Live data from Hacker News

Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

tesla.com

311–320 of 658 posts

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#311
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a self-driving car functioning in the middle of a blizzard and we can start talking. Southern California and the weather it experiences is a poor representation of what is required for self-driving to replace humans.

Isn’t it enough if it recognises the limits of its own capability and safely asks you to take over?

No, actually it is not. It basically throws the operator into the worst possible conditions. Remember that the whole point of self driving cars is to eliminate the human driver. A driver who doesn’t drive is not capable of taking over from a machine which just gave up on recognizing what’s happening due to the severe weather.

An example from my own backyard. My car is equipped only with ACC and lane assist. I already had a couple of situations where in severe rain the sensors are no longer able to „see”. The car throws a fit and I have to take over immediately. These things are not fit for purpose. They are not able to judge „a big surface covered with water, risk of aquaplaning” or „surface covered with snow, temp dropping, possibility of black ice” or even simple mud / sand.

Maybe if one lives in Nevada, Arizona, California, where it’s always sunny, rains once in ten years, one can get swayed into believing that these things work. However, rsin, dnow, black ice or a mix of those and it becomes very quickly obvious it does not.

These cars, today, they are just dumb machnines without judgement. Never I am going to sit in an autonomous car outside of a controlled environment like an airport / strict city centre. Outside of the city, no way.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then consider the lower reaction times of machines Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it. It might react faster, but it needs to identify the danger first and up until now, it's much worse at that in many situations. Yes, you're right, once it's safer, it's safer. That makes your statements just as vacuous as…

> Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it And someone rear ended me the other day because they didn't notice cars were stopping. Yes, self-driving cars make mistakes, but humans make all sorts of mistakes, too. The question is, do self driving cars have more accidents per mile (or more damage per mile/injuries per…

I feel the question is more about the responsibility and the social contract of sharing the road with fellow humans.

Self-driving cars don't take risks when they make mistakes while humans are exposed to physical or legal consequences that are well understood by everyone on the road.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#313
post #140

It still strikes me why so many people are still against a future with self driving cars. Sure, people throughout history are scared of change & new tech. But if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer. The reality of driving (as a human) is that most of it…

Driving is essentially a spiritual activity.

By normal standards, it's insane to expect non-experts to maintain and operate heavy machinery, in public streets, half asleep or half paying attention.

It's also a pretty absurd way of providing mass transport in most places.

So if you're going to throw out normal risk assessment as a starting point, where do you go from there? People know how bad quality software can be, how ubiquitous bugs are, and how often programs are deep morasses of strange and perverse hacks, and how it only doesn't (normally) kill people because the stakes are small. Then Uber's car actually did kill someone, and predictably, the familiar problem of bad, buggy software looms larger, as a risk, than the dull and more or less commonly accepted fact of cars hitting people all the time.

Very common threats, like pneunomia, poverty, or cancer, tend to get depreciated in comparison to symbolic, unusal threats - and I think it's pretty unsurprising that on HN, people feel threatened by the possibility of bugs not only ruining their day, but actually running them over.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#315
post #140

It still strikes me why so many people are still against a future with self driving cars. Sure, people throughout history are scared of change & new tech. But if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer. The reality of driving (as a human) is that most of it…

> But if you look at this video and compare the amount of stuff the camera catches AND processes, with the things you are seeing & processing, it's really hard for me to see me being better at it than a computer.

I wonder if the fear has more to do with it simply being different. The set of things that a CV system misses is likely quite different from the set of things that a human misses. A CV system is likely to make mistakes that a human would never make, and even if those mistakes are far fewer in number, they make it look bad to humans.

We've all seen electronic devices do this. When an Amazon Echo interprets the sound of a tea kettle as its wake word, we're left with no explanation, and no way to rationalize it other than to assume the device is, in some way, bad at its job. Surely a human would never make this mistake, we think, and so therefore the device must be dumber than a human at word detection. And yet, there surely exists a class of noises that a human would mistake for a word that an Echo would not - but that doesn't factor in.

