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

Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 348 posts

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#231

Post by taneq »

greglindahl wrote: post #180
oldgradstudent wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also provide numbers without any context. Is a crash every 85,000 times in that intersection means the Autopilot is safe or is it a death trap? There are over 200,000 cars a day driving at that stretch of highway, if a car crashes there once a week, then the Tesla Autopilot is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a human driver.

How is Tesla supposed to know, yet, if Autopilot actually made the maneuver? They're saying what they know. Edit: in a posting today, Tesla has said more: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident but at the time of the earlier blog posting, Tesla says they did not know yet.

> For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident.

That's very curious wording. The important number would seem to be "millions of miles per fatality while Autopilot is enabled", not "millions of miles per fatality in Autopilot-equipped vehicles". The way it's phrased, I wonder what part of that 3.7x multiplier is unrelated to Autopilot and is just due to the car's high safety rating in a collision, recent release (no long tail of older, less safe models contributing to the statistics), and luxury status (more likely to be driven conservatively by old rich people.)

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#232

Post by aorloff »

baddox wrote: post #143
azinman2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id be willing to take a 1k bet that computers won’t approach sentience in our lifetime. Don’t believe the AI hype train, there hasn’t been a real breakthrough. Just more accurate versions of the same (dumb) classifiers.

Why do you think that humans are not just even more accurate versions of the same types of classifiers?

Because humans have agency, a quality we seriously dislike in things we create (control). If a computer woke one morning and said, I like being plugged in more consistently I'm moving to your neighbor's house we would not like that computer much, even though that might be more "intelligent" behavior from its perspective. So we basically don't allow things we engineer to have "real" intelligence because that would include qualities we don't like in our creations.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#233

Post by Robotbeat »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #195

The path into the barrier looks a lot like a lane. https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x And the old striping is lightly visible as well.

That's crazy bad. This XKCD comes to mind: https://xkcd.com/1958/

It's like they painted traffic lines to guide vehicles into barriers, and then didn't replace the attenuator after a human driver made the same mistake as the Tesla autopilot did a week later.

https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screen-sho...

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#234

Post by ScottBurson »

hagope wrote: post #170
Cshelton wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Texas, I've seen crushed barriers remain collapsed for weeks on end. Either that or they are just hit again right after being replaced. Which tells me, it's a poorly designed road and causes confusion for drivers. Which in fact may be what this Tesla crash turns out to be.

Exactly, I drive past this barrier every day...the problem is the left two lanes on 101 are carpool/EV lane so Tesla drivers just zoom down it...at this particular exit, the left carpool lane leads to an HOV flyover exit which puts you on 85. If you are not paying attention (ie on autopilot flying past traffic), you will end up on a completely different highway! I see people very frequently swerve out of the flyover…

He lived in Foster City and was working at Apple, so it's likely he wanted to take the 85 ramp to Cupertino.

I've seen something that said that the car was warning him to take control, but he hadn't done so. Texting, maybe?

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#236

Post by eanzenberg »

tempestn wrote: post #219
todd8 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but my friends that own Tesla's actually believe that self-driving cars are almost here. When I say that it's at least ten years away and likely much longer because it will take big breakthroughs (strong AI, lot's of knowledge about the world, etc.) they look at me like I'm crazy. I really hope it happens in my lifetime, but I remember talking about Greenblatt's chess program (see [1]) when I was at MIT in the 6…

Tesla's current autopilots are pretty far off, but I think Waymo and possibly others are much closer.

Nah, still 30 years away. My guess is aligned with the OP.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#237

Post by eanzenberg »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #169
anonytrary wrote: post #155

I can't believe this person kept using it. If I had noticed a bug in auto-pilot and complained about it, I would be way too scared to ever use auto-pilot again. Personally, I never use auto-pilot because driving is piss easy, as it's designed to be. Perfect self-driving cars is a nearly impossible feat to accomplish in an unbounded track. I can only imagine automated driving in a system which has no room for error. E…

Your numbers about error percentiles don't make sense. Ideally, you'd want an outcome measure like fatalities per million miles, accidents per 100k miles, not "% error" which is vague. Furthermore, look at the actual data we have right now. SDC makers actually put out data in California about their "disengagement rate" which is how many time the human drivers took over from the software. Waymo have steadily increased…

That's, actually pretty damn terrible. 1 disengage per 5.5k miles is roughly 1 accident per 5.5k miles if the driver is not paying attention. Look at the Uber accident cam video pointed at the driver. This is the attention levels of drivers in so-called "self-driving cars."

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#238

Post by lafar6502 »

antirez wrote: post #61

"Our data shows that Tesla owners have driven this same stretch of highway with Autopilot engaged roughly 85,000 times since Autopilot was first rolled out in 2015. ... There are over 200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road." Who wrote this statement does not understand software. If there is some kind of Heisenbug, those numbers are too small to prove that the software is ok, and actually…

software guys should know better that programs will have bugs...

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#239

Post by eanzenberg »

nemothekid wrote: post #201
anonytrary wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let's add some perspective. You must be referring this[0] paper. If the average person puts on 1,000 miles per month[1], then that means they'd have to deal with disengagement (a mishap) at least twice a year, which is not acceptable for fully autonomous driving. I'm going to define a "fully autonomous vehicle" as "a vehicle which should not ever require me to sit in the front seat and control it under any conce…

> I don't even want the probability of encountering a mishap to be once per lifetime, This doesn't seem reasonable - Waymo's report doesn't dive in depth enough about each disengagement to warrant this sort of extreme reliability. If "2 disengagements" per year, were at most fenderbenders - something I'd wager humans do way more than twice per year - that would be a very different story than if those 2 disengagements…

Are you kidding? A person averages two fender-benders per year?

And no, it's not acceptable by any stretch. A disengage is extremely dangerous to drivers who are lulled into false sense of security through the marketing of.. self-driving cars.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#240

Post by eanzenberg »

gowld wrote: post #5
ucaetano wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but let's not blame the victim.

The operator of a vehicle is responsible for operating it. Somewhere between 7-10 iterations of the same dangerous failure mode, it's time to stop betting your life that the failure won't repeat. > Walter complained "7-10 times the car would swivel toward that same exact barrier during auto-pilot." This still doesn't diminish Tesla's obligation to make their autopilot system behave properly.

This is some intense libertarian leaning. Tesla of course is responsible. Their marketing is full-bore "Welcome to self-driving car country." They're selling the feature, they are responsible.
Post reply on HN