Earlier quoted context omitted.
asdf
.
[deleted]
A Tragic Loss
401–410 of 511 posts
Re: A Tragic Loss
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Known, calculable circumstances. If a component may fail, then redundancies are added so that failure will not result in a crash.
You just keep digging. All adding redundancy can do is lower the chance of a crash. > If a component may fail As has already been pointed out to you, all components may fail, including any that you add to compensate for the potential failure of other components. An engineer should know this by instinct.
An engineer should know nothing by instinct.
Adding redundancy was incorrect. Redundancy should be inherent to the design. If one must be added, the design is already a failure.
Redundancy does not mean adding a new component, but maintaining operation under component failure. For example, if the engines fail, it should still be possible to make a controlled landing.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#403This is on the road to being off topic, but still relevant given some of the commentary in this thread: It makes me a bit sad that the political zeitgeist in the tech community is leaning towards "acceptable losses" when it comes to accidents in automated cars, to the point of pre-emptively expressing disdain at ordinary people reacting negatively to such news. I sense it's going to become harder and harder for us to…
Every life is special. Every life is sacred. Every life has rights and hopes and dreams and its own special contribution to humanity. Yet, losses have to be weighed against the alternatives. Would you think it ethical to not put out seat belts, because they don't save lives in all cases? Or may even be harmful in some circumstances? "Acceptable losses" is certainly a distasteful and dehumanizing perspective. Yet how…
Would we let a doctor murder a random healthy person to harvest organs to save ten lives? When we talk about weighing alternatives, it's like you say: It won't save lives in all cases, but it will decrease the loss of innocent lives overall.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#404Re: A Tragic Loss
#405Re: A Tragic Loss
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
the fact that they could. Imagine how many press releases there'd be per day if another auto company felt compelled to do one for each accident their cars were involved in.
Well yes. Total domestic US car production was two orders of magnitude greater than Tesla's was last year. Ford produced 40% more cars in 1911 than Tesla did last year. Just due to scale, no other company could manage this level of response. On the other hand, Tesla doesn't do this for every accident. They are treating this one special because Autopilot very carefully, and in a fully controlled manner, drove the car…
I haven't seen anything suggesting this was "very carefully, and in a fully controlled manner..." Did you get additional news on the accident from another source?
Re: A Tragic Loss
#407Tesla sat on this for two months and then released it on the 30th of June.
Why is that date important? It is the end of the third quarter in the US which runs from the 1st of April until today. It is also a holiday weekend.
So while, unsurprisingly, everyone here wants to defend Tesla's tone it is hard not to look at the date of this release with a lot of cynicism. They've waited for a great day to bury bad news, and to hide any financial costs.
No doubt all the replies below will claim this is coincidence that Tesla announced this at the end of a quarter on a holiday weekend late in the day.
Re: A Tragic Loss
#408The top comment in another comment thread, which has been "duped"[0] pointed out how marking a feature in cars as "beta" is irresponsible. What's beyond the pale IMO is that when auto-pilot was first demonstrated (at the unveil event) - "hands on the wheel" was not part of the story. Journalists and (what appeared to be) Tesla employees were using the feature without hands on the wheel. It looked like Tesla cashing-i…
[deleted]
Re: A Tragic Loss
#409This is why driving AI is 'all or nothing' for me. Assisted systems will lead to drivers paying less attention as the systems get better. The figures quoted by Tesla seem impressive but you have to assume the majority of the drivers is still paying attention all the time . As auto-pilots get better you'll see them paying attention less and then the accident rate will go up, not down for a while at least until the bug…
This is what I've now said 3 or so times in various autopilot threads. It has to be an all or nothing thing. Part of responsible engineering is engineering out the many and varied ways that humans can fuck it all up. Look at how UX works in software. Good engineering eliminates users being able to do the wrong thing as much as possible.
You don't design a feature that invites misuse and then use instructions to try to prevent that misuse. That's irresponsible, bad engineering.
The heirachy of hazard control [1] in fact puts administrative controls at the 2nd-to-bottom, just above personal protective equipment. Elimination, substitution and engineering controls all fall above it.
Guards on the trucks to stop cars going under are an engineering control and also perhaps a substituion - you go from decapitation to driving into a wall instead. It's better than no guards and just expecting drivers to be alert - that's administration - but it's worse than elimination which is what you need if you provide a system where the driver is encouraged to be inattentive.
User alertness is a very fucking difficult problem to solve and an extremely unreliable hazard control. Never rely on it, ever. That's what they're doing here and it was only a matter of time that this happened. It's irresponsible engineering.
edit: My source for the above: I work in rail. We battle with driver inattention constantly because like autopilot, you don't steer but you do have to be in control. I could write novels on the battles we've gone through just to keep drivers paying attention.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_control
Re: A Tragic Loss
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wrong. One in 1.2 million flights crash. This is literally a "known chance". Planes take off anyway.
No, that is an observed statistic.