Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:55 AM UTC

D-Coder wrote: post #512

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we talking about a plane? And I said I trust a computer more , not that the presence of a computer is automatically enough. I'm not getting in a manually-controlled plane that's flying centimeters from a hard surface. I will get in some computer-controlled planes doing the same. (At the very least I want a real-time OS and dedicated range sensors. And the confidence of a plane owner who would lose millions of…

The plane is zero centimeters from a hard surface at the beginning and end of the flight.

Post by takk309 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

npizzolato wrote: post #208

raverbashing wrote: post #156

"It's a winding road going through a canyon, with no shoulder," Shope told CNNMoney. The driver told Shope the car was in Autopilot mode, traveling between 55 and 60 mph" Wow, really? This is not the Autosteer's fault, it's pure negligence

If the autopilot couldn't safely handle going 55-60mph, it should have slowed down to speeds that it could handle. If it couldn't safely handle those conditions, it should have safely slowed to a stop. Failing ungracefully is completely autopilot's (and Tesla's) fault.

Post by sharmajai » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 12:27 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #458

sharmajai wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pennsylvania turnpike case hasn't been shown to involve autopilot yet. Tesla's logs have evidence to the contrary.

No, Tesla issued a somewhat deceptive press release to make people think that: "Tesla received a message from the car on July 1st indicating a crash event, but logs were never transmitted. We have no data at this point to indicate that Autopilot was engaged or not engaged. This is consistent with the nature of the damage reported in the press, which can cause the antenna to fail." [1] When that gets trimmed down to a…

Post by brokenmachine » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 2:13 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…

Post by brokenmachine » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:53 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #217

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tesla's sensor suite is inadequate." To me this seems to limit what is possible by software updates. Does that mean that existing Tesla owners will never get 'real' autopilot capabilities by software upgrades, although I assume most expect to get them?

I think Tesla should start some upgrade program for self driving features. One thing that holds me back from buying one of the current cars is that they could get obsolete quickly if the next version has better self driving sensors.