Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

np.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 351 posts

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#321

Post by mprev »

m463 wrote: post #272
slg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to dismiss your whole point, because it is certainly valid, but that isn't really the issue here. It is entirely possible for bugs like this to exist in the self driving tech and for Tesla to be correct in their claims that Autopilot is on average safer than a human driver. It is obviously troubling to see self driving cars run into solid and stationary objects, but human drivers do that all the time too…

I think this graph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Causes_o... puts a lot of arguments (and young people) to rest.

Not at all. It says that car accidents are a problem. It does not say that the answer is to pretend your driver assistance tech is actually self-driving tech.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#322

Post by mprev »

goshx wrote: post #287
carlivar wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if your trip on autopilot is 99.9% reliable, how would you feel about that stat? Do you find yourself paying attention to the road context the entire time? I'm curious if your mental acuity has dropped over time as the car has driven you.

You start trusting it more as you use it and learn its flaws, so you can anticipate when it may do something stupid. I pay attention the entire time, but it is a much more relaxed experience. I’d still pay attention the entire time even if it were supposedly 100%. It is very sad that a lot of people in this forum are hoping this never works. It is one of the most exciting advancements in technology that can benefit u…

That is not what is happening here. People are rightly skeptical of the claims. As Theranos showed, you can't "fake it till you make it" when people's lives are involved.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#323

Post by bdcravens »

sabareesh wrote: post #270
bdcravens wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a $700 car I might consider crazy compromises, but $70k+? Absolutely not.

Autopilot is a beta feature that you are choosing to buy. And it costs 3k and no one is close to what Tesla has that you can buy now

Nothing in their marketing suggests that it's a beta feature. (Just look at the Autopilot tab when configuring a new Tesla)

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#324

Post by sangnoir »

Traster wrote: post #307
sschueller wrote: post #4

Eventually we need the NTSB to certify updates before they are pushed out over the air. Similar to what the FAA does. These OTA updates are not ok for large machinery and endagers not only the Tesla driver but all others on the road.

Having the NTSB certify updates isn't going to increase safety. The accepted approach to safety as set in ISO 26262 largely focuses on making sure that the processes in place via which the software and hardware is designed, created and modified. The reason you wouldn't get regression if you were interested in FuSa is because you'd have a process in place to ensure that software can't be distributed without being test…

> Having the NTSB certify updates isn't going to increase safety.

It will if they run it through regression tests that Tesla doesn't seem to have the discipline to.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#325

Post by sangnoir »

mongol wrote: post #69
Tomte wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally have zero interest in cars and don't follow the new models, but my impression from articles I've seen in the last years is that Volvo is actually a top contender for driver assistant systems (when you don't fool yourself into thinking you have an autopilot, but you really want sensible safety augmentation features). Is that impression accurate?

I have no idea. Volvo certainly has the culture to do something good out of it. But do they have the money and resources required? Today they are owned by Chinese Geely. I don't know what partnerships and capital they can work with to compete with the top contenders (who I assume have Silicon Valley capital behind them)

Geely has invested a lot into Volvo[1], and Volvo are innovating in interesting ways[2] . I would choose the electric Polestar 2 over a Tesla in the same price-bracket due to Volvo's culture of safety. Hopefully the cheaper versions will be released soon.

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-24/volvo-is-...

2. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/volvo-spinoff-polestar-...

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#326

Post by salawat »

darkpuma wrote: post #246
dragontamer wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla skirts morality. The feature is called 'Full self driving'. Their sales reps regularly told customers to take their hands off the steering wheel of their "Autopilot". Sure, the fine print says "always pay attention", but there's an entire marketing scheme going on here which is borderline dishonest.

> "Sure, the fine print says "always pay attention"," In fact the not-so-fine print in the user manual says to keep your hands on the wheels, but the promotional material tells a different story, as does Musk when he takes his hands off the wheel on national television.

Honestly, I'm surprised a false advertising case hasn't been pursued if this is the case. Marketing practices this inaccurate are well outside the puffery defense.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#327

Post by lightwin »

mannykannot wrote: post #316
slg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but a lot of people are arguing something along the lines of "there is a bug in the pacemaker, let's take take out everyone's pacemakers". I am not saying we shouldn't be critical of Tesla or hold them accountable for their product. My point is simply that their product doesn't have to be infallible for it to still be an improvement over the current solution.

Another reason pacemakers are not comparable is that pacemakers do not present anything like the potential threat to third parties that self-driving cars do. Two reasons we can say that with confidence is that, with pacemakers, the scenarios are simpler and we have good statistical data.

>> Another reason pacemakers are not comparable is that pacemakers do not present anything like the potential threat to third parties that self-driving cars do.

Unless the person wearing pacemaker is driving a non-self-driving car.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#328

Post by Domenic_S »

lisper wrote: post #128
Karunamon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hands. If you're just resting them on the wheel, that's not enough to prevent the attention monitor from working, it actually has to measure some physical resistance. If you resist the automatic inputs too much, the AP cuts out. You can test this yourself in a tesla by engaging cruise control, then hitting a turn signal. This would normally initiate an automatic lane change - but keep your hands tightly on the w…

> Your hands. Sure, if you react fast enough. Let's not lose the plot here. The original claim was: "The AP can only kill you if you're distracted/asleep at the wheel and not paying attention." (Emphasis added.) And that's not true. It can kill you, quite simply, by producing the wrong control input in a situation where the available recovery time is less than your reaction time. If you doubt this, then I challenge y…

This seems like a meaningless argument - we use fly-by-wire systems all the time and your point is true for most of them. Should we be suspicious of electronic throttle because it could theoretically hit the gas at a crosswalk when you tried to stop?

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#329

Post by jimktrains2 »

kilotaras wrote: post #308
jimktrains2 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker. That assumes the pacemaker works more often than it doesn't. (Which is the case now.) It's an unstated assumption that doesn't always apply when generalizing your example.

No it doesn't assume that. We don't install pacemakers to everyone at birth. Even if pacemaker fails 90% of the time 90% chance of death is better than a 100% without it.

You're assuming "fails" only accounts for false negatives. False positives are a thing. If there was a 90% chance of a pacemaker going off when it wasn't needed, they wouldn't be used as it'd cause nearly as meany deaths as it prevents, assuming no false negatives.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#330

Post by mannykannot »

lightwin wrote: post #327
mannykannot wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another reason pacemakers are not comparable is that pacemakers do not present anything like the potential threat to third parties that self-driving cars do. Two reasons we can say that with confidence is that, with pacemakers, the scenarios are simpler and we have good statistical data.

>> Another reason pacemakers are not comparable is that pacemakers do not present anything like the potential threat to third parties that self-driving cars do. Unless the person wearing pacemaker is driving a non-self-driving car.

As I wrote, specifically because I knew someone would make this reply, in this case we have adequate statistics to make a good estimate of the minuscule risk.
Post reply on HN