61–70 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Seems like something that will be most enjoyed post-retirement, a godsend for American seniors who don't live in cities with good mass-transit.
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…
It should be noted that no AI system has anything like that. A model of the entire world is beyond current technological capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be even worse than that. They likely think that they are on the path, because they are running a massive data-collection campaign on the sensor suite installed on the fleet. But the reality might be different. Running a data collection campaign is easy. Engineering products with machine learning is hard. Most of the teams don't even know what they need to know, to do it right. And so they engage into classic…
I mean, I'm also pessimistic about self driving cars, but I think it's reasonable to assume that Tesla engineers are aware that machine learning is hard.
BTW, a bit of a plug. I'm running a nonprofit/public dataset project aimed at increasing safety of autonomous vehicles. If anyone here wants to contribute (with suggestions / pull requests / following it on twitter / etc) - you'd be most welcome. Its: https://www.safe-av.org/ . I'm just starting it/trying it out - simple feedback or following the twitter handle would already be helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like something that will be most enjoyed post-retirement, a godsend for American seniors who don't live in cities with good mass-transit.
I'm sure all the seniors love riding public transit.
This 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…
But, hey. I'm not in the guy's head :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of guesswork. It is very difficult to believe that an automated system with such a limited concept of its surroundings is equal/superior to a human driver. Therefore, we need better evidence, and this means no pulling of numbers from thin air.
Insurance companies which have hard data will lower your rates if your car has autopilot. I am sure they base that on hard data I don't have. If you have better data than I would love to see it. But, IMO using ballpark numbers is much better than simply having a bad feeling about something. These cars are not going to fail the same way people do. Computers really fuck up in broad daylight, people get drunk and drive…
That's probably because Tesla is liable. And it could be that at this point they don't mind operating at a loss in this area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others. I think…
Knowing the difference is important because in one case, you need to fix a bug, and in the other case, you need to design a new system (or decide that the problem is unfixable and give up).
A person is dead mainly due to the presence of a driver-assist system, this is unquestionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think these are already fairly close to human fatality rates. Tessa is well over 300,000 cars sold, if the average car has 10k miles that's 3 billion. Edit: actual number well over that https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles... Using US fatality rates you would expect ~34 deaths from that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the... Edit, my numbers where low. So, as far as…
- Tesla’s cars are newer and more expensive than the average car on US roads (making them safer)
- Tesla’s Autopilot mostly, if not only, gets used on roads that are safer than average.
- Tesla drivers may have had to intervene a lot to prevent more deaths.
- not all those Tesla’s ended up on US roads (probably not something with large impact)
This is a pretty good explanation of the shortcomings of today's assisted driving capabilities. The marketing towards 'self driving' or 'auto pilot' should really emphasize on these. My guess here is that the lane assist and adaptive cruise systems somehow thought the car it was following switched one lane to the right, and so the Tesla assumed it was on the most left lane, without any moving car in front (hence acce…
The key thing seems to be that the automatic breaking system has a group of systems each designed to satisfy multiple constraints and these systems aren't particularly well integrated. This seems like how I would imagine a "dumb" system would be designed. One would imagine a "artificial intelligence" (of any sort at all) would find a way to smoothly integrate all these system. The problem is end-to-end neural nets or…