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

Comma Two Devkit

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 255 posts

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#191

Post by missosoup »

slg wrote: post #186
missosoup wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're listing specs which are a proxy for how much money the incumbent has, and saying that the regulatory barrier should be set at those specs for some reason. None of those specs give any indication to the relative safety of the two systems though. And this is exactly what incumbents want. They want a small player to have to match their massive cash holdings to enter their market, even if the small player has a be…

I listed miles driven. That is a direct indicator of safety. I also listed the number and type of inputs each system has. This might correlate with money, but it clearly also correlates with safety. One simple example, it is impossible for the Comma system to have 360 degree visual coverage of what is around you with just two cameras in the locations they are in.

You're making a lot of really wild assumptions about what correlates with safety without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Humans have two eyes, a pretty narrow field of view, no radar, no sonar. By your logic they're even worse, yet theyre so much better than Autopilot that it's unattainable for it to match.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#192

Post by missosoup »

slg wrote: post #188
missosoup wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaaaand that's why Americans need to pay 500 bucks for an insulin injector pen while Indians pay 10 bucks for the same device. The problem with regulatory capture and arguing it's a good thing, is that there's a downside/cost to the barrier it creates. And often that downside outweighs the upside. To be clear, no one is arguing regulation shouldn't exist. Just that the nature of regulation is to be captured by incumb…

I didn't say regulatory capture is a good thing. I said that barriers to entry can be good in certain instances. In the instance of medical devices, the problem in the US has nothing to do with barriers to entry. If you can drive across the border to Canada and buy an identical product for a fraction of the price it would cost in the US, that isn't because the barrier to entry is too high in the US. The product alrea…

No, Americans are paying 500 bucks for a pen precisely because of regulatory capture. None of the manufacturers of the cheaper version have been successful in jumping the regulatory barrier to entry which the incumbents lobbied for, and tens of thousands of Americans suffer for it each year.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#193

Post by nl »

Fricken wrote: post #179
nl wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is Adaptive Cruise Control and Automated Lane Centering if it isn't self driving? Notably, the NHTSA called out these exact features in their letter to Comma.ai: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/28/comma-ai-cancels-the-comma...

If the car can't drive without you, then it's not self-driving. Those features do not allow the the car to drive by itself. It can't go anywhere without a licensed, attentive driver. This is so thoroughly not complicated.

What hasn’t changed is that OpenPilot falls under the category of level 2 self-driving as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers[1]

Look at the directory structure for the software - it has a "selfdrive" directory where all the code is![2]

[1] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/07/comma-ai-launches-comma-t...

[2] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot#directory-structure

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#194

Post by Polylactic_acid »

missosoup wrote: post #185
slg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. Call me crazy, but when it comes to products that could so easily cause death, a barrier to entry is a good thing.

Aaaaand that's why Americans need to pay 500 bucks for an insulin injector pen while Indians pay 10 bucks for the same device. The problem with regulatory capture and arguing it's a good thing, is that there's a downside/cost to the barrier it creates. And often that downside outweighs the upside. To be clear, no one is arguing regulation shouldn't exist. Just that the nature of regulation is to be captured by incumb…

Feels good to be an Australian and not get overcharged for healthcare while also not being run down by some DIY self driving car.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#195

Post by DesolationJones »

slg wrote: post #186
missosoup wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're listing specs which are a proxy for how much money the incumbent has, and saying that the regulatory barrier should be set at those specs for some reason. None of those specs give any indication to the relative safety of the two systems though. And this is exactly what incumbents want. They want a small player to have to match their massive cash holdings to enter their market, even if the small player has a be…

I listed miles driven. That is a direct indicator of safety. I also listed the number and type of inputs each system has. This might correlate with money, but it clearly also correlates with safety. One simple example, it is impossible for the Comma system to have 360 degree visual coverage of what is around you with just two cameras in the locations they are in.

Tesla does not use 12 cameras for autopilot. It just uses radar and 1 or 2 of the front facing cameras depending on the version. Not really different from OpenPIlot.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#196

Post by o-__-o »

bathtub365 wrote: post #189
DesolationJones wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what testing a regulator can do today that's more rigorous than the 10.5 million miles already driven by Open Pilot equipped cars.

It isn't being done by anyone the company is liable for

If Linux caused your house to burn down, who would be liable?

