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

George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 498 posts

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#311

Post by makmanalp »

maratd wrote: post #298
Animats wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holtz's Twitter rant is at [1]. Cruise Automation was very lucky to be acquired by GM before they got a similar letter. Similarly, Otto being acquired by Uber. They were both proposing to sell similar add-on systems. Their valuations would have been much lower after receiving such letters. NHTSA has it right. "It is insufficient to assert, as you do, that 'your product does not remove any of the driver responsibiliti…

> Did Tesla got a similar letter? Did Mercedes? Did Volvo? They have the same systems in place in production vehicles. Mercedes even advertised their vehicles as autonomous. http://blog.caranddriver.com/mercedes-benz-pulls-e-class-ad-... > Here are three dashcam videos of Teslas crashing on autopilot. Glad you had the opportunity to bash Tesla.

Yeah, they probably didn't - because large auto companies have time and resources devoted to safety and compliance.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#312

Post by kefka »

smallnamespace wrote: post #297
kefka wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be what he stated. I can say that I plan to launch pigs from a catapult tomorrow. Doesn't make it true. I would understand filing that documentation prior to selling. But I'm also familiar with using "Filing with govt" as a tool of oppression that large companies try to pass as a barrier of market entry. Lawyers are rather expensive, and requiring more volumnous paperwork requires more lawyers. And speaking…

One problem with that model is that if the product ends up being unsafe and someone dies, it becomes the regulator's fault that they failed to prevent an unsafe product from being marketed and sold in the first place. Heads will roll. We as a democratic society decided awhile ago that the benefit of knowing a car product was probably safe outweighs the frictional burden of testing them before they can be sold. There'…

If that was true, then they could have left off the "or else, pay $21k/day for noncompliance". I've seen plenty of big-companies use forced compliance to kill smaller and more agile upstarts.

I remember the tactics used to kill most butcheries and local meat shops. Same games, with onerous and idiotic requirements of "compliance" that the big guys can do. Of course, the big companies got legislation to enforce their standing.

This is not opening a dialogue, this is a shakedown to kill a product.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#313

Post by ceterum_censeo »

patio11 wrote: post #257
ceterum_censeo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The documentation that the NHTSA is requesting are things that would already exist for a properly designed product. They are not asking for it to be generated de novo (and in fact, it cannot be done in that manner if they are operating under a proper design process). This letter is designed to give pause to (e: previously I wrote "kill") a company operating with complete disregard for proper operations in a regulated…

This letter is designed to kill a company operating with complete disregard for proper operations in a regulated industry. We are in entire agreement, but people cannot believe in the superposition of this and "Oh that's just some simple questions from the regulator." Edit to add: Quoted bit appears to have changed after my quote. I think the old version remains accurate.

Sorry, I thought I was in and out before anyone had seen my comment. I added a clear edit mark to fess up.

I originally wrote "kill" to mirror your original comment, but I changed it because it (as I perceive the word) presumes a level of intent that I don't think NHTSA operates with: I don't think that NHTSA has any intent to destroy this company. In fact, if comma.ai reached out to NHTSA, I would expect NHTSA to assist (within reason) in answering the letter.

I do think that these are straightforward questions for a group that has its act together. Part of having one's act together in a regulated environment is maintaining open lines of communication with regulators, so that questions would be asked should come as no surprise. Keeping up to date with the regulatory environment would also be expected, and given the recent autonomous driving publication the content and scope of these questions should come as no surprise.

If these questions kill the company, I don't see that as being the fault of NHTSA, I see that as being the fault of whoever is in charge of regulatory affairs at comma.ai.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#314

Post by a13n »

Analemma_ wrote: post #16

He's currently throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter, and all because the NHTSA wanted to ask him a few questions about the product (you can see it here: https://www.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special... ). Like, how dare the government try to have basic standards for multi-ton hunks of metal hurtling down the highway without human input. I've been trying to convince people lately that Silicon Valley isn…

Wow, thank you for posting the document. That seems like an incredibly reasonable response compared to what I'd expect from a US gov organization. They're basically ensuring he's done due diligence that the product he's selling isn't going to kill/harm people... I found the whole thing extremely polite and reasonable.

Since he hasn't done the due diligence he's throwing a fit. Sigh... Looks like self-driving isn't something that can be accomplished Today without a good amount of resources.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#315

Post by mikeash »

zodPod wrote: post #286
mikeash wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mind is made up only because I'm pretty sure the casualty rate will be sharply lower. Humans are horrible at driving. As for your question, you basically destroyed the conversation when you asked "Is your family an acceptable casualty?" If you just wanted numbers, you shouldn't have made it personal like that. That's all my point is here.

> As for your question, you basically destroyed the conversation when you asked "Is your family an acceptable casualty?" If you just wanted numbers, you shouldn't have made it personal like that. That's all my point is here. This is a really fair point but I also don't think it's a bad thing to say this. I think people distance themselves from possible problems by calling things a numbers game but they don't factor i…

I agree with the effects but I disagree with the desirability! We should be making these choices rationally. Taking an action which causes some people to die but saves a more overall is typically a good thing. Asking, "what if it's your family?" just makes it harder to make the correct choice, and that makes it more likely for your family to be a casualty.

I guess this all boils down to what you think of the Trolley Problem. I'm one of those who say, yes, of course you pull the lever if you have no way to save everybody, it's obviously better.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#316

Post by smallnamespace »

BurningFrog wrote: post #272
taco_emoji wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain? You seem to be implying that you believe that the NHTSA is capriciously making demands of Comma but not to other similar companies in a similar stage of market-readiness.

They certainly could, which is part of my point. Whether they do or not depends on the honesty, bias, and personal ambitions of the people running the agency. The empirical experience is that regulatory agencies over time gravitate towards favoring the big established players in the industry they're regulating. The economist term is "Regulatory Capture".

> honesty, bias, and personal ambitions of the people

As long it's humans that write and execute laws, this is strictly unavoidable. It doesn't depend on the particular details of how we do regulation.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#317

Post by xemdetia »

droopybuns wrote: post #276

The comments in this thread make me realize that there is a large amount of HN readers who have never had to deal with the government. Yes, the penalty is scary looking, but it is par for the course. You don't get exposed to it if you are doing amateur/freelance/e-commerce. As soon as you touch critical national infrastructure (Telcom, NTSB, Healthcare, finance) then you have to deal with the government, which never…

I feel like another part missing in the comments here is that most US regulations allow an individual pretty extensive free reign when it comes to risky ventures (see experimental aircrafts, make your own guns, electronic devices and a couple others). The regulation hammer really kicks in once you start trying to market it to other people, or 'what are you actually selling to people.'

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#320

Post by lutorm »

mikeash wrote: post #159
hartator wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel $21,000 fine per day sounds pretty like "we want to shut you down". He never presented comma.ai as an autopilot but as a very smart line assist and adaptive cruise control.

The fine is only if they fail to provide the requested information by the deadline given. The information requested is not that great and the deadline is entirely reasonable, so the fine is very much not "we want to shut you down," just "we want you to provide this information."

Well, the information requested, if you read the actual definitions, uses a lot of "any" and "all", so if you take that literally it's not exactly an elevator pitch style description they are asking for.

"Describe in detail the features of the comma one"

and

"Provide a detailed description of the conditions under which you believe a vehicle equipped with comma one may operate safely ... [and] a detailed description of the basis for your response to [the previous question] including a description of any testing or analysis..."

and

"Describe in detail any steps you have taken to ensure that the installation of the comma one ... does not have unintended consequences..."

I'm not saying the request is unreasonable, but to say that "the information requested is not that great" isn't really true. To completely answer those questions would take a lot of effort. (Assuming of course that he's done such testing. His canceling the product rather than respond makes you think he realized his answers would not be credible...)

Post reply on HN