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

441–450 of 455 posts

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

#441

Post by gpvos »

Polylactic_acid wrote: post #435
cycrutchfield wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Indeed, another problem is the infinite stream of waste being produced.

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

#442

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #440
BoorishBears wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

> It's all one group, so only the total number matters.

You're very alone in this line of thought.

If you save 100000 people _by murdering_ 5 people, it's unfortunate and a hard choice, but at least arguably good. Most people will be ok with this (this is pretty much how the world turns to some degree)

But if you save 100000 lives, then murder 5 victims. And those 5 victims were just murdered to murder tham, no one being saved was resting on it.

Most basically ethical people would consider that indefensible.

Maybe you're confusing this situation with the former, where lives are treated as fungible to save great numbers.

That can be tricky ethically, but at least the greater good is on your side. Here you're treating lives as fungible for the sake of it.

It's not really an admirable thing to lack the ability to see why that's wrong, so I implore you to dig a little deeper.

This isn't sacrificing people to help more people, it's helping people then sacrificing some people for fun.

If you talk someone down from a ledge do you now go around thinking you get to murder someone and it cancels out?

> 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

This is literally what every comment in this entire thread by me has said. Maybe you finally get it.

Car without convenience features saves lives doesn't kill.

Car with them saves same lives and kills.

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

#443

Post by adamsea »

fastball wrote: post #296
adamsea wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if we are well-rested in general and healthy, and choose not to drive when we are tired. If we have a particular medical condition / issue then that is a different story. But folks don't randomly fall asleep (I think?) if they're getting sufficient rest and they're not already tired.

Demonstrably untrue. Monotony can make you drowsy, regardless of how healthy you are or how much sleep you've had. And when this happens, it can catch you unawares even if you're looking for it.

True. But then wouldn't you want to take a break, or have your software/whatever notifying you to take a break prior to falling asleep?

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

#444

Post by Silhouette »

Ancapistani wrote: post #425
Silhouette wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very large number of people in the US have access to no public transit whatsoever - and as for sharing a car... that’s what they’re likely doing with their partner. One person uses it to go to work while the other is at home, probably caring for their children. How do all these hopelessly trapped families ever take their kids to things like medical appointments?

Are you honestly curious? If so, there’s something of a sliding scale. Most of them take their car - their single car, that serves the whole family. When it breaks down, they lean on friends, family, and neighbors for help. Those without a vehicle in the first place... don’t. I live in a town of It seems like there is a large disconnect between your perception and the reality of life for much of America.

Yes, it was a genuine question. I'm a Brit, and clearly the culture around driving is different in many ways on our side of the Atlantic.

Some of the earlier discussion here has apparently been mostly people talking at cross-purposes and didn't turn out to be very enlightening. However, it does seem that at least some people here really are trying to defend something that I think most people would consider unconscionable where I come from. The arguments have essentially been that people there have no realistic choice but to rely on theirs cars, even if driving them is obviously dangerous, or they literally can't live a normal life and support their families properly.

This raised a lot of questions for me that single-car or car-free households face all the time over here, like how you get the kids to school or anyone who isn't the driver to important appointments like medical ones. I was surprised that your response was more-or-less "you don't", but then in the context of medical appointments there is again a very different culture here to yours. It would be similarly unconscionable for most of us in the UK to bring a child into the world and not then make sure they get all of their check-ups and vaccinations at the right times, and you'd have to try very hard to find a situation where a parent without access to a car couldn't still make those provisions for their child in some realistic way. From comments by yourself and others here, I conclude that this is not necessarily the case in the US, or at least in significant parts of it.

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

#445

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #442
Dylan16807 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 gr…

> It's all one group, so only the total number matters. You're very alone in this line of thought. If you save 100000 people _by murdering_ 5 people, it's unfortunate and a hard choice, but at least arguably good. Most people will be ok with this (this is pretty much how the world turns to some degree) But if you save 100000 lives, then murder 5 victims. And those 5 victims were just murdered to murder tham, no one b…

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

I basically agree with everything you said about saving some people and murdering others.

But "saving less people" is a totally different situation. If I donate some money to charity, and I'm asked to donate more money, it's okay for me to say no.

So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving less people".

You believe it's the former, and I believe it's the latter.

Remember that even pure safety features are imperfect and they are subject to the butterfly effect. Anything you change about a car design will cause some shift in who dies while driving that car. You have to determine if there are really two separate risk groups, one sacrificed for the other, or if it's all really one risk group.

