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

381–390 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#381

Post by brandon272 »

sologoub wrote: post #281
daveguy wrote: post #203

A direct reply from Elon Musk on twitter about why radar did not recognize the white side of a trailer across the road when the camera missed it: "Radar tunes out what looks like an overhead road sign to avoid false braking events" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/748620607105839104 EDIT: When the "overhead sign" comes down below overhead clearance of the vehicle the signal should not be masked. There should have…

It also seems strange that the rest of the tractor trailer was not picked up by the radar when it was entering the road in the first place - the front part that is pulling the trailer is typically lower and should not have been mistaken for a road sign or otherwise.

Or that radar cannot detect an object moving perpendicularly in front of you regardless of overhead clearance. I assumed that auto pilot was more advanced than what is now being described. They have a lot of work to do here.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#382

Post by rasz_pl »

rsp1984 wrote: post #117

Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. It appears to me like this is a case that shows the limitations of stereo vision as the main sensor system guiding the Tesla autopilot. I would even venture to say that it could have possibly been avoided using LiDAR technology. According to various interviews however Elon Musk is n…

what stereo vision? there is only one camera afaik

Re: A Tragic Loss

#383

Post by daveguy »

rasz_pl wrote: post #376
daveguy wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the likely answer is Tesla "autopilot" is a glorified cruise control + lane assist + data collection for future intelligent controls. Google probably has close to this capability, but they are at the leading edge of image recognition. In order to depend on it the AI would have to be able to distinguish 99.9+% and would have to be able to tell the difference between a green truck and a road sign. I honestly th…

Yes, Tesla system is a fancy lane following dressed in powerful PR. Btw I dont feel Imagenet results are relevant, it only tests static 2d images. Car system can have multiple cameras providing 3d reconstruction in near realtime. Mobileye (what tesla repackaged) probably has only one front facing camera and is too stupid beyond 'hey this uniformly colored blob is in my lane'

I was putting image net performance out there as a bare minimum capability. I agree 3d real-time reconstruction is harder (although aided by multiple cameras + radar, etc). You're right, it probably isn't a fair comparison because of the convolution of real-time needs and additional sensors/cameras available.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#384

Post by rasz_pl »

itg wrote: post #241

The fact that Tesla will blame their users for anything that goes wrong makes me avoid considering one. Alone with all the hype they try to sell. But what disappoints me the most is how the "tech" crowd will defend Tesla every time.Someone lost their life because Tesla can't put out a decent semi-autonomous driving systems and we are supposed to brush it aside?

Works for Apple every time.

BTW iPhone 6/6+ will probably get a recall in couple of years (if sheep complain loud enough) because again there is a design defect (like in every other Apple product, nvidia gpus, you hold it wrong, no cooling in laptops, moisture sensitive parts positioned right next to ports etc), Touch IC is not supported by metal rf shield like in all previous phones and cracks joints due to normal usage flex of whole phone body = grey bar on top of lcd and dead touch.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#385

Post by crpatino »

fdsaaf wrote: post #378
crpatino wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time... 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 b…

I prefer to talk about real utilitarian tradeoffs instead of putting I imaginary, arbitrarily virtuous angels against computers. Every day you delay automation of automobile traffic is another batch of lives lost. Are you more interested in saving lives or in expressing the short sighted and sanctimonious outrage of a Luddite?

Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite?

How many lives do you think autopilot is going to save if being as good as a sleep deprived teenager is good enough? And who benefits from that state of affairs?

Anyways, you are a true beliver or a paid shill, so have a good night. EOM.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#386

Post by Fricken »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #266
angusb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about Tesla though. They have to defend autopilot not only to protect the brand but to protect the public's perception of autonomous vehicles in general. Self driving tech is poised to save many many lives. So from a utilitarian perspective, it's probably justified to take extraordinary measures to make sure reactionary media and public whim doesn't kill it off, however uncomfortable that might seem in…

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

94% of fatal accidents are due to human error, and preventable if you remove impairment, inattention, and poor judgement from the equation.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#387

Post by ceejayoz »

fdsaaf wrote: post #367
ceejayoz wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You didn't answer the question.

Well, it's going to depend on the feature. Slightly improved UI on the radio's touchscreen is a bit different from Tesla's autopilot.

In the case of autopilot, I'd say similar to a drug study, as it's something that can cause serious harm or death to the human subjects involved. Tesla should have an IRB for ethical monitoring, there should be a small trial group initially (and very gradual rollouts to larger groups), participants should receive informed consent at a Tesla store with emphasis on the risks and what's necessary to use the feature safely, and someone should have the authority to pull the plug on the study if it proves too dangerous.

Given the state autopilot is reportedly in, I'd say right now no one should be using it without an in-person training at a Tesla store to emphasize the proper usage of it.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#388

Post by amscanne »

mthoms wrote: post #318
mozumder wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IIHS compares car model fatality rates: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates If you want to do the numbers to compare the Tesla to other cars, where they measure driver fatalities per million registered years, do this: 130,000,000 miles / 12,000 average miles per year per car = 10,833 years. That's 10,833 registered years for the Model S. The IIHS site normalizes to deaths per million registered yea…

>So, right now, it looks like the Tesla Model S is about 4x deadlier than the average car when using Autopilot, and about 10-20x deadlier than the safest cars. How you can draw such a conclusion from a singular data point? That's beyond ridiculous.

Seems as valid (and invalid) as the implied conclusion here:

> This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#389

Post by Fricken »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #333
pacificmint wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 any…

You're being extremely pedantic. Machines are getting better. Humans aren't.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#390

Post by caf »

derefr wrote: post #340
spenvo wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Some models of Volkswagen now include driver fatigue detection, based on analysing steering inputs (and possibly other signals?). It just warns you to pull over, though.
Post reply on HN