401–410 of 455 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 breathalyz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a reflection it's still a net negative This is a metric human drivers fail to hit every single day. There is some acceptable level of risk in shifting driving to a robot. How you draw that comparison and draw the line is tough. It's…
> This is a metric human drivers fail to hit every single day. Yes exactly, and when they fuck up they suffer the consequences. Which if you were reckless will most likely be years in prison. You shouldn't be able to get away by paying money which is what the comment I replied to asks for.
How many end up in jail?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The start of the thread was actually: > You should never get behind the wheel if there's a chance you'll fall asleep! I would say anyone that feels drowsy has a change of falling asleep. So 50% of the population should regularly not get behind the wheel, by GC's standard.
No, the start of the thread was: 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. This was followed by arguing for the safety feature in case it happened again.
Though it's not really a thread until OC was disagreed with, so thread works too.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can try to emigrate to a richer country, you can try to reduce your expenses, you move in with relatives, you can sleep in the car. These are all terrible choices but endangering other people is also a choice.
Good luck getting people to move to other countries as a way to avoid driving home to their family and comfy bed after a hard day's work.
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.
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…
To use the aeroplane analogy that Tesla wants to market: the computer is the first officer in charge of flying the plane, the driver is the captain in charge of everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 feat…
I think the point of the argument is "ship the system that doesn't cause hubris if it is much better than 'good enough'"
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…