Thursday, May 17th 2018

Intel's Mobileye Secures a Future-Focused Deal for 8 Million Self-Driving Systems in 2021

Intel's Mobileye, the AI and self-driving feature the blue giant acquired last year for a cool $15.3 billion, has just announced, via an exclusive report to Reuters, that they've secured a contract to provide some 8 million self-driving systems to an European automaker. The deal is a future-focused one, and will see, by 2021, distribution for Intel's EyeQ5 chip, which is designed for fully autonomous driving - an upgrade to the EyeQ4 that will be rolled out in the coming weeks, Reuters reports, according to senior vice president for advanced development and strategy at Mobileye Erez Dagan.

Amnon Shashua, Mobileye's chief executive, said that "By the end of 2019, we expect over 100,000 Level 3 cars [where the car is self-driving but still allows for user intervention should the system be unable to progress for more than 10 seconds] with Mobileye installed." This deal is sure to make Intel even more of a player in the automotive space, where NVIDIA and a number of other high-profile companies have been making strides in recent years.
Source: Reuters
Add your own comment

12 Comments on Intel's Mobileye Secures a Future-Focused Deal for 8 Million Self-Driving Systems in 2021

#1
Rehmanpa
Am I the only one who doesn't want self-driving cars?
Posted on Reply
#2
dj-electric
Rehmanpa said:
Am I the only one who doesn't want self-driving cars?
Eventually i would like to go to my car, set a destination, and play a few rounds of super street fighter II on my way to work without having to worry about anything.
Posted on Reply
#3
Basard
Rehmanpa said:
Am I the only one who doesn't want self-driving cars?
I can't wait to troll them all!
Posted on Reply
#4
erocker
Senior Moderator
Rehmanpa said:
Am I the only one who doesn't want self-driving cars?
I believe you are in the majority. I guess I wouldn't mind the option to have it, but I like to drive.
Posted on Reply
#5
Rehmanpa
erocker said:
I believe you are in the majority. I guess I wouldn't mind the option to have it, but I like to drive.
I love driving and all the people that say things like how you play video games while you're driving it's not going to work on that at all because you're still going to be responsible for one of the car does or does not do while you're driving, or should I say not driving? I don't even know how insurance will work. If I'm not driving and it hits someone I sure as heck will not pay for damages, as it wasn't me driving. Not to mention there's nobody to hold accountable when something bad happens. If a car got dumb and ran someone over, who goes to jail? The person who programmed it? The person not driving? If you must be held responsible for it, then you can't really relax and not pay attention. It becomes sitting in the passenger seat and being responsible for the driver seat too. The whole argument about doing other stuff wouldn't work not to mention it, at least where I live, is illegal to do things like watch TV or use your phone while driving. In Washington state they'll charge you a DUI or some BS for using your phone even at a red light, which while I'm against that, self driving cars wouldn't fix the consequences of enjoying them.
Posted on Reply
#6
Nuckles56
Rehmanpa said:
I love driving and all the people that say things like how you play video games while you're driving it's not going to work on that at all because you're still going to be responsible for one of the car does or does not do while you're driving, or should I say not driving? I don't even know how insurance will work. If I'm not driving and it hits someone I sure as heck will not pay for damages, as it wasn't me driving. Not to mention there's nobody to hold accountable when something bad happens. If a car got dumb and ran someone over, who goes to jail? The person who programmed it? The person not driving? If you must be held responsible for it, then you can't really relax and not pay attention. It becomes sitting in the passenger seat and being responsible for the driver seat too. The whole argument about doing other stuff wouldn't work not to mention it, at least where I live, is illegal to do things like watch TV or use your phone while driving. In Washington state they'll charge you a DUI or some BS for using your phone even at a red light, which while I'm against that, self driving cars wouldn't fix the consequences of enjoying them.
Well one thing that will have to happen is that there will have to be new laws around self driving cars and things like drink driving, texting etc. In a level 5 Autonomous Vehicle (AV), there should be no reason why you can't be completely drunk or even just about passed out in the car because it is fully autonomous and is able to get from A to B without input, but a lower level AV you should still have to follow the existing rules for drinking etc.

As for the responsibility for a collision or death involving an AV is where things will get interesting, it will be very dependant on which vehicle is at fault in the incident and what the AV does, as the fault may well lie with the maker of the car if the car failed to recognise the cause of the crash. There is also talk of an altruism dial in the car, where you can decide how the car acts, where it tries to save you or save others in this scenario, which is certainly the most reasonable approach I can see to this dilemma for level 5 AV's certainly.
Posted on Reply
#7
Octavean
It will take time but an establishing driving statistics will be key in how much autonomous vehicles are trusted.

If the autonomous vehicles have a better driving record then typical human drivers then the human side of the equation becomes more of a liability. Also note that hit and runs should be zero with autonomous vehicles provide that they have proper collision detection. Whereas human drivers, likely committing additional crimes beyond the accident, tend to run to avoid prosecution.

I suspect that autonomous vehicles will still require that the operator / owner still have a license and insurance is an industry that simply isn't going away.

I don't have a pilot license but I have a brother that does and was in the air-force. According to him, one of the requirements to getting the pilot license was to be able to correct an out of control tale-spin. My point is that even if it seems unnecessary, for the sake of being capable in a dire situation sometimes the requirements make sense even if the don't seem to at first glance.

Generally speaking though, autonomous vehicles should probably require an occupant to take control if necessary. That means some level of alertness,.....
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Rehmanpa said:
Am I the only one who doesn't want self-driving cars?
You're not the only one, I wouldn't trust them.
Posted on Reply
#9
Caring1
It wouldn't take much for Autonomous Vehicles to be a lot safer than human drivers, as most drivers haven't got a clue and don't pay attention to their environment.
AV's should come with a full manual control option, that locks out drivers unless they attain a certain level of skill, "altruism" switches should be mandatory, although I doubt anyone would want to die instead of a stranger.
If some idiot decides to jay walk across a highway and expects me to die, forget it.
I enjoy driving too much to allow a vehicle dictate to me what is going to happen.
Posted on Reply
#10
medi01
Insurance companies are bracing for the future when number of accidents will drop significantly, if that tells you something.
I don't "like driving", especially very long distances, would instead happily watch a movie or two.
Or even sleep in a driving car and get started at night on a 1000km+ trips.

But that only after tech matures, including addressing driving meatbags.
Posted on Reply
#11
csgabe
I hope the cars won't melt down.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheGuruStud
csgabe said:
I hope the cars won't melt down.
If the occupants die from meltdown maybe they'll become spectres.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment