Was this just a face-saving way to end the project, or did he really shut down a viable project that he wanted to continue over a simple request for information by a regulator?
George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
471–480 of 498 posts
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's an obvious part of a government's duty to keep it's citizens safe. Which article of the Constitution is that? I don't seem to recall it.
I am not from the US, but they surely have some legislation that makes building and selling killing machines, without at least some government controlled safety checks, illegal.
>killing machines
You mean like guns?
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
He chose the launch date without making sure he was legal first.
Do I have to check with every relevant government agency for permission every time I do something? If an endeavor not specifically outlawed, it should be presumed legal.
Wat. If you intend to sell it as a product. Yes. Yes you do.
Double so if it's a product that is very likely to kill its owner.
And square all that, if your products is either used every day or can cause large amount of death, accidentally.
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you expand on how they are an inherent danger, rather than a possible danger? I do not believe those words ( inherent & possible ) are in any way mutually exclusive. They might even mean the same thing when describing a latent danger. So I do not quite understand the basis of your challenge. Also, I'm not parent poster.
My understanding of inherent might not be right, then. I think of it as "it is definitely a danger, and thus can only be described as dangerous," which I would argue is not mutually exclusive with possible but is mutually exclusive with "not always dangerous and maybe even anti-dangerous." So what I mean is, the autopilot could turn out to be safer than manual, in my mind, so how is it "inherently" dangerous.
It's inherently dangerous because it's a bunch of hardware and software that take over a 2 ton vehicle to turn it into a software guided missile. That's an inherently dangerous set-up that will need a lot of thinking to keep it safe for general use.
Just like a piano suspended from a rope is inherently dangerous. The danger may not manifest at all for that to be the case.
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. Lots of accidents happen in "good" conditions because humans suck at driving. The way you compare, is you give a self driving car to a person, and compare actually usage for that person, and see if owning a self driving car increases or reduces accidents for that person. Being perfect only half the time is still revolutionary.
>>humans suck at driving Proof?
Well, roughly every driving week or so...
Just two days ago, driving on a roundabout some lady enters the roundabout right in front of my car. Fortunately it was a two lane roundabout and the left lane was empty so I could swerve to avoid crashing into her left hand side door (I was coming straight at her).
At the traffic light I asked her if she had not seen me and she went 'Seen what? Where?', so apparently she had not seen me at all, which is pretty impressive given that I was less than 5 meters away from her when it happened.
This sort of thing happens with some regularity. All it takes for a situation like that to turn into an accident with possibly a fatality is for me also not to pay attention.
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you expand on how they are an inherent danger, rather than a possible danger? I do not believe those words ( inherent & possible ) are in any way mutually exclusive. They might even mean the same thing when describing a latent danger. So I do not quite understand the basis of your challenge. Also, I'm not parent poster.
My understanding of inherent might not be right, then. I think of it as "it is definitely a danger, and thus can only be described as dangerous," which I would argue is not mutually exclusive with possible but is mutually exclusive with "not always dangerous and maybe even anti-dangerous." So what I mean is, the autopilot could turn out to be safer than manual, in my mind, so how is it "inherently" dangerous.
"So what I mean is, the autopilot could turn out to be safer than manual, in my mind, so how is it "inherently" dangerous."
In the same way that the ocean is still inherently dangerous even if you're wearing a life jacket, or how airplanes are still inherently dangerous even though aircraft autopilot systems are effectively mainstream at this point.
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#477Why does the document from the NHTSA look like a court order..formatted like something you would receive when getting sued, etc? Is this standard format to request that questions be answered? It looks more intimidating and scary than a friendly "hey, we want info about your product".
That's to make sure you understand that if you ignore the document there will be consequences.
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not "similar tech" at all. Yes, both approaches involve some machine learning (which is a huge field). But Cruise's approach is similar to Google/Uber's approach in that it relies on LIDAR. I'd assume (but might be wrong) in that it also relies heavily on premapping, as does the Google/Uber approach. Comma's approach was complete end-to-end learning with just a single camera (to give you some context, research…
There are more details in this lecture Hotz gave at Berkeley this September: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxoke1lDJ9w One of the things that seemed missing from the lecture when I watched it is how data was going to be collected for handling exceptional situations/collision avoidance. Hotz also glossed over the question in this interview from July: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zy_07g2IrM#t=35m I suspect they r…
> Looking for someone to build > a SLAM algorithm capable of > scaling to the world.
This has got to be a joke. Text like this proves he was out of his depth
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As you are undoubtedly aware, there is a high likelihood that some drivers will use your product in a manner that exceeds its intended purpose." The government appears well aware of this hand waving garbage that companies are trying with "it isn't really autopilot, keep your hands on the wheel wink ." This is exactly government's job and is a fabulous example of a government reacting to ongoing events that have prov…
>inherently a danger Can you expand on how they are an inherent danger, rather than a possible danger? I only challenge you because Tesla has published several occasions where Autopilot has possibly saved lives by auto-braking.
The NHTSA are fine with auto-braking - indeed, they want it to be standard on all cars in the future[1]. What they're not OK with is companies marketing glorified cruise control as a self-driving feature. Elon Musk likes to lump his implementation of both under the same "Autopilot" umbrella for PR reasons, but you can have the former without the latter - indeed, I'm pretty sure the most prominent example he gave of the former saving a life was wityh the latter switched off.
[1] http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/17/nhtsa-iihs-20-automakers-...
Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't really surprise me. I mean, where else do we expect NHTSA to get people qualified to regulate self-driving cars from? I'd rather they came from industry than just not have any background at all.
Academia? where they have for many years gotten a lot of the expertise to write regulations (in all parts of government). There are tons of industry experts invovlved in these processes...but don't assume that NHTSA has no experts in this, Tesla didn't invent the self driving car, they just sold it. Research on it has been going on since the 80s and much of the delay came down to legal rather than technical issue in…
[deleted]