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

391–400 of 455 posts

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

#391

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #354
judge2020 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a valid concern that your car manufacturer will use the interior cameras to blame a crime on you. Don't see when they would ever be responsible for a crime legally, outside of being 'blamed' in dozens of national news headlines; the current legal landscape has continued to uphold that you are responsible for the car even when it's trying to drive itself. Even with Navigate on Autopilot, you have to continuousl…

When the creator of your car makes comments like "Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons" Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's true when a known defect kills your wife (aside: Why do you think Mobileye had the same tech as AP1 in multiple other cars but never turned it on continuously? Why do you think it was always limited to highway speeds and correcting a lack of input? Well that's bec…

I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far.

I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough. It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.

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

#392

Post by xedeon »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #379
xedeon wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have actually tried BMW Smart Eye and GM super cruise. Comma.ai’s Open Pilot driver monitoring is far superior to both of those. What OP was implying, is that the Tesla system mentioned on the article is on par with offerings from other OEMs from 14 years ago.

I don't believe you. Open Pilot can't use your blindspot cameras or any other additional sensors in your car. If I try to merge into another lane, and someone is in my blind spot, Open Pilot will try (and will crash my car). Super Cruise and Smart Eye don't have this problem. And yes, I have an Open Pilot for my Lexus RX 450h.

I thought the topic of this thread was driver monitoring and driver drowsiness detection?

What you're describing is the entire semi-automated driving system + driver monitoring feature. Another Apple to Oranges comparison...

It's obvious to anyone familiar with Open Pilot that it can't access OEM blindspot cameras since it only uses the Comma Two smartphone cameras and hooks into CANBUS. So I am not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

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

#393

Post by xedeon »

cyrux004 wrote: post #205
xedeon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Super Cruise also has a DM system which from what I hear is pretty good

Yes. Super Cruise is pretty good. The only caveat is that it only works on limited-access freeways.

https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/cadillac-to-increa...

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

#394

Post by rconti »

deviation wrote: post #340
fudged71 wrote: post #46

Tesla has a history of using remote diagnostics to snitch on drivers instead of allowing investigators to do their job. It’s a valid concern that your car manufacturer will use the interior cameras to blame a crime on you. These automatic tagging features also bring to question the bias in algorithms. What does this mean for drivers with disabilities? Is it possible that a safe driver with ADHD or Turrets etc might b…

What do you mean by snitch? I think it's a perfectly valid reason to "snitch" if the driver was truly at fault. There's some great reasons for driver-facing cameras- and if one of those trade-offs is that drivers are less likely to "get away" with causing a crash, then that's fine in my books. Bias feels like a different argument entirely, though I do share your concern about it...

So, turns out a driver is more likely to be snitched on if there's not a piece of tape covering the camera.

So, it's got a bias against people who don't cover the camera.

(Full disclosure: I have not yet covered mine. But one of the many reasons I do not install dash cams in my cars is that I am not interested in having evidence against me when I start shooting up other cars in traffic [1])

1. https://nypost.com/2020/09/30/florida-man-fires-gun-at-motor...

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

#395

Post by Dylan16807 »

motohagiography wrote: post #48
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that you'd have the choice between using autopilot as is (with you having the liability, not allowed to text) or switch to Tesla having the liability and be free to text? That would require the system to be safe enough to text while using it. If you mean that the feature should always be pay-to-use, that seems ridiculous. Why try to minimize the use of a driver assist feature?

A car you can drive drunk is the only meaningful definition of a self-driving car, imo. I mean both, and specifically that driver assist should be pay to use to offset usage because it is likely higher net risk for a collision than a human. Free driver-assist has a "tragedy of the commons" problem, or a moral hazard, where there is no cost to over-using it and courting a collision event, so this overall risk can be r…

> A car you can drive drunk is the only meaningful definition of a self-driving car, imo.

That's kind of a messy definition. A drunk person might start messing with the controls, and a car that is perfectly able to drive itself might not be able to handle that. You could fix that with a breathalyzer but it would be ridiculous if the difference between self-driving and not-self-driving is the presence of a breathalyzer.

So I would say something more like "drive from the passenger seat" or "drive while asleep".

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

#396

Post by theshrike79 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #391
BoorishBears wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the creator of your car makes comments like "Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons" Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's true when a known defect kills your wife (aside: Why do you think Mobileye had the same tech as AP1 in multiple other cars but never turned it on continuously? Why do you think it was always limited to highway speeds and correcting a lack of input? Well that's bec…

I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far. I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough . It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.

Exactly this. People are expecting car "autopilots" to exceed all human drivers in every situation, which is a completely silly place to move the goalpost to.

I see it more as an assistant that makes us all better drivers by letting us concentrate on stuff the computer can't do.

Even my Hyundai can drive automatically perfectly well at highway speeds and follow the road and even slow down with the traffic. This lets me relax behind the wheel and concentrate on other things than keeping the car in the lane.

