Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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?
Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.
A Tragic Loss
361–370 of 511 posts
Re: A Tragic Loss
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tesla autopilot drove the vehicle full-speed into a tractor-trailer The tractor trailer drove across the divided highway without seeing an oncoming car. I've seen this accident happen in front of me with a fatality, no auto-pilot involved. A vehicle moves in front of you when you're sufficiently close and you've no time to react. Anything (like glare) that makes such a vehicle harder to spot reduces your available…
It is essentially AI kills driver. The truck was making a left turn in front of the Tesla, which was in the right lane of a 4 lane divided highway. The truck would have had to accelerate in the left turn lane, cross the divider, cross the left lane, then drive further so that the middle of the trailer was in the right lane. This takes at least 5-6 seconds for a semi, and if the semi were detected, there would have be…
Where I'm from if you make a left turn and get side-swiped then it's your fault, period. You made an unsafe turn, plain and simple[1].
If what you describe is true, then human error is the main cause of the accident (although the AI failed to prevent it and absolutely should share the blame). I just think "AI kills driver" is a bit sensationalist don't you?
[1]Of course assuming that all other vehicles present were obeying the law (e.g. not speeding) and there were no other extenuating circumstances.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they can afford cars with stronger safety features.
They can also afford cars with stronger danger features, like turbochargers. They also might be more sheltered from the consequences of their actions and likely to be reckless while driving. Your assumption may even be correct, but I don't think it's obvious.
Which makes it a better comparison to Teslas, really.
http://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-s-just-got-upgraded-to-l...
Re: A Tragic Loss
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are any example, then the reservations are unreasonable and there's plenty of precedent for ignoring them. We didn't ban vaccines because a handful of people are harmed, and we're not reconsidering their use because a bunch of mathematically illiterate loons think they're more dangerous than the alternative. Frankly, there's more reason to ban PEOPLE from being able to drive a car than to ban AIs from driving…
Sigh. OK, look. Your inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to warn against, but I guess self-driving cars are part of the political shitpile now, too. It's a shame that important issues like this seemingly cannot be discussed without resorting to tribalism and name-calling. We're not in your imaginary super-safe self-driving future yet, and if lives are to be carelessly sacrificed as steppin…
Your ignorant, fact-free fear-mongering is antithetical to saving lives.
1. An immense number of lives are being "carelessly sacrificed" right now, and will continue to be sacrificed every day until something comes along to fix the fundamental problem: People are terrible drivers. 2. Tesla's system did not override control of the vehicle. It was not presented as being safe or ready to operate without oversight. The law does not allow for it to be treated as such. The driver failed to hit the brakes despite being told by the car -- and by legal obligation -- that it was his responsibility to hit the brakes. 3. Tesla's system has proven to be safer than the average, unassisted driver, to date.
If the proportion of accidents involving Tesla's autopilot remained constant when scaling up to more drivers and more miles, then it would be a net win in terms of lives saved to deploy it widely right now.
Obviously though, nobody -- including Tesla -- expects that to be the case, or they'd have been touting this as something every driver should have RIGHT NOW.
Tesla is doing their public beta precisely because it's impossible to design a safety-critical system with perfect foresight. More information is needed to help them build a robust system and the public beta has proven to be an uncommonly safe and effective way to get that information.
If you think my rhetoric is inflammatory it's because you're blind to the logical consequences -- the human cost -- of what you advocate for.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#365Nobody is talking about whether it is safe to put Beta software of such an advanced autopilot system in real world? I mean they are giving choice to people to turn on this Autopilot functionality as if it were just another driver assistance safety feature like 'Honda Sensing' but in reality it is much more advanced system and it seems Tesla is doing this to use the data to feed to it's upcoming autonomous technology.…
Exactly what standard do you hold beta features before release? For the sake of the future of humanity, we can't get into a situation where nothing new is allowed so long as someone, somewhere might get hurt.