As a thought experiment, imagine we made a car that was all-around much safer, and then we let 14 year olds drive it. Well that actually happens, with mini-cars that have strict speed limits. (Usually they're legally not cars.) We could only allow normal licensed drivers to use them, and they'd be very safe! But then, purely for convenience, we let younger teenagers use them. Is that a moral abomination? Some of them are going to die. But I think it fits into the normal risk of driving, and as long as a 14 year old in one of those is safer than a normal driver in a normal car, I'm satisfied.

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

#446

Post by BoorishBears »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #445
BoorishBears wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's all one group, so only the total number matters. You're very alone in this line of thought. If you save 100000 people _by murdering_ 5 people, it's unfortunate and a hard choice, but at least arguably good. Most people will be ok with this (this is pretty much how the world turns to some degree) But if you save 100000 lives, then murder 5 victims. And those 5 victims were just murdered to murder tham, no one b…

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I basically agree with everything you said about saving some people and murdering others. But "saving less people" is a totally different situation. If I donate some money to charity, and I'm asked to donate more money, it's okay for me to say no. So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving l…

> So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving less people".

There are separate sets of features that you can't just glue together, they're not even offered together, you have to pay separately for the second set.

One set saves people, one set kills people. The set that kills people, doesn't save people.

You think it's ok to sell the set that kills people because they have a set thats save people.

I know it's not ok to sell features that kill people and don't save anyone. It'd be one thing if it could save people, but it doesn't. The other set does that.

This set just kills people. Doesn't save anyone.

Stop selling it.

Simple as that.

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

#447

Post by Dylan16807 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #446
Dylan16807 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I basically agree with everything you said about saving some people and murdering others. But "saving less people" is a totally different situation. If I donate some money to charity, and I'm asked to donate more money, it's okay for me to say no. So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving l…

> So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving less people". There are separate sets of features that you can't just glue together, they're not even offered together, you have to pay separately for the second set. One set saves people, one set kills people. The set that kills people, doesn't save people. You think it's ok to sell the set th…

> You think it's ok to sell the set that kills people because they have a set thats save people.

Only if all three of the following are true:

A) they both affect the same risk factor (Just because they're "separate" features and sold separately doesn't make this false. And the way the autopilot is so intertwined with the others, I don't think it's really fair to say they are truly separate features. They build upon each other.)

B) it's impossible to run the dangerous one without the safety one

C) running both is safer than running neither

If you want to make cars safer, then you should be insisting that all cars be safer. The car that kills people because it lacks any of these electronics is just as bad.

To elaborate on (A), with these particular features I don't see the car as causing distinct people to die compared to who it's saving. It's not trading between different groups of people in any meaningful way. It's just a single number of how many people die per mile. With other features you could get into that moral dilemma. With these features I don't think it does.

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

#448

Post by GekkePrutser »

mlindner wrote: post #386
GekkePrutser wrote: post #230

This is creepy. I don't want more electronics keeping eyes on me. In fact I don't want to be driving at all. Bring on the full-on self-driving car. I don't have a car though as I live in a city where I don't really need one (or could even park it if I wanted to). But in some countries you can't do without one sadly.

Caddilac has had this for years for their driver assistance system. It cuts out if you look away from the road. > https://www.autoevolution.com/news/how-cadillac-super-cruise... > It also keeps track of whether the driver is paying attention to the road. Unique to Super Cruise is that it does this not by requiring the driver to keep his hands or touch the steering wheel, but by tracking the driver’s eyes and head pos…

That others are doing it too doesn't make it less creepy :)

But you can't even buy Cadillac here in Europe.

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

#449

Post by waheoo »

fudged71 wrote: post #423
waheoo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inattentive ADHD doeant work the way you think it does.

As someone diagnosed with ADHD who sometimes looks in the rear view mirror more often than I should, I have to challenge you here.

That isn't inattentive ADHD, thats just ADHD, and really sounds like a scenario in which this this camera tech should detect as a problem.

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

#450

Post by tripzilch »

mannykannot wrote: post #113
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…

Hm... are you suggesting that Tesla's motivation here might be to develop a logging system to defend itself against liability claims by demonstrating that the driver was not paying attention, as opposed to a system to take measures at the time to prevent the crash? I would regard doing the former, while not the latter, to be deeply unethical, as, at least in my book, motive matters. I am not saying thet I expect Tesl…

> I am not saying thet I expect Tesla to do so

Why? Did they suddenly engineer themselves into a new type of corporation that doesn't drop its ethics at the first opportunity?

I have nothing specifically against Tesla, but I fully expect them to simply do whatever if they are incentivised by the right profit structure. The "best" corporations have disappointed me in this manner, no shame on Tesla for existing, but that is what it will do, given the chance.

"Tesla" is not your human friend that you can talk to or appease in the hope that it won't do what is its nature. Talking into the void won't tame it.

Post reply on HN