301–310 of 348 posts
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.
I'm amazed that the barrier doesn't have yellow reflective striping or any of those sand barrel thingies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> most of the code in critical control systems like ECUs isn't written, it's generated from verifiable models. I'm not sure what "verifiable models" means here. There are a bunch of people using Simulink to "auto-generate" code for some ECUs. I've used it with great results, and I've seen others do that as well. And yet some people still create horrible things with it just like regular code. But not once did I see a…
Isn‘t it possible to formally check Simulink autogenerated code using Polyspace? Or are you thinking of something else?
To me formal verification has always meant proving correctness in a mathematical sense against some sort of formal specification.
None of that really matters though because AFAIK you can't prove a neural net has been trained "correctly" and doesn't contain errors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd definitely blame an airline pilot who crashed because he relied on autopilot in a situation he knew was not handled well by the autopilot. (I would also blame the autopilot.) I don't see why the driver of a car with any kind of semi-automated system should be held to a lesser standard. It sucks that the driver died, and it sucks that the Tesla autopilot system had problems handing that kind of situation, but that…
> I don't see why the driver of a car with any kind of semi-automated system should be held to a lesser standard. Because the driver didn't receive any training from the manufacturer. Airplane pilots, in contrast, receive a ton of training right down to how to fly a specific type of aircraft(single-engine, twin-engine, instrument flying, etc.). Additionally the manufacturer will provide training to pilots on how to o…
Tesla is beyond irresponsible with this and IMO they should be sued out of existence.
It isn't a new feature on a cell phone that you just watch a youtube video on and move on with your day.
"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…
I love Tesla to death and in most cases will defend them beyond the point of reason. But I took a test drive in a model S for the first time earlier this year and almost immediately noticed autopilot’s extremely unreliable behavior— it would swerve out of lanes in ordinary situations that should have been easy to handle. The second I saw that, hat was it: I would never use it again before many years of testing and im…
I have a 2015 Tesla model S and I have never seen the behaviour you describe. I use autostart a lot on the ground that it's good to have two of us paying attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, of course driver inputs will not be ignored. They will override the autopilot. But none were given. From the blog: >In the moments before the collision, which occurred at 9:27 a.m. on Friday, March 23rd, Autopilot was engaged with the adaptive cruise control follow-distance set to minimum. The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not…
> The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider with the crushed crash attenuator So, clearly, the AP is not capable of avoiding such obstacles yet, even when unobstructed. It also seems like a mistake to not slow down to a survivable speed when hands are off...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we integrate, learn, plan, abstract, create, have way more senses, complex memory, societal and cultural embeddings, and a whole host of things that make us human. A text box on hacker news is not the place for such a reply. Go take some cognitive science, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes and you’ll see why. “AI” as we know it is a joke, particularly as media has hyped…
> Because we integrate, learn, plan, abstract, create, have way more senses, complex memory, societal and cultural embeddings, and a whole host of things that make us human. And yet all this complexity and purpose may potentially be simply the product of putting a large collection of matter in a heat bath for a few billion years. Who says that this process can't be repeated via brute force simulation? That the emerge…
It doesn't have to be. There are alternatives to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but most cars in the luxury-sedan segment (and quite a few compact cars) can do that, so this is not autopilot-specific.
Yeah, and automatic emergency braking is a clear-cut enough win for safety that there's been talk of making it mandatory on all new cars in a few years' time. Tesla seem to have adopted a deliberate strategy of conflating the safety benefits of an uncontroversial feature many cars have with the much more questionable safety of their autopilot mode in order to promote the latter. The big example Elon Musk was pushing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the simulation by definition can only simulate things that are accounted for. Any number of completely arbitrary out of the blue things can happen in real life.
Simulations can make use of random number generators and could in theory, following the lead of a project like afl, adaptively find algorithmic weak spots.
Trying to use them to model real world scenarios would be useless in practice, due to the Ludic fallacy [0]. Real life is too complex to be modeled in any simulation.