Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Tragic Loss

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#331

Post by Retra »

mdorazio wrote: post #223
Retra wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think when Google, Delphi, and Uber start selling cars, everything is going to work perfectly?

Of course not, but it will work a lot better than autopilot, with significantly lower accident rates. No system will ever be perfect, but there is a huge difference between privately testing something to the best of your abilities before releasing it, and turning on a beta feature easily capable of killing drivers via a software update protected by a disclaimer screen.

What reason do you have to believe that? What are you basing this on?

Just because something is in development longer doesn't mean the quality is better. Furthermore, Tesla might be gaining some critical information with their early release. And whose to say Tesla didn't test this stuff to the best of their abilities?

'Significantly lower accident rates' compared to what, exactly? The highly accurate accident rates collected from the many decades of experience with Tesla accidents that never happened?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#332

Post by vacri »

alkonaut wrote: post #192
npizzolato wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The autopilot doesn't drive the car, the driver does. The autopilot is a help just like cruise control. Tesla are very clear (apart from the naming of the feature) that the driver must still drive the car. I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You can't say "autopilot is safer th…

> I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You don't have to react - you have to supervise it though. It lets the driver monitor a system that micromanages steering, brakes and throttle, instead of doing that micromanagement himself. It requires the same attention but is less work. >…

Calling it 'autopilot' is a very bad thing, then, because 'autopilot' means 'runs automatically' to the general public.

And even though actual autopilots in planes are monitored by meatpilots, meatpilots can still take their attention away for a short time. The autopilot keeps the plane flying straight and level, and doesn't take on any navigational role (in most cases). Unless your roads are dead straight and there's no traffic, driving requires a constant navigational role.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#333

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

pacificmint wrote: post #299
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. Based on what?

> Based on what? Human drivers are very bad. We kill over 32,000 people a year (and that's a 60 year low, just a few years ago it was over 40,000). So if self driving cars are just a little better than humans, they will save many lives. If they are a lot better than us, they will save many more.

>> if self driving cars are (...)

That's a hypothetical. You say autonomous cars are "poised" to save many lives -not even avoid many deaths, actively "save".

That's very strong language to use based on an "if" that nobody yet knows the answer to with any certainty.

That is, unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not? Are you?

What is it that you base your assertion on? Do you base it on anything or is it just a pretty turn of phrase you thought sounded cool?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#334

Post by jsprogrammer »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #309
jsprogrammer wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually don't allow planes to crash. Crashes are a result of human error or catastrophic failure. When a crash occurs, the cause is investigated so that another crash never happens for the same reason. If a defect is ever found, all affected planes are grounded until they have been fixed. I expect Autopilot to be disabled soon. Edit: >So basically we accept that in order for each of us to fly to our destination,…

On the contrary, every plane that takes off does so despite the known chance that it could crash.

No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#335

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #300
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The point is that humanity is not a herd to be taken as a whole; That's a great point but the truth is that we already treat human lives as a resource to be spent: for instance, we allow planes to fly and automobiles to be driven even though their safety is not perfect. We allow that, out of say a million flights, one plane will fatally crash killing usually everybody on board (I don't know what the real number is…

We actually don't allow planes to crash. Crashes are a result of human error or catastrophic failure. When a crash occurs, the cause is investigated so that another crash never happens for the same reason. If a defect is ever found, all affected planes are grounded until they have been fixed. I expect Autopilot to be disabled soon. Edit: >So basically we accept that in order for each of us to fly to our destination,…

>> No plane will take off if there is a calculated chance that it could crash.

So, planes have a 0% chance to crash when they take off?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#336

Post by archagon »

jfrisby wrote: post #329
archagon wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds as if archagon would have us spend all our time looking at trees > I think perhaps the reason archagon is so aghast > Archagon seems to be so distracted by the novelty of this situation > If we follow archagon's hand-wringing I don't know who this hand-wringing, tree-gazing, and monacle-popping archagon is, but he sure sounds like a hoot.

Not so much "a hoot" as "morally misguided", and "void of empathy for people outside his/her monkey-sphere."

Putting aside the fact that many ordinary people would find your perspective lacking humanity and hilariously on the opposite side of their own moral compass:

I really didn't offer much other than an opposing perspective and a call to be more moderate. This will come up again and again, and it would pay to have a bit of empathy here.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#337

Post by takeda »

pacificmint wrote: post #299
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. Based on what?

> Based on what? Human drivers are very bad. We kill over 32,000 people a year (and that's a 60 year low, just a few years ago it was over 40,000). So if self driving cars are just a little better than humans, they will save many lives. If they are a lot better than us, they will save many more.

Human programmers are even worse we make 15-50 bugs per 1000 lines of code.

Also don't forget that while each of us is somewhat unique in terms of driving, the cars are not, so a bug in a car's software can amplify issues even further.

There are issues also how cars will behave when they will have to interact with other self driving cars. Those problems are already difficult when writing distributed applications and with cars we don't have luxury of just letting things crash together until things improve.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#338

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #334
thaumasiotes wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, every plane that takes off does so despite the known chance that it could crash.

No. I am talking about calculated chances, not "someone might decide to crash the plane" chances. If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.

>> If there is a known chance that a component of a plane might fail and cause a crash, it will not take off.

There is no component of any machine that is 100% guaranteed to not fail under any circumstances. What the bloody hell are you talking about?

Re: A Tragic Loss

#340

Post by derefr »

spenvo wrote: post #277
fdsaaf wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey do the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?! Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control. > One death is too many. I am sick and tired o…

> My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control. Then you are not using the feature the way Tesla says you should, the only way Tesla says it's safe to be used. > I am sick and tired of absolutist statements about risk. Recklessly rolling out tech is screwing the industry-at-large, given the regulato…

You're ignoring the other half of the quoted sentence.

> a necessary nor a sufficient condition

As in, not only can you pay attention without having your hand on the wheel, but you can also have your hand on the wheel without paying attention. Having your hand on the wheel is "safety theatre"—something done because it makes you feel like you're in control, not something you do because it actually puts you in control.

Cars could do a lot of things to actually ensure the driver is in control. A start would be administering a breathalyzer-like automated attention test (dual-N-back?) before the car will start, and then every few hours of continuous operation after that. Tired drivers would be pulled over to the side of the road and told to take a nap and resume in the morning. (This would probably automatically cover drunk drivers as well, now that I think of it.)

Post reply on HN