehicles must autonomously obey traffic laws while merging into moving traffic,
navigating traffic circles, negotiating busy intersections and avoiding obstacles." This year's new twist is two tracks for entry: the first is the same as the previous two challenges (develop on your own without Gov't. funding), but the second involves "submitting a detailed proposal for up to $1 million of technology development funds." Here is the PDF press release ."
My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they do research in defense but shouldn't there be a little more than a tiny graphic or blurb about what work they're doing? Couldn't they at least take the time to write an abstract or 1-2 page paper with unclassified information on each project?
Instead, I find the following links in the 'Archives' [darpa.mil]:
The Grand Challenge Forums [darpa.mil] are flooded with only vendors. Where are the designs and reports by the teams from older Grand Challenges? Why isn't this structured more like RoboCup where the learning algorithms are released every year so that future contestants can build on this?
The fact that this contest isn't run in a more open way makes it seems like less of a "contest" and more of a "do our research for us!" kind of thing.
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:2)
forgive me but I think that is the whole point of these kind of contests.
It is likely that DARPA has become incapable of inovation because of internal politics so they need to attract new ideas from the out side.
This is all just my theory so take it with a grain of salt.
My Dissapointment in accuracy. (Score:2, Informative)
Um, Darpa is a think tank. They don't do actual research. It's been that way since the beginning.
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:1)
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd rather find out DARPA has handed out a $10B contract to a "regular" defense contractor to solve this particular problem in ten years, only to find out at year #9, they will need a seven year extension and have cost overruns of another $8B?
A couple of years, a few million dollars as one carrot, the other two are establishing legitimacy in a captitalistic market looking for established technology, and finally, chest thumping in the geek world is a very, very tiny investment by comparison.
Wouldn't
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:5, Informative)
When you say your alma mater "has produced better papers in these fields" you should have a look at the acknowledgements section of these papers. Chances are pretty good many of them will have a statement like "This work funded in part by DARPA (or NSF, etc) grant number XXX."
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:1, Informative)
do our research for us (Score:2)
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yes.
This ISN'T about open technologies, this is about building up to a defense (warmaking) capability.
On the one hand, you have to release a tiny bit of information, just so all the competitors have the same basic assumptions and stay in the same universe of solutions. On the other hand, you don't want to constrain the competitors too much with regard
Re:My Dissapointment in DARPA (Score:1)
Whilst I understand.... (Score:4, Insightful)
We believe the robotics community is ready to tackle vehicle operation inside city limits. - Dr. Tony Tether, DARPA Director
You can build the safest car in the world but there is always a need to be able to take a very quick decision to avoid some other idiot who might be breaking the rules of the road and not be in an automated car... still, if we all had them...
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:1)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:1)
Anthony Hopkins: So you're saying that it would be difficult?
Tom Cruise: Very.
Hopkins: Well, Mr. Hunt, this is not Mission Difficult, this is Mission Impossible. Difficult should be a walk in the park for you.
Sorry for the OT.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
They should have the creators of the autonoms cars drive on the street with their creation.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Either way I wonder if these teams will be allowed to use the existing lane following/adaptive cruise control technology that exist in some of the highend cars (yes I know lane following doesn't exist in the US right now, but the technology does exist)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You would needs some serious AI and pattern recognition to really replace drivers. There is just too much that can go wrong.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
I have to say that really good AI is most likely the next big thing in computers. It's a really complex problem though. Then you have pattern recognition on top of that. Just getting a computer to recognize a face is a difficult task that only has a certain percentage of accuracy.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure if you are concerned that they will run the test on the open road (I doubt it) or about the prospect of robots on the open road in the future. Personally I think a degree of automatic control would even now prevent some of the really stupid behavior I see every day riding my bike to and from work.
Robot drivers will be somewhat better and somewhat worse than human drivers. This is true even today. It is nice that somebody is encouraging research.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
You disagree with everything I just said, but I will defend to the death my right to say it
in my mind should be:
You disagree with everything I just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can build the safest car in the world but there is always a need to be able to take a very quick decision to avoid some other idiot who might be breaking the rules of the road and not be in an automated car... still, if we all had them...
How is it any less safe? If anything, the feature with which human beings far outsurpress computers is our ability to filter huge amounts
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
I would argue that most people on the road are not able to do this while they drive. Whether they are actually capable if they are concentrating or anticipating is another matter.
If it were easy with would neither be a challenge, nor be grand.
Oh and don't worry human,
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
That's where the D in DARPA comes in.
