Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier • Hacker News Board

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#231

Post by wcunning » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #97

paulie_a wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I hate cruise control. I prefer to be actively engaged when driving. Either I am driving 100% or I am not at all, there is absolutely no middle ground in my opinion

I can understand that. I like cruise control because it lets me focus 100% on steering and watching the road around me. Trying to maintain a steady speed and conserve gas is a fun challenge, but a bit pointless, because a) it's a distraction from more important tasks, and b) the computer can usually do it better than I can.

Cruise control on my car actually gains me about 1 mpg. This is specifically because the car "knows" that the speed won't be changing much so it locks the torque converter completely and drops the engine RPM by 100~200. Many of those things are direct results of the mediocre Ford implementation of the 2005 Five Hundred CVT and the fact that it predates Adaptive Cruise Control, but it has a physical reason and follows directly from new assumptions in the code only viable from the state I put it in.

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#232

Post by lisper » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #222

lisper wrote: post #122

Here is my armchair diagnosis: right before the car veers towards the barrier it drives through a stretch of road where the only visible lane marker is on the left. Then the right lane marker comes into view at about the point where the lane starts to widen out for the lane split. The lines that will become the right and left lane markers of the split left and right lanes respectively are right next to the van in fro…

> It's not possible to engineer an autonomous system that never fails, but it is possible to engineer one in such a way that it never fails to detect that it has failed This seems to me to be a clearly incorrect (and self-contradictory) claim. It entirely depends on your definition of failure. Your analysis seems fine. The big problem is that the "autonomous" driver is using one signal (where are the lines on the edg…

> This seems to me to be a clearly incorrect (and self-contradictory) claim.

I guess that means I was able to pull the wool over the eyes of all five members of my thesis committee because none of them thought so.

> It entirely depends on your definition of failure.

Well, yeah, of course. So? There is some subset of states of the world that you label "failure". The guarantee is not that the system never enters one of those states, the guarantee is that if the system enters one of those states it never (well, so extremely rarely that it's "never" for all practical purposes) fails to recognize that it has done so. Why do you find that so implausible?

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#233

Post by DisruptiveDave » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #219

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that. Let's talk unemotionally about it. People die. Not all of them live until natural death. That's ok. That's how life works. There is plenty of good that comes from this. Is a goal of keeping every person alive until X# (90? 100?) a good one? I'm not sure it is. Simply saying "people dying is bad" isn't a very reasoned thought if you take away the assumption that everyone agrees with this.

Sure, fewer people dying is a bit undifferentiated if you want to go for ethical discourse. I would probably be okay with a few extra dead people if that increased the overall happiness of the remaining people. I'm not sure that having people die in traffic is a good way to achieve that.

I get that, but this product development aimed at prolonging life, comfort, and safety through technology should not be taken lightly without this discussion right here (ethical discourse, as you call it). I can't divorce the two in my mind.

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#234

Post by astura » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

paulie_a wrote: post #145

IAmEveryone wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've actually moved quite a bit away from "100%" direct control. Anti-lock brakes were the first such system. Before, you had to pump the brakes in an emergency, a practice that was difficult to execute even without the shock of an impeding accident. That system alone certainly saves thousands of lives every year.

The average driver will probably never actually experience abs. It's a good failsafe that is rarely employed...if it is, you definitely realize it

I have ABS kick on around once-twice a season. I mean, sure, if you live somewhere it doesn't snow you won't even experience ABS, but if you live in a climate where it snows you definitely will.

That being said, it's always been while stopping for a light, not in a case when I had to swerve, so its never prevented a crash for me, but it really is comforting to have it.

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#235

Post by freerobby » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #188

freerobby wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Autopilot every day. I think it's amazing and borderline life-changing if you are like me and dread the monotony of a daily commute. I don't think most people realize just how mentally fatiguing the act of driving (constantly making all sorts of micro adjustments) is until they use Autopilot for a while and see the difference for themselves. I certainly didn't. I can now drive for many hours and feel just as al…

> I think it's amazing and borderline life-changing That's a very unfortunate choice of words. > I have taken over on demand hundreds if not thousands of times, and I've never had a close call that was Autopilot's fault. Maybe you are an exceptional driver, to be able to be vigilant at all times even when AP is active. Even so, it would probably only take one instance where you weren't in time to change your mind on…

> That's a very unfortunate choice of words.

Solid lol, but I stand by it!

> Maybe you are an exceptional driver, to be able to be vigilant at all times even when AP is active.

I've had driving moments I'm not proud of. But it's because I was being dumb, not because Autopilot made me do it.

I think the relevant question is: does Autopilot make people less attentive? I have no data on this. My personal experience is that most drivers are already inattentive, and Autopilot (1) makes it easier to be attentive (for a driver who chooses to be); and (2) is better than the alternative in cases where a driver is already inattentive.

> Even so, it would probably only take one instance where you weren't in time to change your mind on all this (assuming you'd survive) so until then it is a very literal case of survivors bias.

I hope I'd be more thoughtful and independent than that, but maybe you're right. But I don't think my view in the face of a terrible accident should be what drives policy, either.[1]

On the issue of survivorship bias, I would add that "Man Doesn't Text While Driving, Resulting in No Accident" isn't a headline that you're likely to read. I see a much greater quantity of bias in the failure cases that are reported and discussed than in the survivorship stories told (as evidenced by the proportions of comments and opinions here, vs in a user community like TMC or /r/teslamotors). I posted my experience because I think it brings more to this comment thread in particular than my survivorship bias detracts from it.

> Which makes me wonder how that person that died the other week felt about their autopilot right up to the fatal crash.