Anyway, this means that a CV-controlled car would behave, compared to a human, strangely. When one's intuition about the car's behavior, tuned from years of experience both driving and observing cars, differs from the car's actual behavior, it becomes harder to make predictions about how the car will behave, and from here comes a fear and a sense of uneasiness. And when it makes a rare mistake that a human would never make, because it's perceptual system is entirely different, we assume its dumber than a human all-together.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that depends on what problem you're solving. Self-driving vehicles aren't solving mass transportation. They're solving ubiquitous personal transportation. They may also solve mass transport by being cheap, ubiquitous, and by performing an end-run around the piles of local regulation that restrict mass transit.

Density + mass transport is the solution to the problem of ubiquitous personal transportation.

This is the answer, but it opens up another line of questioning: do we force people to live in dense urban areas? Sometimes I wonder if pro mass-transit commenters (I'm pro mass transit, FWIW) have ever lived outside of a major metro. There are so many places where people live where mass transit is never going to be viable in way that replaces the car. Who gets to decide when/if we invalidate their way of living? Maybe I'm not seeing all the angles here.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You replied to the 4 scenarios I posted, but forgot the thousands of others left while you missed my point. They were rhetorical to illustrate that nothing yet can replace a trained, experienced, and attentive driver effectively yet. There are no simple answers to the above questions, but if a driver causes the accident, they are accountable. Companies want to launch this tech but not own accountability for accidents…

> You replied to the 4 scenarios I posted, but forgot the thousands of others left while you missed my point. try { while (true) { if (IsScenarioOutsideOfUnderstanding()) { throw NotUnderstoodException() } } } catch (NotUnderstoodException) { SlowDownAndStopLikeAnyoneElseWould(); }

    Patch for car stopping way too often:
        catch (NotUnderstoodException)
        {  
    -        SlowDownAndStopLikeAnyoneElseWould();
    +        // FIXME TODO let the safety driver handle it for now
    +        // SlowDownAndStopLikeAnyoneElseWould();
        }

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then consider the lower reaction times of machines Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it. It might react faster, but it needs to identify the danger first and up until now, it's much worse at that in many situations. Yes, you're right, once it's safer, it's safer. That makes your statements just as vacuous as…

> Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it And someone rear ended me the other day because they didn't notice cars were stopping. Yes, self-driving cars make mistakes, but humans make all sorts of mistakes, too. The question is, do self driving cars have more accidents per mile (or more damage per mile/injuries per…

And the answer is yes, they are less safe than human driven cars(https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-t...)

"activating auto steer increased crash rate by 50%"

Tesla safety stats are ok when compared to the average car on the road. But that's because they are expensive, high quality cars driven by middle aged people. It's the safest car demographic on the road. When comparing auto drive teslas to equivalent luxury cars they look terrible. Though i think if you ignore the autodrive they're perfectly good cars.

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#319
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Self-driving cars cannot yet safely navigate complex or unusual scenarios. The human backups in test cars still have to take over with good regularity. That's not something you'd see if it were anywhere close to ready. Even with all their data, there aren't enough training examples of every situation. Deep learning models also have a tendency to be pathologically wrong in rare but completely unpredictable…

Point taken. However if you a look at statistics regarding the leading cause of accidents in the US, for example by going to https://www.after-car-accidents.com/car-accident-causes.html It seems that most accidents are caused by human error and humans being distracted or under the influence of a substance. Weather and complex situations would only rank at the bottom of the list and therefore could be considered a YAG…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla's self driving algorithm's overlay [video]

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no evidence that computers are any better at driving than humans That's a vacuous statement. Evidence would be a deployed self-driving fleet. At which point it would be mission accomplished and we wouldn't be discussing this. Now if you want theoretical considerations instead of evidence, then consider the lower reaction times of machines.

> then consider the lower reaction times of machines Meanwhile, Teslas run into the backs of car carriers because they only recognise the car it's carrying and not the truck bed extending behind it. It might react faster, but it needs to identify the danger first and up until now, it's much worse at that in many situations. Yes, you're right, once it's safer, it's safer. That makes your statements just as vacuous as…

There is a difference between perfect and better.

If your standard is that self driving must be perfect then i'd argue you're being unreasonable.

If your standard is that self driving cars must be better than that is something that can easily be tested.

Post reply on HN