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

401–410 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#401

Post by random_upvoter »

eertami wrote: post #368
vacri wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral choice is the opposite direction: the car should prefer to kill the occupant than a bystander. The occupant is the reason why the car is in use; if it fails, the penalty for that failure should be on the occupant, not bystanders.

But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle. If a child runs in front of my car then it is most definitely at fault and I'd honestly much rather it be dead than me, if those are the options.

You are still the one who elected to hurl 1500 kilograms of metal down the road.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#402

Post by wepple »

3pt14159 wrote: post #385

The real issue is whether or not "Autopilot" is safer than a human or not. If the number of deaths for similar road conditions per distance travelled are less then Tesla should be allowed to continue the way that they are doing things. It's obvious to me the way other systems do this (by slowing down if the user doesn't put his or her hands on the wheel frequently) leads to people not using the feature because it is…

instead of aiming for "the same number or slightly less" accidents than a human, why not have humans give oversight to prevent autopilot errors, and autopilot assist where humans might make a mistake?

actually try to let both computers and people excel where they do best, and massively decrease road accidents?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#403

Post by Reason077 »

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…

I'd rather it brakes and collides with a child than swerve into oncoming traffic

Wait, what? You'd rather hit and kill a child than hit another vehicle - a crash which at urban/suburban speeds would most likely be survivable, without serious injury, for all involved?

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#404

Post by jessaustin »

jrockway wrote: post #380
eertami wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle. If a child runs in front of my car then it is most definitely at fault and I'd honestly much rather it be dead than me, if those are the options.

You're using the word "it" to describe human children now?

Yeah this thread has really squicked me out. Of course dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors of all sorts. I'd like to hope, however, that outside the current commuter-hell driving context, few people would even admit to themselves, let alone broadcast to the world, their considered preference for killing children. That is, when they no longer drive, perhaps people won't be quite so insane about auto travel. The twisted ethos displayed in this thread will be considered an example of Arendt's "banality of evil".

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#405

Post by Vraxx »

TetOn wrote: post #363
toomanythings4 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. >They tried to blame the driver. In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. The driver IS at fault. >They're being sued by the family of the dead driver This is no proof of anything. You can find a lawyer to sue anybody over anything. >and be…

>In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. The driver IS at fault. I disagree on this point. In any system that's supposed to be sophisticated enough to drive the car and but also carries a giant caveat like "except in these common driving situations..." failure is not instantly down to "user error." Such a system should gracefully refuse to take…

It's not lulling anybody into anything! The guy was given multiple warnings by the car that what he was doing was unsafe. The last of which was extremely pertinent to the crash. To quote the article, "As road conditions became increasingly uncertain, the vehicle again alerted the driver to put his hands on the wheel". This is after the initial alerts telling him that he needs to remain vigilant while using this feature. This isn't some burden of knowledge on when to use and when not to use the system, it's plenty capable of knowing when it's not operating at peak performance and lets you know. At that point, I'm willing to shift blame to the driver.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#406

Post by jessaustin »

talmand wrote: post #389
Animats wrote: post #109

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

>> Google admitted fault, took the blame Let's wait until Google's car kills someone and then compare their reaction to that of Tesla's.

Still waiting...

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#407

Post by kamaal »

toomanythings4 wrote: post #355
Animats wrote: post #109

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

>Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. >They tried to blame the driver. In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. The driver IS at fault. >They're being sued by the family of the dead driver This is no proof of anything. You can find a lawyer to sue anybody over anything. >and be…

>>In this incident, the driver was using autopilot in a fashion that it should not be; twisting road at high speed. The driver IS at fault.

It would be disastrous for the car to take control when it shouldn't. That itself is a giant red flag to me.

Its all or nothing when it comes to automation that involves human life.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#408

Post by vacri »

eertami wrote: post #368
vacri wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral choice is the opposite direction: the car should prefer to kill the occupant than a bystander. The occupant is the reason why the car is in use; if it fails, the penalty for that failure should be on the occupant, not bystanders.

But in this case it isn't a bystander, it's out in the middle of the road in front of a moving vehicle. If a child runs in front of my car then it is most definitely at fault and I'd honestly much rather it be dead than me, if those are the options.

Read the last sentence of the parent comment again.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#409

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…

Interesting. I didn't realize humans have already attempted so many different automated systems. In the talk you linked, he points out how, historically, systems are never fully automated because humans are not comfortable with that. He seems to predict that cars will not be the first systems that we allow to become fully autonomous, and admits he could be wrong.

It's surprising to me that he feels texting should be permissible while driving with a driver-assist system [1]. His whole argument here doesn't add up for me. I'll have to check out his book.

It sounds like he supports driver-assist mechanisms, though maybe without Tesla's beta release schedule of OTA updates. He seems unconvinced that full autonomy will ever be achievable.

I think I still believe in Google's plan, despite the shadow he casts on full autonomy. Zero deaths and full disclosure seems better than selective reports and the possibility for more fatal accidents.

Given there are now a decent number of investors on both sides, I imagine the debate will continue as to which is the best path: testing driver-assist in consumer vehicles, or testing full autonomy with company-controlled cars.

I'd like to hear what Mindell thinks would be the best hand-off from computer to driver in a driver-assist vehicle such as Tesla's. He answers a question about that generally here [2], but is mainly talking about airplanes where there is a chance for a smoother transition. How does one slow down time such that a hand off is possible in a vehicle during an adverse event that the car cannot handle itself? I feel that is the most pertinent question to today.

It seems like the car needs to see the adverse event coming, but since it is not ready to handle the event, the car is unlikely able to give the driver much extra time. By definition of adverse event, it would now seem to have been better if the driver had been paying complete attention the whole time.

[1] https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=41m32s

[2] https://youtu.be/4nDdqGUMdAY?t=35m37s

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#410

Post by vacri »

pc86 wrote: post #349
vacri wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral choice is the opposite direction: the car should prefer to kill the occupant than a bystander. The occupant is the reason why the car is in use; if it fails, the penalty for that failure should be on the occupant, not bystanders.

This is a great argument if your goal is no autonomous cars. Nobody buys a car that will choose to kill them.

Why would I want to be in a society where every other driver has a car that would act in the interests of it's occupants and not the general public?
Post reply on HN