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

Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 455 posts

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#51

Post by masklinn »

xedeon wrote: post #27
masklinn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think detecting when a driver is falling asleep could be an amazing safety feature. Welcome to 14 years ago, which is when Toyota first introduced their DMS/DAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System More generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection

Not even close in terms of complexity. I used many of the "Driver Drowsiness" detection from Toyota, BMW and MBenz on my previous cars. They always had false positives, inconsistent and pretty rudimentary. What you're implying is akin to saying Nokia/Ericsson/Palm had smartphones before the iPhone 1 came along. Therefore the iPhone is a non-event. ️ The "hacker" mentioned in this article discovered these detection la…

> Not even close in terms of complexity.

You are asserting with no idea whatsoever, or relevance really given you're apparently ignoring that I was answering a very specific comment.

> What you're implying is akin to saying Nokia/Ericsson/Palm had smartphones before the iPhone 1 came along. Therefore the iPhone is a non-event. ️

One, it really is not, there's nothing impressive-looking so far. Two, tesla's record of "game changing" is mostly "game changing marketing", and while you should absolutely feel free to give them all the benefit of every doubt, I really don't feel so inclined.

> The "hacker" mentioned in this article discovered these detection labels on the Model 3/Y "selfie" camera:

These are just events it might be able to generate, it tells you nothing about how well the events are detected and how the consumer of those events integrates them.

What do you think exactly, that other manufacturers just get a magical yes/no blob?

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#52

Post by renewiltord »

lm28469 wrote: post #33
motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

> The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. No amount of money makes up for human lives. You can pay a premium of $1mil per mile, if the car end up smashing into a family car at 80mph because the system was fooled by a shadow or…

> No amount of money makes up for human lives

Trivially untrue since you can save one life for under $1000 but almost everyone with $1000 will keep it rather than save the life - revealing that $1000 is worth more than an arbitrary human life.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#53

Post by cortesoft »

lm28469 wrote: post #33
motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

> The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. No amount of money makes up for human lives. You can pay a premium of $1mil per mile, if the car end up smashing into a family car at 80mph because the system was fooled by a shadow or…

> No amount of money makes up for human lives.

You clearly don't actually believe that, or there are a ton of activities you would stop doing. You wouldn't drive to work, because there is a chance you might kill someone while driving, and you only go to work for money, so why do it?

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#54

Post by chris11 »

xedeon wrote: post #27
masklinn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think detecting when a driver is falling asleep could be an amazing safety feature. Welcome to 14 years ago, which is when Toyota first introduced their DMS/DAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System More generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_drowsiness_detection

Not even close in terms of complexity. I used many of the "Driver Drowsiness" detection from Toyota, BMW and MBenz on my previous cars. They always had false positives, inconsistent and pretty rudimentary. What you're implying is akin to saying Nokia/Ericsson/Palm had smartphones before the iPhone 1 came along. Therefore the iPhone is a non-event. ️ The "hacker" mentioned in this article discovered these detection la…

Open Pilot's driver monitoring could be improved. After the last update I got a ton of false positives when driving at night. Nighttime would make driver monitoring more difficult, but it's also when people are more likely to be distracted.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#55

Post by hnracer »

lm28469 wrote: post #33
motohagiography wrote: post #10

Hah, if the main barrier to autopilot for cars is liability and insurance, passive biometric monitoring of the driver is certainly one way to shift liability around. The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. The real problem is…

> The real feature should just be a button that shifts insurance liability to Tesla for the period of the autopilot engagement and charges you a floating premium for it based on traffic conditions per mile/km while the autopilot is on. No amount of money makes up for human lives. You can pay a premium of $1mil per mile, if the car end up smashing into a family car at 80mph because the system was fooled by a shadow or…

We should delineate between resources (which has a fiat value) and fiat money. I agree that fiat money can't make up for a human life, since if money is destroyed, the remaining money supply increases in value through deflation and no actual resources are destroyed.

However I disagree that a human life can't be equated with resources. Would you destroy $10 billion of value/resources in the economy to save 1 person? I don't think that's worth it, because that $10 billion of value could've been food and medicine which can save thousands of people. This is really just the trolley problem. But the bigger you make the sum (if you don't agree at $10 billion, what about $1 trillion?), at some extreme point you're going to have to say "ok, one life isn't worth that much."

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#56

Post by ogre_codes »

One of the reasons I would love to have autopilot is because I have a history of dozing off at the wheel. Never so much where I've had an accident, but bad enough where I've scared myself badly.

I don't want autopilot so I can actually sleep at the wheel, I want it in case I do. I'd vastly prefer if the car noticed I was inattentive that it notified me. My feeling is for long drives this would be a safety feature, but I'm concerned that the way it's built it will my worst driving behaviors instead of helping compensate for them.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#57

Post by whalesalad »

I love that the car is capturing this data. I would imagine Tesla engineers on the analysis side of this data are thinking "holy shit, look how much time our drivers are spending not paying attention at all, we need to do something about this."

They need this data for regulatory reasons, anyway. At some point they need confidence to say how people are really (ab)using their self-driving tech.

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#59

Post by oh_sigh »

addflip wrote: post #12
gamblor956 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per history: Tesla releases driver data whenever it suits them. See: every autopilot crash.

Yep. You're right. This is why I put a piece black electrical tape over the rear-facing camera in my Model Y.

Does that mean you have no backup camera now?

Re: Tesla hacker reveals what driver-facing camera is looking for

#60

Post by alanbernstein »

ogre_codes wrote: post #56

One of the reasons I would love to have autopilot is because I have a history of dozing off at the wheel. Never so much where I've had an accident, but bad enough where I've scared myself badly. I don't want autopilot so I can actually sleep at the wheel, I want it in case I do . I'd vastly prefer if the car noticed I was inattentive that it notified me. My feeling is for long drives this would be a safety feature, b…

Aren't autopilot and sleep detection totally independent features?
Post reply on HN