Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#391

Post by crocal » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 8:46 AM UTC

maxcan wrote: post #374

crocal wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem at all, I was half expecting such reaction. http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Metro%20automation%2... There has been 1 accident in 30 years attributed to driverless rail mass transit control system, despite millions of kilometers travelled and a constant worldwide growth. Yes, rail has understood what driverless safety means. You may call it a high horse but driverless /is/ a high horse. That's my po…

Fair point, I guess I was referring more to this comment: > I don't think the majority understands what safety means in mass transportation. And inferring that you meant that rail understands safety, generally, better than any other mode of transportation which I took issue with. I believe you 100% when you say that only one accident in 30 years ahas been attributed to driverless trains. What I find horrifying about…

I can really understand your frustration on PTC.

PTC is a problem of ROI for operators. The incentive is apparently not so great, so it will take decades. Also, and this is frequent in rail, any complicated solution that will leverage the existing infrastructure will be explored, further entangling the situation. In more controlled economies, the state has enforced for long the technology to be used. [1] Some may say it is a case where free market cannot be trusted to take the correct decisions. It is a societal debate, no longer an engineering topic. [2]

[1] Not too bad: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Safety_Improvement_Act_...

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#392

Post by crocal » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 9:00 AM UTC

kerbalspacepro wrote: post #373

crocal wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem at all, I was half expecting such reaction. http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Metro%20automation%2... There has been 1 accident in 30 years attributed to driverless rail mass transit control system, despite millions of kilometers travelled and a constant worldwide growth. Yes, rail has understood what driverless safety means. You may call it a high horse but driverless /is/ a high horse. That's my po…

Are we talking about metros or trains? Metros are built out of the way. They shouldn't kill people because there are a few stations of track that they can kill people. The second you put the train in the open air where other people are, where weather is, where nature is, those things kill people on the regular. Get out of your tunnel, and suddenly your "success" has nothing to do with the control system.

Metros are the only driverless systems in mass transit so far. There are some ongoing projects for driverless freight but I consider that it is not relevant to this particular discussion.

I don't want to sound obnoxious but driverless metros routinely operate in the open air :). Tunnels are not a mandatory condition for such systems. They manage strong winds, strong rains with reduced adhesion conditions, etc. They manage the possibility for people or non-protected trains to intrude on the track. A lot of brain was put into automating decisions related to fire scenarios or emergency evacuations. Metro lines like Paris line 1 are extremely busy. There are plenty of ways to kill people, yet they don't. Just the "stuck hand-bag" scenario is a nightmare to manage. Yet.

A driverless system is truly a massive piece of software. You guys should come in the tunnels and have fun with us!

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#393

Post by kuschku » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 12:45 PM UTC

pilif wrote: post #390

kuschku wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Tesla can not reliably detect lanes (for example, due to too dense traffic), it starts to just follow whatever vehicle is in front, and determines the lane from that vehicles movement. This can lead to major issues, as mentioned.

When it cannot reliably detect lanes, it disengages autosteering while making a very obvious warning sound that you cannot possibly miss.

Not always, in highway traffic the lane markings are frequently too obscured to be readable by the camera, but if it believes that the cars in front are driving in the lanes, it just uses them.

Otherwise autopilot wouldn't work at all on highways.

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#394

Post by threadwhisperer » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

kerbalspacepro wrote: post #373

crocal wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem at all, I was half expecting such reaction. http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Metro%20automation%2... There has been 1 accident in 30 years attributed to driverless rail mass transit control system, despite millions of kilometers travelled and a constant worldwide growth. Yes, rail has understood what driverless safety means. You may call it a high horse but driverless /is/ a high horse. That's my po…

Are we talking about metros or trains? Metros are built out of the way. They shouldn't kill people because there are a few stations of track that they can kill people. The second you put the train in the open air where other people are, where weather is, where nature is, those things kill people on the regular. Get out of your tunnel, and suddenly your "success" has nothing to do with the control system.

> Metros are built out of the way. They shouldn't kill people because there are a few stations of track that they can kill people.

This is demonstrably false. There are many metro systems with tracks on viaducts and at-grade (e.g. "open air"), with GoA 4 control systems.

These systems can and do detect objects on the track. They also deal with severe weather (heavy thunderstorms, snow, etc).

I think you're discounting the experience of delivering railway systems without considering lessons that could be learned in deploying them, and applying that to self-driving cars.