With stuff that could easily kill you? If it were a drug, there'd be an ethical review and progressively larger trials in carefully selected groups of people receiving informed consent. Something like that might be more appropriate than "your car just updated! enjoy!" beta software.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#366> The high ride height of the trailer Is non-standard ride-height a safety failure? Should trailers have crash panels to avoid drive-unders?
They already do in the back of the trailer where most collisions are likely to take place (it's typically a welded set of cross-beams that go down to roughly bumper height). I think that very few collisions are of this side-on type that would make it worthwhile to add side panels as well. It's kind of one of those "how safe is safe enough?" situations where you have to compromise at some point.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what standard do you hold beta features before release? For the sake of the future of humanity, we can't get into a situation where nothing new is allowed so long as someone, somewhere might get hurt.
> Exactly what standard do you hold beta features before release? With stuff that could easily kill you? If it were a drug, there'd be an ethical review and progressively larger trials in carefully selected groups of people receiving informed consent. Something like that might be more appropriate than "your car just updated! enjoy!" beta software.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah i can't believe this is not bigger news. The Tesla AI was almost good enough to replace an attentive driver. But almost is not good enough.
> replace an attentive driver It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children. You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the ide…
Yes, this is an unfortunate fact of life that human beings are no angels.
However, most modern societies agree that reckless drivers are to be held accountable for their less than perfect behavior. If a police officer (or more recently, surveillance camera) catches you while DUI, or texting, or some other of the most blatant irresponsible behaviors, they will give you a big ticket. And if the consequences of your own idiocity happen to materialize you will suffer much sterner punishment (up to criminal charges for manslaughter, if it came down to that).
That's assuming the infractor does survive. It is a known fact that a non trivial amount of people responsible for accidents end up loosing their lives (or those of loved ones) in the very tragedies they caused themselves. Death is the ultimate judge, and a merciless one at that.
> You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be.
Why?
Neither the engineers who created those subpar systems - nor the executives who pushed for an unfeasible schedule, nor the shareholders that benefited from the whole deal, - will ever face the same consequences as described above. Corporations raison-d'etre is precisely to shield people engaging in economic activities from the unintended consequences of their actions; that's why they must be held to a higher standard than the everyman down the road.
Would you imagine Tesla's Board of Directors having approved the green light for this impressive-yet-still-limited technology, if the company was required to pay for every traffic ticket that every Model S accrued while being in autopilot mode, nationwide? What about being accountable for every accident, no disclaimer licensing or such nonsense?
> I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times.
People will make statements about road transit, because it is literally a life-or-death situation. Maybe you do prefer the cattle to shut up and die quietly, so your utopic techno-fantasies are never challenged?
Re: A Tragic Loss
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel 'A Tragic Loss' sets the tone for the remaining highly technical overview, instead of the technical breakdown seeming tone-deaf, it added tone until getting to the concluding paragraph. Unfortunately, fortunately, Tesla is having to educate people and being very clear to not allow room for panic and unwarranted fear mongering. I would say it is as to the point as it can be, and that it is heartfelt.
In addition it had important information for how other Tesla drivers can use the auto-pilot feature more safely. The article combines condolences and helpful safety information to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Also, you don't see GM making a blog post every time someone passes away in a car they make.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel 'A Tragic Loss' sets the tone for the remaining highly technical overview, instead of the technical breakdown seeming tone-deaf, it added tone until getting to the concluding paragraph. Unfortunately, fortunately, Tesla is having to educate people and being very clear to not allow room for panic and unwarranted fear mongering. I would say it is as to the point as it can be, and that it is heartfelt.
In addition it had important information for how other Tesla drivers can use the auto-pilot feature more safely. The article combines condolences and helpful safety information to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Also, you don't see GM making a blog post every time someone passes away in a car they make.
there is no such feature, there is a MobilEye _lane following_ system Tesla repackaged under Autopilot(TM) brand.
Say it out loud - lane following. Mercedes sold this same tech almost 10 years ago, difference is Tesla felt pressure and started believing their own marketing lies about autonomous driving.