main
post story
rss feed
search
links
link to us
topics
about
main
|
 Posted by Pennywise on Monday March 15, @09:35AM
from the the-next-best-thing-to-playing-go dept.
After nine months of press, over a hundred submissions and millions of dollars and probably thousands of man hours, not one of the 25 starting teams at the DARPA Grand Challenge managed to complete even five percent of the course, says this CNN article. With a mandate from congress to have a third of all military vehicles be autonomous by 2015, DARPA put a million dollar prize on the table to entice enthusiasts and professionals to build computer controlled cars to race from LA to Las Vegas -- nobody even came close. Even CMU, who was favored to win with over a million dollars invested in their robot, went off course after only 7.4 miles, got caught on a berm and had their wheels catch fire. As one CogNews reader points out, "the DARPA Grand Challenge has proven once again that artificial intelligence and robotics are still not advanced to the point that we would like to think they are"...
For more on the Grand Challenge, check out the official website or one of the previous six CogNews articles on the subject: The DARPA Grand Challenege, Robot Cars, Desert Race, Grand Challenge in Silicon Valley, Slashdot on the Grand Challenge, Robot Road Trip, and Grand Challenge Gets Attention.
<
|
>
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: The Grand Failure
by TravisBarker on Thursday March 18, @06:18PM
|
almost funny in a very sad sort of way. especially considering some of the entries spent more money in development than the PRIZE was worth !
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: The Grand Failure
by Catskul on Thursday March 18, @06:41PM
|
I think you missed the point in several ways. First, beyond the prize, succeeding would be worth well mor e than the prize in what they could do with it commertially. The would likely get a contract with DARPA, as well as be able to sell the technology on the open market. The prize mostly isnt ment to replace the costs of the vehicles as most would not get the prize. If you are looking for an example, look at the xprize $10 000 000 is no-where near enough money in most cases to devlope a space worthy craft, esp a re-usable space craft. The prize is mostly to bring people togeather and winning is more of a publicity win rather than an economic win. The publicity that a monitary prize brings is the reason that they are used so often. Often when something seems stupid, its not, you just have to look a little deaper.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: The Grand Failure
by Travis Barker on Wednesday March 09, @07:36PM
|
yea, I got the point all too well, I was just trying to make light of it since there doesn't seem to be a lot more to say on the matter.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
Re: The Grand Failure
by CriX on Friday March 19, @10:49AM
|
Seems like there were a lot of mechanical failures. I think one team will make it at least 50% the next time around and maybe even win it.
I agree though, its pretty dissapointing. I can't wait to see what Hans Moravec will pull off with his 'new' company. www.seegrid.com
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: The Grand Failure
by Hunter Thompson on Friday March 19, @04:45PM
|
The Team Gonzo entry met some early failures during field testing, and was disqualified from entering:
http://members.cox.net/beeper98/truck_surfing.wmv
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
The Fine Print: The following
comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
The Grand Failure