See: [1]

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#236

Post by wcunning » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #159

IAmEveryone wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've actually moved quite a bit away from "100%" direct control. Anti-lock brakes were the first such system. Before, you had to pump the brakes in an emergency, a practice that was difficult to execute even without the shock of an impeding accident. That system alone certainly saves thousands of lives every year.

Ahem. That is purely semantics -- ABS makes the car perform more like what you are conditioned to expect (under normal driving conditions). That's the whole success of ABS; it saves lives precisely because it conveys the illusion of you still being 100% under direct control when in fact you would be careening out of control otherwise.

One of the things I've heard mentioned by professional driving instructors, without a good citation, is that many more accidents could be avoided if people trusted ABS more. Specifically, when you're braking hard/panic braking and the ABS kicks it, the shock of the rapid firing against your foot causes you to back off pressure on the brake pedal. I was specifically instructed to stand on it anyway to see what the car behaved like when truly panic stopping and maintaining pressure, but I definitely had an instinctive reaction to let off of the brake when the ABS kicked in. If you're ever in that situation, press harder, don't let up!

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#237

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

freerobby wrote: post #235

jacquesm wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's amazing and borderline life-changing That's a very unfortunate choice of words. > I have taken over on demand hundreds if not thousands of times, and I've never had a close call that was Autopilot's fault. Maybe you are an exceptional driver, to be able to be vigilant at all times even when AP is active. Even so, it would probably only take one instance where you weren't in time to change your mind on…

> That's a very unfortunate choice of words. Solid lol, but I stand by it! > Maybe you are an exceptional driver, to be able to be vigilant at all times even when AP is active. I've had driving moments I'm not proud of. But it's because I was being dumb, not because Autopilot made me do it. I think the relevant question is: does Autopilot make people less attentive? I have no data on this. My personal experience is t…

> I think the relevant question is: does Autopilot make people less attentive?

There are large bodies of knowledge about this gained from studies regarding trains and airline pilots and the conclusion seems to be uniformly that it is much harder to suddenly jump into an already problematic situation than it is to deal with that situation when you were engaged all along.

> On the issue of survivorship bias, I would add that "Man Doesn't Text While Driving, Resulting in No Accident" isn't a headline that you're likely to read.

It's one of the reasons I don't have a smartphone, I consider them distraction machines.

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#238

Post by ac29 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #149

jacquesm wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with your analysis. What is more worrying is that even following the rest of the traffic would have solved the problem. If you are the only car doing something then there is a good chance you are doing something wrong. Also: the lane markings are confusing but GPS and inertial readings should have clearly indicated that that is not a lane. If two systems give conflicting data some kind of alarm should…

> lane markings are confusing but GPS and inertial readings should have clearly indicated that that is not a lane GPS is not accurate enough to reliably pinpoint your location to a particular lane. Even WAAS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System ) can have up to 25 feet of error. Basic GPS is less accurate than that. In fact, it's possible that GPS error was a contributing factor here but ther…

RTK [0] systems definitely can have centimetre-level accuracy, though they require a fixed base station within 10-15 miles or so to broadcast corrections. It would also require roads to be mapped to a high level of accuracy.

I have seen self-driving test cars in Silicon Valley (frequently, especially in the last year or so) using these types of systems, so they are at least being tested. I've also heard discussion of putting RTK base stations on cell-phone towers to provide wide area coverage, but I'm not sure if much effort has been put into that. I do know vast areas of the agricultural midwest are covered in RTK networks -- its used heavily for auto-steering control in agriculture.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Kinematic

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#239

Post by patcheudor » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

overcast wrote: post #133

alex_duf wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also more comfortable for your passengers. I did a 6 hours trip with a friend continuously putting his foot up and down on the throttle, and it was the most gruelling car trip I've had I think. When I asked he said it was "to keep control on the car". I'm a patient friend.

You're a better friend than I am. That truly is torture, and is the reason I volunteer to drive on ALL trips. I don't care how long. People who can't maintain proper speed without either flooring it, or taking their foot off the pedal, shouldn't be driving.

>People who can't maintain proper speed without either flooring it, or taking their foot off the pedal, shouldn't be driving.

Not entirely true. I've been to German driving school and my father really pushed the concept of smooth throttle control on me as a beginning driver. Be smooth always. However, as I was able to afford higher and higher performance vehicles my take on the smooth maintaining of speed without noticeable accelerator input has changed. While I'll drive my SUV very smoothly, when I drive my manual six speed German roadster, my style is entirely different. Because of the weight, size, and HP, it's really not possible to drive it smoothly outside of tossing it into 6th which isn't terribly "fun". In the gears where it's "fun", it's a very much "on" or "off" throttle experience simply because of the HP produced by the engine.

Re: Another Tesla on autopilot steers towards a barrier

#240

Post by Someone1234 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #201

dancek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not possible to engineer an autonomous system that never fails, but it is possible to engineer one in such a way that it never fails to detect that it has failed. This is a very good point: just like a human driver should slow down if they can't observe the road ahead well enough, an AI should slow down when it's not confident enough of its surroundings. This is probably very difficult to do, and I'm skeptical…

> if a simple explanation exists, I'd love to hear it Basically it's a matter of having multiple redundant sensors and sounding the alarm if they don't all agree on what is going on, and also checking if what they think is going on is in the realm of reasonable possibility based on some a priori model (e.g. if suddenly all of your sensors tell you that you are 100 miles from where you were one second ago, that's prob…

That's exactly how a lot of commercial aircraft systems work, they have three, if two agree and one disagree then that one is ignored.

But it is more complicated than that when you're talking about algorithms and complex systems. If you had three of the same exact system, they'd likely all make the same mistake and thus you'd gain no safety improvement (except actual malfunctions, not logical limitations).

I would like to see auto-braking taken out of autopilot completely, so if autopilot drives you into a wall at least the brakes slow you.