Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Move fast and break things" was Facebook's idea, not Tesla's.
It's Facebook's motto, but the mindset is far more widespread.
I've only seen others apply that to Tesla, I've never seen them apply it to themselves.
Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
481–488 of 488 posts
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that delaying self-driving cars for any appreciable amount of time will lead to more deaths/injuries, not fewer.
You're assuming that the quickest route to safest auto-driving lies via incremental improvements to existing systems and that's not necessarily true; see: AlphaGoZero
Fair point. I think a game with specific rules is probably better suited to the self-learning process that AlphaGo uses, whereas real-world driving rules are much more complex and nuanced. But I think it's still something worth considering.
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photo looks like it was parked in a marked parking spot (those white crossed lines indicating each slot along the curb).
Half on the sidewalk, half on the road.
After being crashed into. Why would they have driven up onto the curb when there's so much empty space and all the other cars in the photo are parked fully in the street? Not to mention, being further in should make it easier to avoid, not harder.
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. I didn't take any offense to Humpty Dumpty, I understand his point. I'm more surprised that somebody calling me a "smug pedant" led to me being banned for what seems a simple point, Tesla never said their car was fully self driving, and went to fairly great lengths to explain and notify that it isn't. (sans the video which I agree implies a lot too much).
You weren't banned! We'd have said so if we did that. Being called a rude name is bad (though I think the commenter edited it out?), but like every user here, you still need to follow the rules regardless of what someone else does. The core issue is the flamewar thing—by which I mean high-quantity, low-quality controversies—which is the essence of what we're asking people to avoid in comment threads.
Fair enough, I do see this as high quantity, low quality - although I do wish people would understand the point. I didn't realise that equalled a flame war. I just wanted to stand up for myself and an obvious truth. I didn't really think it was a flamewar until there was name slinging and the arguments deviated away from a reasoned rebuttal. The snark level was definitely escalating, so apologies if I contributed to that - my karma was duly punished :)
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#485I keep wondering what the customer benefit of Level 2 autopilot is if not to lower your attention and relax your mind. Tesla's "out" is that drivers are supposed to retain full attention and oversight of the autopilot system -- but then if you strictly follow this rule, what is the benefit of autopilot? I can see the benefit to Tesla and future Tesla customers of essentially crowdsourced fleet learning. But what is t…
Well if AutoPilot is statistically saver then a human pilot (I don't know if it is). Then that's a reason to use it.
Why does this get downvoted?
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its capabilities are about on par with an airplane autopilot. I have a lot of problems with Tesla, including the way they market this, but the name is accurate.
Well, then they should also provide the same regorous training that the pilots recieve, or make Tesla available to those who are equally trained.
That, I can agree with. One might also argue that a mere autopilot does not imply good enough capabilities to work in a cluttered, dense environment such as roads.
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't cars doing that today with their physical saftey systems? How else would they do it than incremental?
> How else would they do it than incremental? How about... not? I'm not being disingenious here. If there's autonomus tech, then I find it scary that it might change its behaviour. You see, I've learned how (say) Autopilot responds in certain situations. I know when to trust it, and when not to. If this behaviour changes (perhaps even if it changes for the better!), that's a very dangerous thing. Some of my experienc…
I dont understand how you would expect not to do incremental improvement. Build it perfectly the first time? That's not realistic.
Pretty much everything humans do is incremental improvement. I understand your point that we dont want to introduce weaknesses in 'upgrades' but this should be a discussion about how to create robust QA rather that stopping incremental improvement.
Re: Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked Laguna Beach police cruiser
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How else would they do it than incremental? How about... not? I'm not being disingenious here. If there's autonomus tech, then I find it scary that it might change its behaviour. You see, I've learned how (say) Autopilot responds in certain situations. I know when to trust it, and when not to. If this behaviour changes (perhaps even if it changes for the better!), that's a very dangerous thing. Some of my experienc…
I dont understand how you would expect not to do incremental improvement. Build it perfectly the first time? That's not realistic. Pretty much everything humans do is incremental improvement. I understand your point that we dont want to introduce weaknesses in 'upgrades' but this should be a discussion about how to create robust QA rather that stopping incremental improvement.
> I dont understand how you would expect not to do incremental improvement
I wonder if we're talking past each other? Sure, incrementally improve during engineering. But don't incrementally change the safety-critical behaviour of a car once it's in the customer's hands.
> Build it perfectly the first time? That's not realistic.
Absolutely agreed.
But for subjects such as autopilots, predictability may very well trump improvement.
I'm assuming that the initial iteration is already reasonably safe and useful (if it isn't it shouldn't have been shipped, right?).
If the behaviour changes unpredictably (how will you predict autopilot changes caused by an update?), this may well be less safe than keeping the existing system, whoose quirks the dirver has noww learned.
> Pretty much everything humans do is incremental improvement. > I understand your point that we dont want to introduce weaknesses in 'upgrades'
The nasty thing is that even a change to objectively superior behaviour may be problematic, because the driver will expect the car to behave one way, when it now behaves a different way (regardless of merit).
Not even a changelog would help in such cases. I feel like the autopilot ought to inform the driver in each situation where it used to decide one way, and now decides another way. That might be a reasonably safe way of allowing incremental change, but is likely too annoying for most people.
> but this should be a discussion about how to create robust QA rather that stopping incremental improvement.
Robust QA is certainly a must.
(side note: I used to work in safety-critical automotive projects. I may have a more intimate understanding of the issues)