What this shows is that Tesla isn’t even on the path to self-driving technology. It sounds like “Autopilot” has no world model (or an extremely basic one)—it ignores stationary objects because it can’t tell whether it’s approaching something on the side of a road that curves away versus an obstacle in the lane. It can’t tell because it doesn’t know what the car is going to do and what the lane is going to do. That’s not the first step to self driving technology. It’s a fundamentally different and simpler technology that isn’t going to evolve into real autonomous driving.
Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
31–40 of 244 posts
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#32What this shows is that Tesla isn’t even on the path to self-driving technology. It sounds like “Autopilot” has no world model (or an extremely basic one)—it ignores stationary objects because it can’t tell whether it’s approaching something on the side of a road that curves away versus an obstacle in the lane. It can’t tell because it doesn’t know what the car is going to do and what the lane is going to do. That’s…
Let's be honest, actual mass deployed self driving tech is probably 20 years away at minimum. I personally might be able to enjoy it just before I retire.
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#33This article and many others like it are written as if one ought to be ashamed for thinking self driving cars should not routinely smash into stationary objects on their paths or kill people: This isn't the only recent case where Autopilot steered a Tesla vehicle directly into a stationary object—though thankfully the others didn't get anyone killed. Back in January, firefighters in Culver City, California, said that…
I see this as far more a caution to the public for presuming that automated systems have a singular worldview as humans ... think ... we ourselves do[1], rather than being comprised of multiple and independent systems. And a caution to both the technologists who fail to consider this and real-world use consequences, as well as those who fail to see divorced systems as problematic.
The real world is where all your independent worldviews are tested, simultaneously and integrated. And where metaphor shear may well prove fatal.
________________________________
Notes:
1. A not-necessarily accurate worldview itself, though I'll leave that to the cog-psych types to explore in depth.
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on. Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?
My parents bought a new 2018 Camry a few weeks ago that came with a manual roughly an inch thick. Expecting anyone to read it is bordering on delusional. I say this as someone who often does read manuals (because I’m a nerd).
Not even bothering to flip through a meager 1" thick manual for a newly acquired automobile strikes me as negligent. At least review the sections covering features you've never had in a vehicle before, geez.
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#35What this shows is that Tesla isn’t even on the path to self-driving technology. It sounds like “Autopilot” has no world model (or an extremely basic one)—it ignores stationary objects because it can’t tell whether it’s approaching something on the side of a road that curves away versus an obstacle in the lane. It can’t tell because it doesn’t know what the car is going to do and what the lane is going to do. That’s…
Let's be honest, actual mass deployed self driving tech is probably 20 years away at minimum. I personally might be able to enjoy it just before I retire.
Sources?
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#36Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#37Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
My parents bought a new 2018 Camry a few weeks ago that came with a manual roughly an inch thick. Expecting anyone to read it is bordering on delusional. I say this as someone who often does read manuals (because I’m a nerd).
Not even bothering to flip through a meager 1" thick manual for a newly acquired automobile strikes me as negligent. At least review the sections covering features you've never had in a vehicle before, geez.
And when people rent a vehicle? Or borrow a friend's vehicle? Etc Ad infinitum.
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#39Self-driving cars turned out to be chatbots this whole time?! Color me surprised
Re: Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars and lane dividers
#40This article and many others like it are written as if one ought to be ashamed for thinking self driving cars should not routinely smash into stationary objects on their paths or kill people: This isn't the only recent case where Autopilot steered a Tesla vehicle directly into a stationary object—though thankfully the others didn't get anyone killed. Back in January, firefighters in Culver City, California, said that…
Didn't hit me that way. Sounds more like we as consumers misinterpret what the technology is and trust it too much... of course, there's a feedback loop where companies like Tesla call everything autonomous and hype the marketing to mislead consumers.
Isn't it designed and marketed to be trusted?