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

431–440 of 455 posts

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

#431

Post by dathinab »

gamblor956 wrote: post #170
dathinab wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if? You need you driver license for your job, without you will lose everything . You already know that this is not something the doctor can easily help you with (e.g. caused by overwork or because you already visited the doctor). Sure it's kinda wrong, but most people would just continue driving, especially in countries with no good social net where permanently losing your job can easily lead to it really messin…

You need you driver license for your job, without you will lose everything. This is why they provide ID cards that do not grant driving privileges. And why public transportation exists.

> And why public transportation exists.

But in many places it doesn't. Or is basically unusable for all kinds of reasons (e.g. you having night shift, being a woman and no security at all in public transport).

Furthermore public transport doesn't fix the problem of losing the job for all people.

There are enough jobs where you normally will never drive but you need a driver license for "emergencies" (whatever that means is job dependent).

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

#435

Post by Polylactic_acid »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #430
gpvos wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like technical progress to be in service of the user and all their rights, not of corporations that apparently value covering their asses above creating value for their clients. Legal measures ensuring the ability in all situations to physically turn off privacy-invading features, plus the right to repair and tinker, would be a good start. Forcing free software would be even better.

You absolutely have the right to use the power of your wallet to try to force those changes. However, again, the vast majority of consumers have voted with their wallets and they do not care for the same set of features that you care about. The vast majority feel that it would make the product experience significantly worse. What use do I have for a headphone jack when I have AirPods? What use do I have for a replace…

I somewhat agree its a good thing that all tech is not driven by complaints but the problem is virtually every single phone is the same thing. When changes something and you don't like it, you better get used to it because next year every single android phone will have the same change because they all target the mass market unless you look at ultra budget android go phones.

The AirPods might be really nice and not nearly as problematic as the initial reactions predicted but they are still massively more expensive than wired headphones and made a huge collection of existing working headphones obsolete.

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

#436

Post by nickik »

marcosdumay wrote: post #419
nickik wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those grayboxes probably already take more lives than they save on airplanes, and will be orders of magnitude worse on cars. All evidence so far point in the opposite direction. Airplanes are different, you have a highly trained pilot that has strict requirements for flight. Outperforming your avg human is far easier. What your evidence that these system cause more harm then good?

> What your evidence that these system cause more harm then good? I have stopped following the accident investigations a few years ago, but that was the (very evident) trend. Most accidents tend to happen at the hand-over from the machine to the pilots when some problem appears. Among those it's very common that the both the machines and the manual procedures deal correctly with the problem, but the pilots have no ch…

Just looking at accidents that did happen, its not a reliable way of judging overall safety.

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

#437

Post by Dylan16807 »

motohagiography wrote: post #416
Dylan16807 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Technically I would agree with you, but economically, why would anyone drive from the passenger seat, and almost nobody will look forward to sleeping on the road - but my drunk definition applies to everyone in the world who drinks wine, beer, or spirits. A car you can drive drunk is the problem the tech solves, which is what makes it both viable, and provides success criteria instead of making it just about unreason…

If I'm drunk I'd get in the passenger seat so it's clear that I am not the one in control of the wheel.

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

#438

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #421
Dylan16807 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. This doesn't make sense unless you just like senesless death. It can be safer than a basic car and not kill people. Or it can be safer than a basic car and kill people for the sake of marketing. Since like I said, AP should not leave you feeling rested, full attentiveness is required, more than usua…

If the car only saves 20 lives when it could have saved 70 lives, I don't care if you want to call that "killing people", I think that car is fine.

I don't "like senseless deaths" but I think it's acceptable if people like the former car better than the latter car and purchase more of it.

> If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for it's most dangerous trap.

If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug.

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

#439

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #438
BoorishBears wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This doesn't make sense unless you just like senesless death. It can be safer than a basic car and not kill people. Or it can be safer than a basic car and kill people for the sake of marketing. Since like I said, AP should not leave you feeling rested, full attentiveness is required, more than usua…

If the car only saves 20 lives when it could have saved 70 lives, I don't care if you want to call that "killing people", I think that car is fine. I don't "like senseless deaths" but I think it's acceptable if people like the former car better than the latter car and purchase more of it. > If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for…

Here the car saves 100000 lives, but kills 5 people, when it could have just not killed the 5 people! And still saved the same 100000 lives!

That's a problem! To any normal person, that's a problem.

You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000.

Maybe your confusion is thinking the safety features are the ones doing the killing when they're not? It's extra trimmings built on top of the safety features that are doing the killing.

In other words:

> If it's still safer than a car without those features even after falling into the trap then my reaction is a big shrug.

It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features!

LKA, AEB, Crash avoidance, those all operate separately of the convenience features! And it's not a guess about how the internals work either, Tesla literally sells things like "Navigate on Autopilot" separately.

It's really simple logic. The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't.

When a Tesla avoids hitting a car coming into it's path, it's not because Navigate with Autopilot was on, it's the Active Safety Features function:

https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot

But when a Tesla hits a stopped firetruck after Autopilot lulled the driver into thinking they wouldn't have to brake, the active safety features can't do anything! Because the convenience features are subject to the same limitations as the active safety features.

---

That's the crux of the issue that you keep missing. No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted. Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them.

The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool.

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

#440

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #439
Dylan16807 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the car only saves 20 lives when it could have saved 70 lives, I don't care if you want to call that "killing people", I think that car is fine. I don't "like senseless deaths" but I think it's acceptable if people like the former car better than the latter car and purchase more of it. > If you're operating under the assumption you can relax a little with it active like a co-pilot or watcher, you're following for…

Here the car saves 100000 lives, but kills 5 people, when it could have just not killed the 5 people! And still saved the same 100000 lives! That's a problem! To any normal person, that's a problem. You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000. Maybe your confusion is thinking th…

> You're doing this weird math where actively murdering 5 people but saving 100000 is the same as just saving 99995, but it's not when the 5 murders were not a requirement to save 100000.

I don't see it that way.

It's a completely random set of people that die either way. And all the deaths basically boil down to "driving is dangerous". It's not one set of people being saved and a different one dying. It's all one group, so only the total number matters.

> It's not safer! Because that sentence is about the convenience features are not the safety features!

Your sentence was about that. My counterpoint was about more than that.

I'll reword my point without the word safer: If the risk reduction from the safety features is bigger than the risk increase from the convenience features, I think things are acceptable.

> The safety features save lives. The convenience features, by definition, cannot save lives that the safety ones didn't.

I wasn't trying to say the convenience features saved lives.

> No one is saying the active safety features should save more lives, they're saying the convenience features need to stop tricking people into driving distracted.

I'm the one saying that safety features need to save a certain number of lives. And that number is "enough to make up for the risk caused by the convenience features".

> Because those people sometimes die in accidents that wouldn't have happened if they didn't have them.

Eh, someone that's distracted could easily die in similar accident in a dumb car. To me it's all risk vs. risk. Nobody is getting murdered by the car as some kind of sick trade-off. It's not a trolley problem. It's just undoing some of the safety. But undoing the safety is acceptable, just like a car that had none of those safety features (and none of those convenience features) would also be acceptable.

> The safety features would still save the same number of people, just no one would die needless deaths in the name of marketing and looking cool.

If it was just marketing and looking cool that would be one thing. But it's also quite hard mentally to pay attention when everything is on auto. And it's a much nicer driving experience that's inherently dangerous no matter what the marketing says. So I don't think it's possible to have the convenience without the danger. You'd have to disable AP.

Post reply on HN