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

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

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 658 posts

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

#371

Post by meowface »

Slartie wrote: post #362
grey-area wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are computers better than the best human drivers in all circumstances? No, maybe they never will be, but that doesn't matter. Are they better than average humans in average conditions already? Yes. They don't need to be all powerful AGI which can replace humans in all circumstances to be useful and save lives.

What doesn't matter is who wins in average conditions. Because averages are just that: averages. But actual driving is full of non-average situations, whether they are created by weather, other human participants in traffic, animals, whatever...there's millions of surprising non-standard situations happening each day in traffic, and current technology isn't even able to reliably detect when it's facing such a situati…

Right. And that's why it's not rolled out everywhere yet. But it's clearly getting closer and closer. It's probably less than 20 years away.

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

#372

Post by vincent-toups »

krm01 wrote: 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…

I don't think anyone is against self driving cars if you assume they will work. Its whether they will work and what happens when they screw up that is the pertinent issue.

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

#373

Post by bananabreakfast »

larksimian wrote: post #318
cortesoft wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wrong interpretation.

They are absolutely not "less safe", because they are all human driven cars.

Why not say the rest of your argument with the fact that cruise control made cars "less safe than human driven cars" because people fell asleep at the wheel and drifted off the road.

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

#374

Post by ben_w »

grey-area wrote: post #352
Slartie wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes these quarterly numbers are in the best conditions and supervised, no that doesn't invalidate them... That is exactly what it does: it invalidates them. Comparing apples to oranges is an invalid comparison. Let's compare the numbers again when there's sufficient data for self-driving tech driving in all environmental conditions without supervision and without human assistance jumping in whenever it gets rough.…

Are computers better than the best human drivers in all circumstances? No, maybe they never will be, but that doesn't matter. Are they better than average humans in average conditions already? Yes. They don't need to be all powerful AGI which can replace humans in all circumstances to be useful and save lives.

The stats aren’t good enough to be sure yet. They’re encouraging, and if you’d asked me in 2010 I absolutely would not have guessed that a few billion miles of experience wasn’t enough to know for sure, but turns out we need more data.

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

#375

Post by Slartie »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #366
Slartie wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes these quarterly numbers are in the best conditions and supervised, no that doesn't invalidate them... That is exactly what it does: it invalidates them. Comparing apples to oranges is an invalid comparison. Let's compare the numbers again when there's sufficient data for self-driving tech driving in all environmental conditions without supervision and without human assistance jumping in whenever it gets rough.…

It's not apples to oranges. If a human interferes then a human is now driving. That human has a worse record of non accidents than the computer. Ergo, that human is making the driving record worse not better.

You know that it's not the job of the human driver in experimental self-driving vehicles to just take control every once in a while, when he feels he'd like to drive a little?

A human interferes in precisely those situations in which the machine either decided to surrender or - worse - started doing something stupid and the human caught it quickly enough to prevent an accident. It is safe to assume that the human has a much better safety record in such situations.

And who does the human surrender to when he fails at driving? Should we also not count human accidents that could have been prevented if there was a world-class race driver ready to take over when the actual driver makes the failure?

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

#376

Post by bananabreakfast »

cortesoft wrote: post #330
henrikschroder wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is, do self driving cars have more accidents per mile (or more damage per mile/injuries per mile/ deaths per mile) than human driven cars? It should matter if they have less, but in the real world it doesn't matter, because it's "scary" to be rear-ended by an unthinking machine, and business as usual to be rear-ended by a clumsy human, so people will always hold machines to a much higher standard.

Only new machines. Once we get used to them, they become 'natural' and we don't think twice about them being scary. When cars first came out, they were scary and people feared dying from them. Now, they are just normal, and we don't think twice about the thousands of people that die because of cars.

Remember that when elevators were developed, people were so scared of them they needed drivers for decades before people accepted that they could operate on their own.

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

krm01 wrote: 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…

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by cultus »

the8472 wrote: post #283
blattimwind wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If machines fail at complex tasks but fail safely then that's not an argument against self-driving cars being safe, it's only one about their limited usefulness. They don't, not at the moment. The software detects the situation is outside its capability space and says "jesus, take the wheel!". For all practical intents and purposes the only reasonable way to interpret the current self-driving car statistics is to t…

I wonder how much of that fail safe difficulty is to blame on humans too. The car can't just slow down on a highway due to the reaction time of other drivers after all.

No, it gives back control if it can't continue in the situation. That means that it can't handle the scenario at all. Other drivers are completely irrelevant. Even if you took that out you'd still need to deal with pedestrians, cyclists, cars blowing tires and veering out of control, etc.

Not to mention that many of the times control has to be taken have nothing to do with other drivers or even other cars.

The reality is that a car can only be driven by a general artificial intelligence. We're nowhere in that ballpark.

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

#379

Post by damon_c »

krm01 wrote: 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…

People growing up 50 years from now will think the idea that we used to pilot our own cars is as ridiculous as the idea that people used to light their homes with whale oil.

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

#380

Post by eshyong »

shaklee3 wrote: post #348
grey-area wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no evidence that computers are any better at driving than humans Yes, there is. You can debate the exact figures/circumstances, but the numbers are good, and improving all the time. Humans are just not very good at guiding tons of metal around at high speeds, which isn't very surprising when you think about it. One accident for every 4.34 million miles is already pretty good (compared to 500k miles for huma…

It doesn't invalidate the numbers if they were in ideal conditions, but it certainly means you cannot compare them to regular human drivers. That 500k number is the average from all kinds of different driving conditions. You would have to find a set of data where the humans also only drove in ideal conditions and see if the rate is any worse. I agree with the original poster and that there's not enough evidence to sa…

I think you meant "rate"...
Post reply on HN