I feel I'm a lot less tired and more anttentive when driving with an "autopilot", all the little micro-adjustments needed vex on my brain like nothing else.

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

#397

Post by dosshell »

xedeon wrote: post #273
dosshell wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: atleast both seeing machines and smart eye has system in cars today that are more advanced. (GM, BMW etc)

I have actually tried BMW Smart Eye and GM super cruise. Comma.ai’s Open Pilot driver monitoring is far superior to both of those. What OP was implying, is that the Tesla system mentioned on the article is on par with offerings from other OEMs from 14 years ago.

How did you try them? I thought they were hidden deep down away behind the OEM layers?

I have tried their the demo systems at several occasions, (they have been developong them in 20y) but not comma.ai's.

For example they calculate the opening speed of your eyelid with high precision, the gaze direction output is within a few degrees of error. You can almost cover your complete face and it will still track your head pose with extreme precision. The list of outputs are long. Pupils, glasses, faceid, blinks (velocity, duration), drowsiness /, perclose, the 3d geometry of the head, facemasks, gender, and a lotbof aggregatet values.

But comma.ai maybr has this too?

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

#398

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #391
BoorishBears wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the creator of your car makes comments like "Your hands are just there for regulatory reasons" Then turns around and blames you for acting like that's true when a known defect kills your wife (aside: Why do you think Mobileye had the same tech as AP1 in multiple other cars but never turned it on continuously? Why do you think it was always limited to highway speeds and correcting a lack of input? Well that's bec…

I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far. I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough . It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.

No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver

The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths.

AP could the same collision avoidance and lane centering capabilities, but not allow the driver to engage them in "Autopilot" style. That's exactly what the AP1 hardware did in other cars.

AP would still avoid every accident it could before, but now additionally not kill people when it fails to uphold the very strongly implied (even if legally disclaimed) promises it's marketing and creator love to make.

-

AP has a set of convenience features and safety features.

The convenience features all come with the disclaimer that the human must be attentive at all times while they're engaged.

And in cases where the human is not full engaged because they're placing too much trust in the convenience features, suddenly the convenience features are creating a less safe situation than if the driver did not have them at all, since the driver is now driving distracted.

The safety features cannot close the gap between a distracted driver and a non-distracted driver, that's why they're not seld-driving cars.

-

Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences.

That's why Google abandoned their equivalent project (which Elon spoke to them about before developing AP. Google's project was called... Autopilot).

It was demonstrated that giving drivers that sort of "good-enough" convenience feature would be encouraging distracted behavior. But that didn't stop Elon.

-

In fact, thinking about it, how sad is that? Google used cameras in their vehicle in conjunction with AP features and proved that people would misuse the system.

Knowing that Elon was in contact with them about the program, isn't it such an odd coincidence that Elon has pushed back on driver monitoring?

It's almost like he knows exactly what it would reveal, but doesn't want to invite the trouble that comes with tracking such an inconvenient truth.

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

#399

Post by pmontra »

pupdogg wrote: post #35

Comments on the site itself are pure gold as some are pointing out the various (mostly humorous) events that are not being actively tracked with their driver-facing camera. I will try to compile this list below: - DRIVER_ON_PASSENGER_SIDE - DRIVER_MISSING - DRIVER_PICKING_BOOGERS - DRIVER_SEAT_FULLY_RECLINED - DRIVER_SNORING - DRIVER_SHAVING - DRIVER_VAPING - DRIVER_LIVESTREAMING - DRIVER_ADJUSTING_MAKEUP - DRIVER_AP…

DRIVER_READING_NEWSPAPER

I saw it on a highway. The driver had a 9 columns newspaper open on the steering wheel, hopefully hands on the wheel. Probably at least 130 km/h. It was before the web.

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

#400

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #398
Dylan16807 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the marketing is misleading and unreasonable but I think the last part of your comment is going too far. I drive a car without any of those features. I think my car's level of safety is acceptable. If AP can beat that level of safety, it's good enough . It's okay if AP isn't the absolute safest mode, just like it's okay if companies sell cars that "only" have a 4-star crash rating.

No one is saying AP should be the safest thing ever, my comment certainly isn't saying that AP should be some sorr of super-human driver The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths . AP could the same collision avoidance and lane centering capabilities, but not allow the driver to engage them in "Autopilot" style. That's…

> The problem is AP is actively making itself less safe than it would be without marketing oriented features even with no additional strengths.

That's a shame but I'm not going to worry all that much about it killing people if it's still safer than a basic car.

> Or to put it another way, good enough is good enough for the safety features. But "good enough" is actually the most dangerous level of the convenience features, since they lull operators into a false sense of security with deadly consequences.

No. We were talking about the final level of safety after factoring in the hubris-caused danger. The level of safety before factoring in hubris was much better than "good enough".

Post reply on HN