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

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#81

Post by studentrob »

lucb1e wrote: post #66

What I don't understand is why Tesla doesn't whitelist roads where this feature can be used, since the manual sets very specific conditions. Especially given that the feature is currently enabled, they must know which roads work with high confidence values. Or assume they wanted to do the right thing from the start, and they don't have this dataset. It's not as if we don't have OpenStreetMap (or as if they couldn't b…

> What I don't understand is why Tesla doesn't whitelist roads where this feature can be used, since the manual sets very specific conditions

I think they want the data of drivers attempting to drive with autopilot on these roads.

Tesla does, I've read, restrict how fast autopilot can drive on unapproved roads, so it appears they already have them mapped out.

They're using customers as guinea pigs for their tech.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#82

Post by oconnore »

studentrob wrote: post #76
oconnore wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this sort of auto->manual transition of control does not work [1]. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Robots-Ourselves-Robotics-Autonom...

Any notable quotes or stats from the book? I'd guess some of Tesla's stock value is tied up in the idea that the auto-manual transition of control does work.

I lent out my copy, but one particularly relevant section compares results from the aviation industry's use of pure-autopilot and HUD-augmented landings. Pilots maintain their flying skills, and get better overall results by staying in the loop with an augmented vision system. Good pilots often avoid full-autopilot entirely, or are forced to abort only seconds from touchdown, resulting in poorer landings. Bad pilots over rely on autopilot, and are therefore under-trained to deal with exceptional situations, resulting in incidents like the infamous Air France crash.

https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=183

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#83

Post by studentrob »

vkou wrote: post #54
taneq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The driver's response is moot. The larger issue here is that if autopilot doesn't provide for a safe stop under its own control when it encounters a situation it can't handle, any vehicle on autopilot becomes a lethal missile if the driver has some kind of medical problem. A traditional car won't get more than a few hundred meters if the driver on the freeway has a stroke, say. A car on autopilot could travel hundred…

I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke. I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous.

> I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but a traditional car on cruise control will absolutely become a lethal missile if its driver has a stroke.

You're talking worst case scenario. This is a case where the driver was alive and chose to ignore warnings.

> I don't think automation makes that particular use case more dangerous.

It's more dangerous when the autopilot driver can easily misuse the system. Add a few requirements like hands on the wheel every few seconds before shut-off and you'll see this happen less frequently. Someone may still circumvent that measure. Nothing's perfect. There will be fewer people who abuse it.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#84

Post by studentrob »

DanBC wrote: post #59

I'd be interested to see how Google sees this. Paving the way for autonomous driving by making crashes something that people expect sometimes? Or putting people off autonomous driving by making people think crashes are not acceptable at all, ever?

Google has a completely different strategy. They're aiming for 100% automation via a more gradual testing process before making any sort of automation available to consumers.

I believe their thought is that the closer we get to complete automation, the less likely a driver is to remain aware. We're only at roughly 10% automation right now and drivers are already taking their eyes off the road. When we get to 90%, humans will have an even tougher time retaining attentiveness. Watch their talks to be sure.

Google's self driving car group gives some awesome transparency reports every month, including details about every accident [1]. It's like they're ready to become their own company.

Fortune had a good article critiquing Tesla's strategy vs. Google's and other car companies' [2]. The author says Tesla is being defensive and resistant to public critique. Other companies expect pushback from the public and incorporate that into their product offerings.

[1] https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/

[2] http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-c...

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#85

Post by studentrob »

yes_or_gnome wrote: post #61
itg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can test the cars the way Google does, without involving the public and having deaths on your hand from overhyping your product. https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/

There are tens of thousands of people either walking or driving the streets of Mountain View and Sunnyvale where Google is testing its self-driving cars. So, the members of the public are at risk. But, I understand that you mean behind the wheel. Which is fun because the Google cars do not have a wheel. As I'm sure you may know, instead of a traditional steering wheel they have horizontally mounted, valve wheel with…

> There are tens of thousands of people either walking or driving the streets of Mountain View and Sunnyvale where Google is testing its self-driving cars. So, the members of the public are at risk.

There is a huge difference between Google operating a handful of cars in certain areas and Tesla selling 10-20 thousand vehicles per month that can be operated by untrained consumers anywhere in the US.

Tesla is using its customers as data-generating guinea pigs. In return, Tesla may become a guinea pig itself by showing other companies how not to progress towards autonomous vehicles.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#86

Post by a3n »

I don't understand why Tesla is allowed to release a safety critical system on to the roads when it requires buyers to acknowledge its not-finishedness. They're putting beta systems into an uncontrolled environment. No driver in the nearby lanes has been given that choice.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#87

Post by studentrob »

oconnore wrote: post #82
studentrob wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any notable quotes or stats from the book? I'd guess some of Tesla's stock value is tied up in the idea that the auto-manual transition of control does work.

I lent out my copy, but one particularly relevant section compares results from the aviation industry's use of pure-autopilot and HUD-augmented landings. Pilots maintain their flying skills, and get better overall results by staying in the loop with an augmented vision system. Good pilots often avoid full-autopilot entirely, or are forced to abort only seconds from touchdown, resulting in poorer landings. Bad pilots…

Cool. Tesla should review this book and talk. Paraphrasing a few quotes from your link ...

"The most difficult challenging tech problem is not full autonomy, but rather the interaction between automated systems and humans"

The subtitle of the book is also notable: "Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy"

The speaker almost seems to be arguing that full autonomy is impossible. If we start up a system, then its behavior has still been kicked off and wrapped by humans. Interesting perspective.

I'd like to read the book myself after listening to a bit of this talk. Thanks!

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#88

Post by ars »

ctrl_freak wrote: post #49
snuxoll wrote: post #6

I really think Tesla needs to make autopilot's "hands-on" requirement less lenient, the driver had their hands off the wheel for a full two minutes and the car didn't bark at him? I think (maybe I'm wrong and the other non-fatal one did) this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver, and probably the one that is going to put the screws to Tesla, unfortunately.

> this is the first incident where autopilot was involved with an inattentive driver The other (fatal) crash involved an inattentive driver watching a Harry Potter movie: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-dri...

The latest data is that he was not watching anything.

The claim claim from the truck driver hoping to avoid responsibility for crossing a highway in an unsafe manner.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#90

Post by ars »

kilroy123 wrote: post #3

I hate to say it, but there are going to be some deaths on the road to full autonomous cars. (no pun intended) The problem I see is, Tesla is the only one actively testing autonomous driving. The fact that over 100 million miles driven, and we're finally starting to see accidents, is a good sign.

> The fact that over 100 million miles driven, and we're finally starting to see accidents, is a good sign.

No it's not because the human safety record is approximately that. Which means this Autopilot did nothing, and the humans did everything.

Post reply on HN