Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

Post by forgetsusername » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:16 AM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #307

HNaTTY wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner. -- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," sa…

Suppose I'm driving a "normal" car. I have my hands on the wheel, but I am reading a book. I hit a tree. Is the auto-maker responsible? They advertised the car as having cruise control. Call me old, but I remember similar hysteria when cruise control systems started appearing. People honestly thought it would be like autopilot or better - and ploughed into highway dividers, forests, other traffic, you name it, at 55m…

Post by lsaferite » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:31 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #192

HNaTTY wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner. -- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," sa…

> No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. That would seem to me to be reason to steer the car to the shoulder and disengage the auto-pilot. Tesla is trying to take too big a step here and blaming the driver(s) of these cars is really really bad PR.

Post by protomyth » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:34 AM UTC

easytiger wrote: post #224

wyldfire wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or in fact a legitimate reason to swerve? Reasoning about what's legitimate can be a really fine line. Oncoming car, raccoon, fawn, human, doe, coyote, elk: some of these obstacles might actually be net-safer to not swerve around [perhaps depending on speed]. I'd be really curious if any of the autopilots have a value system that tries to minimize damage/loss of life. And how does it value the exterior obstacle aga…

> obstacles might actually be net-safer to not swerve around In the UK its illegal to swerve for these things. In the sense that if you subsequently cause an accident for swerving to avoid a cat, you are at fault.

Post by prof_hobart » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM UTC

HNaTTY wrote: post #132

greendestiny wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again Tesla have made the discussion about the driver. They have put an auto-control system out in the wild that steers the car into hard obstacles at high speed. Beeps to warn the driver at some stage in the preceding interval do not make this control systems failure any more acceptable. It still misjudged situation as acceptable to continue and it still drove into obstacles. Those are significant failures and…

I agree; I think it's despicable that Tesla is acting in such a defensive manner. -- "No force was detected on the steering wheel for over two minutes after autosteer was engaged," said Tesla, which added that it can detect even a very small amount of force, such as one hand resting on the wheel. "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel," sa…

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:46 AM UTC

esteth wrote: post #194

laksjd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a value system would be a nightmarish thing so I hope that it doesn't exist yet. Just imagine your car calculating that it should let you die in order to save a group of school children... except that the school children were in fact a bunch of sheep that the system mis-identified. The danger of AI isn't in paperclip optimizers (at least for now), it's in humans over-relying on machine learning systems.

I think such a value system is fine in as much as it preserves the safety of the driver. I'd like my car to make value judgements about what's safer - braking and colliding with an object or swerving to avoid it. I'd rather it brakes and collides with a child than swerve into oncoming traffic, but I'd rather it swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid a truck that would otherwise T-bone me. As long as the system only a…