Autopilot is an appropriate term, taken from aviation. And no one calls it full self driving since that hasn't been released yet.
Seriously, what is people's problem with that word? Tesla actively explains how this works currently (both in person and also in bold font on their website) when anyone buys a car. There is no owner of this car that thinks that it has full self-driving capability. It is literally a non-existent problem.
You're saying this on an article about two different people who seemed to believe it and paid dearly for their misconception.
Maybe there is something wrong with the coffee I have had today but I utterly fail to see the novelty or notoriety in the title as a whole or any subset of it. Can someone maybe point it out to me?
People complain a lot. Engineers are people. People still do things they complain about. People die in crashes. Cars crash. Teslas are cars. What am I missing?
Their marketing for for a long time structured such that you got the idea that is was a literal autonomous driving ability. They've only toned it down after multiple accident, and I'm sure it's the reason so many people still believe it to this day.
So the "problem" you referring to is solved? Their marketing is good now? I just think that there is no reason keep repeating the old things then that are not relevant anymore, that don't even refer to anything anymore and only create a lot of confusion. (Let's just assume it was a problem, even though I don't ever remember being fooled by it or seing any commercial or anything without a disclaimer "NOT FULLY AUTONOM…
They should start with not using a misleading name, Autopilot.
And it'll fly happily into a mountain or other plane, if unmonitored. Now the problem is streets are a little more crowded.
There are no mountains at the cruise altitude of a 747. TCAS will provide a warning 30 seconds before collision and the Airbus A380 has an autopilot with integrated TCAS avoidance. So it will hit neither mountains (too low) nor other aircraft (automatic avoidance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
I'm well aware that there are no mountains at 40k feet.
Well airplane autopilots can avoid obstacles... about time after 100 years of development. (The first aircraft autopilot was developed by Sperry Corporation in 1912. The autopilot connected a gyroscopic heading indicator and attitude indicator to hydraulically operated elevators and rudder.)
I avoid new technology, exactly because I'm an engineer. I wonder if that is just me, but when new technology is introduced and hyped, I usually take a quick look at implementations, research, and talks just to get an idea of what the state of the art really is like. As a result, I have become the late adopter among my group of friends because the first iteration of any new technology usually just isn't worth the iss…
I don't understand why if you've gone through this much trouble, you don't have a blog post or even a medium article to cover your findings. I'd be very curious to see the responses from those authors and other experts in the field about your findings. There's just something dubious about how it seems like you consistently find mistakes and problems in these papers. I'd be stunned if there was any expert that wasn't…
You’ve summed up what threw me off about their comment quite well.
Another thing, just the time alone needed to evaluate technology the way they are talking about sounds quite staggering.
I avoid new technology, exactly because I'm an engineer. I wonder if that is just me, but when new technology is introduced and hyped, I usually take a quick look at implementations, research, and talks just to get an idea of what the state of the art really is like. As a result, I have become the late adopter among my group of friends because the first iteration of any new technology usually just isn't worth the iss…
Yes. Current self-driving might be safer than the avarage driver, but what most people forget is how unsafe it is when it fails. It fails harder than most avarage drivers and even bad drivers. In my eyes self-driving should still be called driving-assistance.
I’m unconvinced by all of the AI hype. But I will say that just last week, a human-driven car snapped a pillar outside of my office and bent a bike rack into a mangled mess. The driver was unconscious, with a drug needle and empty beer can on the passenger seat.
So, the hard failure for humans is pretty bad, too, just different. I suspect there’s little overlap on a Venn diagram of the hard failure modes for AI and humans.
I have a car with the "autopilot" feature like the Tesla, but they call it adaptive cruise control and lane assist. The adaptive cruise control works pretty well; I guess it only needs to check the radar to see what's in front to slow down. The lane assist is problematic in recognizing different kind of lanes and would steer off course from time to time. I guess the current state of "autopilot" technology is simply n…
A lot of rental cars I've used in Italy have this lane assist feature. Italian roads often have... inconsistent or incomplete... markings. After the first day driving I had to Google how to switch it off, because it tried to crash the car several times. I don't understand how these features can be launched in this state.
Anecdotally to the contrary, in California where the lane markings are quite good in most areas, the Tesla AP works great.
I don't know where you got these papers but you clearly got an awful sampling and I don't think you're giving computer vision a fair evaluation. Granted, we're not quite ready for self driving, but there's no question that the neural network subfield of ML has absolutely exploded in the last 5-10 years and is bursting with productionizable, application ready architectures that are already solving real world problems.
> Granted, we're not quite ready for self driving And yet it's literally in cars on the road. I'm not saying you're wrong because of that. I just wonder how far from "ready" we are, and how much of a gamble manufacturers are taking, and how much risk that presents for not just their customers, but everyone else their customers may drive near.
The weird thing is there seems to be a discrepancy between these publicized figures of millions of miles of auto-pilot on the roads, and the general feeling you get when you turn on the system yourself. I've used it on a Model 3 and it at least feels horribly insecure, the lines used to show detection of the curbs are far from stable and jitters around often, maybe it's more safe than it seems, but the feeling is I would absolutely not put my life in the hands of such a system... just looking at all the YouTube videos of enthusiasts driving around the countryside with autopilot and it's like watching a game of Russian roulette. Suddenly the car starts driving along the other side of the road or veer off into a house.. I would categorize it as a glorified lane-assist system, in its current state.
Maybe there is something wrong with the coffee I have had today but I utterly fail to see the novelty or notoriety in the title as a whole or any subset of it. Can someone maybe point it out to me? People complain a lot. Engineers are people. People still do things they complain about. People die in crashes. Cars crash. Teslas are cars. What am I missing?
I mean like, he had previously complained about the car swerving towards a barrier on the 101. He later crashed his car into the same barrier while on Autopilot which took his life.
I think the intuition is that like, if a piece of technology repeatedly shows itself to drive your car into a concrete barrier, maybe don't play video games while passing that same concrete barrier.