Live data from Hacker News

Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

techcrunch.com

431–440 of 495 posts

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#431
post #87

I hear people say “self driving cars don’t have to be perfect, they just need to be safer than humans.” Here is a good example of why that might be harder to achieve than expected. Apparently the car had gotten confused at that exact location repeatedly before. That’s what self driving cars are going to do—if there is something “weird” it’s likely that every self driving car (at least, every one from the same manufac…

You get similar issues with humans though. The crossroads outside the house I lived in had restricted viability and some drivers would notice it late and crash, about one every couple of weeks for years and years. Eventually they replaced it with mini roundabouts which fixed the problem.

Also you get those epic motorway pileups in France when it gets foggy and 150+ cars crash in. Just to say we have odd failure modes too.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#432
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do they still do this? What's the point if not trying to mislead the public? You're answering your own question there; they're doing it not with assumed evil intent ("let's lie about the safeties so that people kill themselves ! meuahahah") but for PR and stock reasons, but it ends up being the same result: they want people to see autopilot as "it drives for you" if you're a car buyer or an investor, but they a…

> most accident are in the 15 Km around the drivers' home You’ll often read this, yes, but I read a fascinating breakdown that called BS on the whole thing.

Would you be so kind as to point me in the general direction of such bullshit.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#433
post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfair that Tesla would get sued for every death, but wouldn't get a comparable reward for every death it prevented.

But it's perhaps not unfair to sue them for misleading advertising that leads to people getting killed. "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." creates very different expectations from "While the car is driving itself, the person in the driver's seat is keeping his hands on the steering wheel and his attention on the road at all times."

Doesn't Tesla push the second scenario at the moment?

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#434
post #163
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called the Halting Problem. We don't waste time trying to make machines that do that because it's theoretically undecidable. Furthermore, you're then throwing more neural network (that has to be trained improvably across the dataset which we have no proof is the full dataset required to fully enumerate the problem space), to successfully detect the problem areas in the data going into the driving NN for edge…

What you say has just enough technical detail to seem entirely plausible to someone who doesn't understand technology. It is also entirely wrong. The problem that I am describing is not the Halting Problem. A theoretically perfect NN is also able to do a lot better than any person could. The ability to have binocular vision in multiple directions, and mix that with radar awareness of the local environment and electro…

>It's also entirely wrong.

It's not. You're asking for a Neural network capable of making generic inferences about the output of another neural network, in real time.

That's Halting Problem. Will the data I'm feeding in cause the program I'm running to encounter an edge case (return/not return).

You can't generify a neural network beyond it's training set. Cheekyness of the previous post aside, I stand by my statement.

Comments that hail the almighty neural network as being anything more than an interesting exercise in feature extraction/input output mapping/information synthesis woefully underestimate the fundamental limitations of the technology.

With current technology, short of everyone participating in your network of street cars (hint: many won't) and is a good agent (they won't be), you'll be at the mercy of the same forces that make "driving" such an interesting task today, just in different forms, with more processors involved,and when the NN rewrites happen to need beefier hardware, everybody's vehicle gets recalled.

Throw in second and third order social effects (I.e. implementation of multi-spectrum panoptic surveillance networks for exploitation, possibility of remote exploitation of the driving software, decay of the actual skills required to drive safely, and the sudden stranglehold position that the self-driving vehicle manufacturer gets when their customer base gets large enough) leads me to the conclusion that there are a lot more problems to be solved before self-driving anything becomes a no-brainer turn key solution.

Consider that now, with thermal cameras being ubiquitous, there is debate over whether your thermal signature is considered "public information" that can be collected and analyzed by law enforcement sans warrant. Next we'll get LIDAR on cars that will have a software application made to tap into the LIDAR feed which would then be capable of reading vibrations off glass with a bit of setup. Does everything you say in your home become public information too just because the cars we drive become mobile labs equipmentwise?

That sound cool? Not to me. People need to think beyond first-order outcomes. As programmer or system developer or User alike.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are claiming that the accuracy of Telsas language is outrageously deceptive, using an outrageously made up example of deception: "six seconds prior to the collision = It is any six seconds before the crash" "This is the kind of sketchiness that makes people wary of Tesla." Its the kind of sketchiness that make me wary of the stuff people post about Tesla. If the driver had multiple warnings - about anything, any…

According to Tesla, > the only way for this accident to have occurred is if Mr. Huang was not paying attention to the road [1] Tesla has made a habit of drawing conclusions about investigations that have just begun. It is sketchy, and people have noticed. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-says-fatal-model-x-aut...

And how does that or the vaguely introduced link justify accusations of outrageous rhetorical trickery ?

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#436

A more nuanced dissection of whose fault it was or could be[0]. "Huang was apparently fooled many times by Autopilot. In fact, he reportedly experienced the exact same system failure that led to his fatal crash at the same location on at least seven occasions." ........... "Huang knew that Autopilot could not be relied on in the circumstances where he was commuting along the 101 freeway in Mountainview, California. Y…

> Yet he persisted in both using the system and ignoring the alerts that the system apparently gave him to put his hands on the wheel and take full control.

"Hands not detected" does NOT mean "hands not on wheel".

Tesla relies on driver input (torque) to "detect" hands, which means you could have both hands on the wheel but sill get the warning to place your hands on the wheel.

It seems like most people are assuming it's some kind of magical capacitive system that can detect the slightest hint of contact, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#437
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it’s laggier but with dedicated silicon that’s a non-issue. Fact is vision is more than adequate. And lidar is literally blind.

The problem is not lag, it's unpredictability. For example the white side of a truck trailer may have no distinguishing features, so in some situations the parallax-based depth algorithm returns incorrect information.

Sure, and also that cameras only work if what they're looking at is sufficiently illuminated. And yet humans still drive based exclusively on stereopsis. The particular problem you mention is really a camera fidelity issue not a stereo issue, just like humans with poor eye function are also not allowed to drive.

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#438

Tesla's blog post: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/blog/update-last-week’s-accident the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision. The driver had about five seconds and 150 meters of unobstructed view of the concrete divider Looks like sensors failed to see concrete divider in nice sunny weather and car slammed in to it at 70mph. Driver was obviously over confident on system's a…

>In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. This is a dishonest comparison. You're…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#439
post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's perhaps not unfair to sue them for misleading advertising that leads to people getting killed. "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself." creates very different expectations from "While the car is driving itself, the person in the driver's seat is keeping his hands on the steering wheel and his attention on the road at all times."

Doesn't Tesla push the second scenario at the moment?

At https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/autopilot?redirect=no, one of those quotes is presented as a full-screen caption at the beginning of the video near the top of the page.

The other is found after scrolling down several screens.

Which would you consider the more prominent message?

Re: Tesla sued in wrongful death lawsuit that alleges Autopilot caused crash

#440
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Tesla push the second scenario at the moment?

At https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/autopilot?redirect=no , one of those quotes is presented as a full-screen caption at the beginning of the video near the top of the page. The other is found after scrolling down several screens. Which would you consider the more prominent message?

(Just to clarify, the second message isn't actually present in the form of my suggested rephrasing; but the text that "Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision" is a long way down the page.)
Post reply on HN