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the RTFPR, there's a little blurb at the bottom that explains:
ABOUT THE DARPA GRAND CHALLENGE DARPA has sponsored two previous Grand Challenge competitions. The first was held in March 2004 and featured a 142-mile desert course. Fifteen autonomous ground vehicles attempted the course and no vehicle finished. In the 2005 Grand Challenge, four autonomous vehicles successfully completed a 132-mile desert route under the required 10-hour limit, and DARPA awarded a $2 million prize to "Stan
True AI (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the Grand Challenge I was really waiting for. I believe that the experience gained in the previous Grand Challenges is practically useless for this new one. This new challenge will involve true AI, that is, AI that has true general learning capabilities and the
Re:True AI (Score:2)
True, that is, if you have 100 years and deep financial resources. DARPA wants this technology yesterday.
I believe someone will solve this particular problem. Since I also don't believe that the the P=NP problem will
Baby Steps (Score:2)
Re:Whilst I understand.... (Score:2)
Hmmm... got a couple million dollars to bet on that?
Hardly fair... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:2)
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:3, Interesting)
(IE a radio network in which cars can say, I'm turning left, or I'm about to change into the left lane) Sure these cars will have blinkers as well, but that hugely ineffective compared to the pre
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:2)
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:2)
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:2)
Seriously, to co-exist wth human drivers, the robots would have to interpret the subtle car and driver attitude changes and signals which are in fact non-documented language.
My kids often ask the meaning of headlight blinks and horn signs. At least in Brazil, it's common use. For example:
- two short horn signs generally means "thanks",
Re:Hardly fair... (Score:2)
Too early to go Urban. (Score:2, Insightful)
Its too early to go urban. They should have spent at least another 2-3 years perfecting autonomous navigation in unstructured environments.
I know last year's challange seemed to be won rediculously easily, but I have seen no proof that that dormain has been fully conquered yet. If they wanted a challenge why not move onto wooded or swampy areas.
In this case it seems they are juat setting themselves up to fail.
Surur
Re:Too early to go Urban. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case it seems they are juat setting themselves up to fail.
No, they're setting a difficult task. Now look up the definition of "challenge". See?
People said the same thing after the first challenge, but people got the hang of that pretty quickly, and from what I've read over the last couple of years, this challenge should be just about doable.
Re:Too early to go Urban. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, because it's a challenge! Last year's competition was not easy- look at the one two years ago, where most of the contestants barely made it out of the starting gate. (Or didn't) When proposed, it was an absurd reach- no robot had come anywhere close to the Grand Challenge specs; they were all busy managing 5-10 mph on easy courses. Nobody would have been interested if the challenge had been 10mph for 10 miles. Would they get the same number of entrants this year if the challenge was basically the same as before?
I agree, this is a serious reach. But honestly, it's not impossible. You have a *lot* more to navigate by in the city- all sorts of yellow and white paint lines on the road, existing high-detail maps and standardized road signs. Most of the drive will be free of serious obstacles, although I assume DARPA will throw in a some shell holes and road blocks to make it interesting. The radars to track other cars already exist- you can buy a car today with sophisticated cruise control that maintains correct distances. My guess is that robots will be better in city driving than humans very soon- 360 degree radar, much faster reaction times, no Starbucks latte and cell phone...
I suspect the next Grand Challenge will be something like "Start at Depot A, navigate across 300 miles of varying terrain, drop off at city center B". Speaking as that ex-platoon guy, most of the drivers in my unit couldn't *read*, much less read a map. They had to be led the entire way by someone who could. (Or at least, pretended he could- this was in the days before GPS.) Bring on the robots.
Re:Too early to go Urban. (Score:3, Informative)
The big challenge this time is that now real situati
Not everyone has to win (Score:2)
Re:Too early to go Urban. (Score:2)
In this case it seems they are juat setting themselves up to fail.
Absolutely. What, you expected a "Grand Challenge" to be passed the first time? What kind of challenge would that be?
Ask the impossible of people, or you won't get any progress.
Re:Too early to go Urban. (Score:2)
Do they have to... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do they have to... (Score:2)
Re:Do they have to... (Score:2)
readiness? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not going to speculate as to whether the robotics community is "ready" for this challenge, but what do the two challenges have to do with each other from a technical standpoint? In the previous challenges, vision wasn't good enough to tell a boulder from a bush. Are they going to give the robots the GPS location of all the stop signs and traffic circles? If they do, how well would this apply to a city where not all GPS locations are known? If not, how will it differentiate signs from one another and from random stuff in the background?
