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

421–430 of 511 posts

Re: A Tragic Loss

#421

Post by threatofrain »

archagon wrote: post #221

This 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…

I still don't find your perspective persuasive because I don't see why I'm not any more of an individual at risk when another human hits me, and society won't hold that human liable due to absence of mens rea. Many people get hurt or killed in a situation with no criminal element. I don't see how it's any more or less personal if I'm maimed or killed by a machine versus a bounded human mind. I also don't care to blame either, because I don't see why blaming the one person who hits or kills somebody I care about is going to protect the next person who gets hit or killed. Moral blame of the stressed cognitive system seems so useless and self-indulgent.

Is it less creepy if a caring mom or dad of 3 boys maims or kills me? Is it interesting to the victim that hypothetical Joe the Dad expresses remorse over the media and then business goes on for society as usual?

What matters to me is that less people get hurt or killed from preventable accidents (the simple-minded utilitarian perspective that does not weigh rich vs poor, young vs old, but just wants less people dying), because I understand that the next anonymous individual getting killed by either Joe the Driver or a Google / Tesla Car could also be me or someone I care about. So I really do care about the numbers.

The utilitarian perspective actually establishes a negotiable definition as its goal and it discusses the relationship between means and goals -- a position to talk about, disagree with, and measure.

Discussing how over 30,000 people die a year through the lens of Driver Joe, Dad of 3 Girls, is the same as discussing economic disparity through the lens of Plumber Joe, and it's a game that media and narrative elites play better than you, and can swing in any direction they want -- they can say, here's Plumber Joe, now support my economic narrative, whatever it is, because it helps Plumber Joe (does it? who cares about creepy data-backed perspectives?).

I feel that citizen decision-making improves with basic descriptive statistics over Plumber Joe, but they really prefer discussing things in terms of Plumber Joe, or in this case, Driver Jane, Mom of 3 Boys.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#422

Post by protomyth »

bqe wrote: post #242
archagon wrote: post #221

This 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…

When I was in college, the I-35W bridge collapsed and many people died. In my differential equations class the next day, my professor was handing back our tests and told us–a class of engineers–that every red mark on our tests was another dead body. You might scoff and say that's hyperbole, or scaremongering, and you might be right, but I took it as a warning. It is our responsibility as ethical engineers to ensure t…

Heard something similar in a class ~"Your code could lose a company a couple of million dollars or get someone killed. If your not going to be a professional, then please chose your jobs carefully or leave the profession".

I-35W was seriously bad news, plus the cell network went down.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#423

Post by viraptor »

ams6110 wrote: post #371
sliverstorm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GM's cars don't have autopilot driving their passengers into a semi (that I know of)

I had posted the same comment before I saw this one (I deleted mine). I would assume that the higher-end GM cars do have an automatic braking collision avoidance system by now, since that's a pretty standard feature above a certain price point. And I would assume it's not foolproof either, but at least it doesn't lead the driver to think he can take his hands off the wheel and not pay attention to what's happening on…

> at least it doesn't lead the driver to think he can take his hands off the wheel and not pay attention

Tesla reiterates every time and makes you confirm you understand that this is not the case. If the driver did it, that's completely on them being irresponsible.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#424

Post by abduhl »

protomyth wrote: post #416
brokenmachine wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes don't have to deal with semi-trailers or wildlife appearing suddenly in their path regularly either. Autopilot in a plane doesn't have to deal with obstacles besides the odd mountain here and there. So I'd say that in many (most?) ways it's easier and safer to autopilot a plane than a car, and as you say, even planes with autopilot have failed.

> Planes don't have to deal with semi-trailers or wildlife appearing suddenly in their path regularly either Planes most certainly do have to deal with wildlife (e.g. birds) appearing suddenly in their path regularly.

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you seriously saying that birds regularly fly at over 30000 ft? Or are you trying to imply that autopilot during landing/takeoff actively tracks birds and tries to avoid them?

In other words, the plane autopilot doesn't "deal" with wildlife at all unless you count running into it. Which is apparently what Tesla autopilot does as well.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#425

Post by weaksauce »

protomyth wrote: post #412
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The problem with this is statistics: you need to have your autonomous cars travel at least 100 billion miles before you can confidently say they're an order of magnitude safer. A normal car drives about 100 000 miles in 10 years. You then need one million autonomous cars driving around for a decade before you even know whether they're safer!

> A normal car drives about 100 000 miles in 10 years. Can you give a source for that number as it seems a bit low given warranty numbers.

my insurance estimates the average driven per year is around 12k miles so 100000 miles in 10 years is about right or a little low.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#426

Post by wrsh07 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #170
wrsh07 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla doesn't need autopilot to gather data -- just having the sensors on the vehicles is enough. The current cost seems to be about 3/4 as many casualties as one would expect from the # of miles they've driven.

> The current cost seems to be about 3/4 as many casualties as one would expect from the # of miles they've driven. That statistic is misleading, though. Tesla's comparing autopilot miles to all driven miles in other vehicles, but they're not directly comparable. Autopilot can only be engaged in certain (favorable) conditions - no residential streets, no undivided highways, and you're probably not turning it on durin…

Sure, it's maybe a bit deflated. My point stands: the cost based on current empirical evidence is negligible. There certainly hasn't been a statistically significant increase in fatal crashes while on autopilot.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#427

Post by mthoms »

amscanne wrote: post #388
mthoms wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Fair enough. I think the framing matters a bit though.

"4 Times Deadlier!" certainly comes across as sensationalist based on such flimsy data (never mind that the real figure is actually 3.2 and the parent chose to round up rather than down to serve his/her purpose).

Whereas Tesla's statement comes across more as a statement of fact (albiet quite self-serving.. no question about that).

Re: A Tragic Loss

#428

Post by protomyth »

abduhl wrote: post #424
protomyth wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Planes don't have to deal with semi-trailers or wildlife appearing suddenly in their path regularly either Planes most certainly do have to deal with wildlife (e.g. birds) appearing suddenly in their path regularly.

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you seriously saying that birds regularly fly at over 30000 ft? Or are you trying to imply that autopilot during landing/takeoff actively tracks birds and tries to avoid them? In other words, the plane autopilot doesn't "deal" with wildlife at all unless you count running into it. Which is apparently what Tesla autopilot does as well.

I am saying that planes use auto pilot (e.g. Terrain-following radar and Autoland) have to deal with birds and yes they hit them.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#429

Post by jacquesm »

NamTaf wrote: post #409
jacquesm wrote: post #94

This 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 t…

> I could write novels on the battles we've gone through just to keep drivers paying attention.

Please do, and link them here. I'd be very interested in reading about your battles and I figure many others would too. This is where the cutting edge is today and likely will be for years to come so your experience is extremely valuable and has wide applicability.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#430

Post by mthoms »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #402
thaumasiotes wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can build an airliner with 100% failsafe redundancies at a cost that makes you competitive with the incumbants I'll be the first to buy a ticket. Heck, I'll be the first to invest.
Post reply on HN