(Hint: I hope you have good insurance)

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#197

Post by slg »

missosoup wrote: post #191
slg wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listed miles driven. That is a direct indicator of safety. I also listed the number and type of inputs each system has. This might correlate with money, but it clearly also correlates with safety. One simple example, it is impossible for the Comma system to have 360 degree visual coverage of what is around you with just two cameras in the locations they are in.

You're making a lot of really wild assumptions about what correlates with safety without a shred of evidence to back it up. Humans have two eyes, a pretty narrow field of view, no radar, no sonar. By your logic they're even worse, yet theyre so much better than Autopilot that it's unattainable for it to match.

>You're making a lot of really wild assumptions... without a shred of evidence to back it up.

>Humans have two eyes... yet theyre so much better than Autopilot that it's unattainable for it to match.

These two statements are pretty ironic back to back.

I'm not sure if we are ever going to convince each other of anything if we can't agree that there is a clear difference in track record when one product has been used for 2 billion miles and the other for 6 million.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#198

Post by Polylactic_acid »

big_chungus wrote: post #22
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it appears to be a plug-in system to do automated cruise control and lane assist and driving in stop & go traffic. Out of curiosity, I checked for my car. It says it's not supported. BUT, Comma is open source, so I could add it myself. Does this imply they're encouraging anyone to write buggy code and drive their cars with it?!?

> Does this imply they're encouraging anyone to write buggy code and drive their cars with it?!? The fact that the comma guys aren't locking it down out of a misguided paternalistic belief that they no better is a good thing. Don't blame them for providing the hardware, blame people if they write buggy code. This is analogous to blaming a firearms manufacturer for a murderer's crime.

No it would be like blaming a firearms manufacturer for a fault that causes the thing to blow up.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#199

Post by slimsag »

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #194
missosoup wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaaaand that's why Americans need to pay 500 bucks for an insulin injector pen while Indians pay 10 bucks for the same device. The problem with regulatory capture and arguing it's a good thing, is that there's a downside/cost to the barrier it creates. And often that downside outweighs the upside. To be clear, no one is arguing regulation shouldn't exist. Just that the nature of regulation is to be captured by incumb…

Feels good to be an Australian and not get overcharged for healthcare while also not being run down by some DIY self driving car.

What's with the nationalism? Every country has benefits and problems for it's citizens, and Australia is no different: just look at the literal schorched Earth outside

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#200

Post by chris11 »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #133
derefr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ran comma.ai in your car and had a serious crash, you could possibly be found criminally negligent. I don't know that it's much different than using cruise-control and then having a serious crash. If there's criminal negligence when using cruise control, it's because you weren't aware-enough to shut it off when the conditions cruise-control is built for no longer applied; the mere fact of using cruise-contro…

You can get a learners permit to teach your teenager completely legally. You couldn't do the same with a 10 year old... If a serious crash involving comma.ai went to trial, it would look like the driver was using unapproved, unregulated software, unnecessarily, putting others at risk. Recent Autopilot incidents show us that expecting a human to take over within a second is not reasonable. I would be very worried that…

> I would be very worried that the court would indeed find the driver negligent.

I use open pilot on the highway, and I love it. I had to physically tap into the CAN bus for my car's safety system, that made me very nervous. But the installation is completely reversible, and I'm much more comfortable with it's limitations. I just treat it as a really great adaptive cruise control and active lane keep assist.

But that's all it is. I would be completely responsible in most situations if my car caused an accident while open pilot was active. Open pilot's design has it immediately drop all control of the car if you touch the brake or gas, it does not aggressively follow cars, and the driver is still required to control the car. So if I start to become uncomfortable I need to immediately take over.

Assuming that open pilot will always act within it's safety guidelines doesn't mean that its safe. Toyota's paid tens of millions in fines and settled multiple lawsuits over unintended acceleration. I believe that using openpilot on the highway means I'm a safer driver. But I do understand that if I did get in an accident proving I'm not negligent might be extremely difficult.

I agree with you, liability is a very important part of self driving functionality. I won't think a car has full self driving capability until I can get in the back of that car, go to sleep, have it drive me somewhere, and hold no legal or financial responsibility for any accidents that occur. Openpilot is nowhere close to that, but I do think it's really good for what it's meant to do.

Post reply on HN