I'll be impressed with no crashing into each other, before they worry about compliance with all traffic laws. How will the robots recognize the speed limit in their area, or will they all crawl along at 10 mph, impeding the flow of traffic?
Re:readiness? (Score:1)
That would be an awesome legitimate target for the "road rage".
Re:readiness? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:readiness? (Score:4, Informative)
The point of these challenges isn't to set one-year goals. An urban enviornment sets up a hugely more complicated affair that will requires years of failure before success. The complexity of the task goes up an order of magnitude.. however you are definitely hung up on the wrong problems. Signs occur at predictable locations, move in predictable ways, have predictable shapes, and use predictable colors. Someone with an introductory graduate course in computer vision could write a "sign" detector that is pretty robust.
Re:readiness? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you boil it down, they're the exact same thing -- this is just a couple orders of magnitude more difficult. The previous challenge didn't have them dealing with any dynamic variables -- no passing vehicles, no being passed by vehicles, no boulders rolling off a mountain, etc.
And if you're going to solve those problems, why not do it for real? A boulder falling off the side of the road is reasonably uncommon. A car cutting you off is not (n.b. -- the challenge doesn't actually talk about this as an issue, and it may not be; we'll know more after May 20).
It's still all about road detection, object detection, and avoidance. And you're asking what they have to do with each other technically?
Are they going to give the robots the GPS location of all the stop signs and traffic circles?
Again, we won't know until after the Participant Conference on May 20, but I'd actually suspect they will, along with info on what speed limits apply in different areas (as they did last time). This is not unreasonable -- GPS mapping a city is pretty trivial when it comes down to it, and I doubt that the challenge is geared toward being fully dynamic -- e.g. you'll still follow a predetermined route, there won't be sudden changes in traffic rules (no road crews), and so forth.
That said, even if you have full GPS info on stop signs and so forth the most that's useful for is that you need to be watching out for a sign coming up soon. GPS isn't accurate enough (at least on a moving vehicle) to rely on it for road signs -- coming to a complete stop 3m beyond the stop sign doesn't work so well. So they'll still have to visually recognize a lot of traffic signage.
In some ways this will be easier than the previous challenge -- this is all low speed, so the issue of not being able to process the incoming data in real time will be reduced. On the flip side, you'll have to process a lot more data this time -- as you said, you must be able to recognize the difference between a boulder and a bush for this challenge.
I'll be impressed with no crashing into each other, before they worry about compliance with all traffic laws.
I'll be absolutely stunned if anyone succeeds this year, and moderately surprised if anyone succeeds at the one after.
But once this is complete, on to the next challenge -- mixed mode driving (urban, suburban, highway, maybe offroad). Then you can't tailor your algorithm toward a specific goal.
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
Some (all?) in-car navigation systems use the map itself to correct for GPS errors (the software "knows" you can't be turning where there is no street, so it offsets you to the nearest possible street and computes that off
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
First, and the most obvious, is the cost involved. That's a whole lot of infrastructure to set up, and the equipment isn't exactly cheap. Consider that simply replacing the highways signs in any moderate-sized state costs millions of dollars - and that's just for painted sheet metal, and the labor to put them up. Those costs would multiply when you have to have powered radio transmitters on the signs, as well.
Second, it
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
First - the signs wouldn't have to be rebuilt. Only an rfid tag added to each sign. That would of course cost a lot but wouldn't require metalwork or painting.
Second - I agree, totally. I think a supplemental intelligent adaptive system could let the user know that they need to drive, park the car and go into manual. The system definitely would not work with non-compliant cars or signs around.
Third - meh war, who needs it? Lets work on peace... oh? DARPA you say? Hm... : )
I thin
Re:readiness? (Score:2)
Detroit area (Score:2)
I wonder if... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if you get extra points for having your car honk its horn at
other drivers and extend it's little robotic middle finger at anyone that
gets in its way?
How about a useful project this time? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why not quit your job and feed the homeless? (Score:2)
Re:Why not quit your job and feed the homeless? (Score:2)
Re:Why not quit your job and feed the homeless? (Score:2)
Re:Why not quit your job and feed the homeless? (Score:2)
And i dont make money 'off' helping them, I'm just a workerbee that as a by product of my work helps people in need..
Re:Why not quit your job and feed the homeless? (Score:1)
There is no difference.
Of course, if you live in the first world, you (like me) probably do more harm than good simply by virtue of maintaining your lifestyle.