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#395

Post by unityByFreedom » Sat, Aug 26, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #123

dkonofalski wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the third or 4th time I've heard that story repeated and the details change each time Meadows tells it, in my opinion. The date and viability of the system changes when I've read it and that leads me to believe that his motivation may not be altruistic but vengeful instead. He probably did get fired from Tesla for performance issues and so he feels the need to fire back at them by noting an incident that happ…

> We treated test pilots with the highest regard because they were separated from the technology/machinery itself. There was no personal stake in it for them other than making it out alive and exposing issues with the systems being tested. I think this is an extremely salient and important point, and I've never thought of it before! Test pilots only care about a good product, not success or failure of the product. Th…

> Maybe this would be a good time to propose a new "test pilot core" for cars, made up of perhaps some elite drivers who don't work for any car company.

Yes, having more neutral testing programs like CA's standardized testing would be nice, particularly if the tests were mandatory for all manufacturers.

I'm surprised there isn't a national testing system in place for that, but I guess it is our system to leave most control to the states.

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#396

Post by kevmo314 » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #365

kevmo314 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so why does the negative opinion towards self-driving cars seem to be that a computer isn't allowed to slow down to give it more time to react, which it would just treat as business as usual?

Well, for one you're passing your incompetence off to other drivers to deal with, something that will inevitably lead to accidents behind the car that slows down without any actual reason, for another because driving is a lot more complex than flying when it comes to automation. You might expect the opposite but pilots routinely describe their careers as 30 years of boredom punctuated by 30 seconds of sheer panic.

And why is that any worse than the current situation with humans?

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#397

Post by throwaway1893 » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 8:54 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #124

nostrademons wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that in L2, the bar for the system as a whole is set by the low bar for humans, specifically their reactions in an emergency. If the computer safely drives itself 99% of the time but in that 1% when the human needs to take control, the human fucks up, the occupants of the vehicle are still dead. And what people are saying here is that L2 automation increases the risk that the human will fuck up in that…

> If the computer safely drives itself 99% of the time but in that 1% when the human needs to take control, the human fucks up, the occupants of the vehicle are still dead. And what people are saying here is that L2 automation increases the risk that the human will fuck up in that 1%, by decreasing their situational awareness in the remainder of time. Humans regularly mess up in supposedly-safe scenarios. Consider a…

That solution does not work it will just increase the number of people driving without a license. For example, in France, the driving license is quite hard to obtain, you need around 20-30h hours of tutoring before you can attempt the test and it's not a sure thing to get it. So the consequence is that there is a lot of drivers without license, who are implicated in a high number of accidents.

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#398

Post by unityByFreedom » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 5:17 AM UTC

dkonofalski wrote: post #146

jedberg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We treated test pilots with the highest regard because they were separated from the technology/machinery itself. There was no personal stake in it for them other than making it out alive and exposing issues with the systems being tested. I think this is an extremely salient and important point, and I've never thought of it before! Test pilots only care about a good product, not success or failure of the product. Th…

Exactly. I would love to see a "test pilot core" but that's never going to happen as long as the major players involved in these technologies are companies that are looking to make the most profit possible. A "test pilot" that has access to all the different self-driving programs is a prime point of weakness for any kind of confidentiality or security that might be in place for these programs.

> I would love to see a "test pilot core" but that's never going to happen as long as the major players involved in these technologies are companies that are looking to make the most profit possible

Wouldn't top companies lobby for a standard when they can meet it and other companies can't? Doesn't this happen in every industry, e.g. food and drug, aerospace, manufacturing, all the time?

> A "test pilot" that has access to all the different self-driving programs is a prime point of weakness for any kind of confidentiality or security that might be in place for these programs.

How do you propose evaluating them, then? Just use people as guinea pigs and see which system causes the fewest accidents? Do you think people will elect politicians who completely ignore public safety to satisfy the whims of corporations?

Re: Tesla’s Push to Build a Self-Driving Car Sparks Dissent Among Its Engineers

#399

Post by toss1 » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 10:56 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #225

toss1 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just take any job that requires a significant highway commute, you'll see more than that. Whenever you get full speed traffic occasionally interrupted by traffic jams (from whatever cause, other accident, tolls, weather, low angle sunlight, construction, etc.), you'll get a higher incidence of rear-enders. Especially when the tail of the slow/stopped traffic is at a point just past a hill or curve. I got rear-ended m…

"I got rear-ended once in fine conditions" != "I pass 2-3 rear-ends on my commute every day "

I didn't say it was -- I opened by agreeing, then also provide my example, as a lead-in to the car-to-car communication point.

And yes, when you have an urban highway commute of any distance, it is not unusual to see that many crashes. maybe not every day, but not far off, and enough that you cannot rely upon commute times, precisely because the crashes are so unpredictable.

You might try actually reading other posts before replying with trivial inaccurate potshots. sheesh