Try to show at least a little insight. (Score:2)
And by the way, I'm almost positive DARPA funds a lot of energy research, too. Lastly,
The real reason they're doing this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The real reason they're doing this. (Score:2)
Better still: Unmanned suicide bombers!
This will be easy ... (with caveats) (Score:2)
Think about it. City driving is designed to be easy. In fact it is really really easy. You are told exactly where to go with visible lines, lights, signs, etc which are all designed to be noticed and easily intepreted.
The hardest part of GC1 was finding the road! When it's layed out for you nice and easy.... man thats a cakewalk.
D
Re:This will be easy ... (with caveats) (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah - there's lots of information, and that's the problem. You're not just concerned about finding the road and avoiding obstacles as in the desert challange, but rather are in the middle of a rapidly changing environment that's presenting an information overload (unpredictably moving cars, p
Consistency (Score:2)
Not so fast (Score:2)
There are so many variables to keep track of, and so many possible scenarios, that a data miner probably can't handle the complexity of "that guy is swerving and changing lanes without signaling, so I'd better keep my distance from him to the extent that I can". It probably requires some kind of reasoning agent with a specialized vo
I can't get left!!! (Score:1)
turning signals (Score:1, Troll)
If so this will be impressive, as at least half the driving population of the United States is unable to utilize that technology consistently.
As a co-worker of mine likes to say: (Score:2)
Re:turning signals (Score:1)
I find it's use fairly consistant with the older population. Right turn signal on, always.
Knight Rider (Score:1)
Public Transit, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is it that every time I hear a story about efforts to improve vehicles, I say to myself, "Gee, hasn't that been done already?" All these efforts seem to have one thing in mind: get a car to act like a train, that way we can continue subsidising the auto/oil/rubber industries with the needless purchase of more individual rail cars.
How about a challenge to develop real public transit in the U.S.?
Sorry, I live in L.A. and I'm bitter.
Re:Public Transit, anyone? (Score:2)
Deadly combination (Score:2)
Re:Deadly combination (Score:2)
The point of these challenges is to not have any humans in the car. Otherewise, the IED problem would still be a threat.
Chicago traffic laws... (Score:2)
Chicago traffic/parking laws are cleverly designed to trip up & get a few bucks out of the uninitiated. Examples: 1. no left turn at some intersections 2. other intersections, no right turn on red between 7am-7pm. The notice is posted on the signal closest to your car, so it's harder to see unless you look for it. 3. No street parking during the afternoon rush hour. Signs poorly visible 4. At some intersections, right turn or left turn only on an arrow signal. 5. No parking after 5p
I hope Team DAD is the first to secure that $1 mil (Score:2)
Anyway, that's quite impressive for two guys with jobs working part time, on their own, out-of-pocket to be in any way competitive with the CMU and Stanford teams. I hope they're up to this urban challenge and get the
Re:I hope Team DAD is the first to secure that $1 (Score:2)
Re:I hope Team DAD is the first to secure that $1 (Score:2)
Re:I hope Team DAD is the first to secure that $1 (Score:2)
Bumper Sticker (Score:2)
The last one kind of hurt (Score:2)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28756 [theinquirer.net]
Either way, my insurance company is still trying to go after the estate of a Mr. Babbage, but are having a hard time tracking him down.
-Charlie
First Urban Challenge Contest (Score:1)
1. It'll be run in Los Angeles.
2. The vehicle in front will have a bug in its software that causes it go off course and on to the LA Freeway.
3. It will be chased by 50 police cars and 5 news helicopters.
4. The chase will end when some guy with a samurai sword cuts the vehicle's wheels out from under it and shoots the gas tank when it rolls over.
Re:DARPA Technological Singularity (Score:1)
It was Two thousand-twelve when I realised I wasn't in the future,
It was Twenty-sixteen when I realised that I was there.
I think you are 4 years off.
Re:DARPA Technological Singularity (Score:2)
I think many people put the 2012 date because it coincides with Mayan end date and/or Terrence Mckenna's Time Wave Zero.
I think Kurzweil is more on the money with his 2045 suggestion about the Technological Singularity. We simply do not have the hardware right now... But by 2020 we will have cell phones that are able to to outhink most grade schoo
Re:I just can't believe... (Score:2)
Here [darpa.mil] is his bio...
You probably wouldn't believe that General Lance Lord [af.mil] is the head of Space Command!
*"Space Command" must always be followed by an exclamation point*