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

Autopilot on Cars for $999

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 298 posts

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#91

Post by pcl »

hbarka wrote: post #38
yannoninator wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know for sure Tesla and Uber has. Seems like Comma's product requires your attention through driver monitoring whereas Tesla's product is non existent in this area. And with Uber the driver was distracted. edit: Downvoters, i'm a bit confused here, so Tesla and Uber hasn't killed anybody then?

Tesla’s product also requires driver monitoring. They explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false. Not excusing Tesla’s faults but the volume of Tesla’s cars on the road compared to Comma’s would probably explain the difference in statistics.

The grandparent used “driver monitoring” to mean “the car monitors the driver to make sure the driver is paying attention to the road”, I believe.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#92

Post by kstrauser »

naebother wrote: post #60
Gys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://comma.ai/faq Why even ask? Long trips means spending a lot of time boringly driving on the highway with clear weather. I do not care for help in the more difficult first 15 min or last 15 min. I care about having help during the many hours in between.

That's interesting. I'm the complete opposite. Highway driving is the least taxing -- I can do it subconsciously. It's the more difficult first/last 15 mins of stop and go that I want automated. I could care less about the highway in clear weather. I might even enjoy that bit occasionally.

I generally agree, but heading north on I-5 from LA to SF is bumper to bumper traffic constantly swinging between 50 MPH and 75 MPH. Normal cruise control is worthless here because you're never going the same speed long enough to be a net benefit. I would absolutely love adaptive cruise control plus semi-automatic steering in that one scenario.

Stick me out in the middle of nowhere and I'm perfectly content driving for hundreds of miles straight. I don't find myself in that too often now, though.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#93

Post by trulyme »

thethethethe wrote: post #87

It seems like the market for a product like this (augmenting older vehicles) will diminish over time as more and more vehicles come with these features plus rolling updates and more advanced sensors standard. If this proves to be the case, I wonder what the company will do to pivot

Not sure why the downvotes, it is a legit risk for this business. Remember how one could convert analog SLR cameras to digital with some kits? It wasn't a success story...

EDIT: at least not for long.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#94

Post by RealityVoid »

bri3d wrote: post #32
tekromancr wrote: post #6

Wait, founded by George Hotz? As in GeoHot? The PS3 jailbreak guy?

Yes, this has been his project for many years now - he threw a fit and fled to China in 2016 when the NHTSA sent him a Special Order requesting test data for the Comma One product, which he then cancelled and released as pseudo open-source (the ML model is still a closed black box).

Can you point me to the part that is closed? Last time I looked, there were just a bunch of weights.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#95

Post by chairmanwow1 »

naebother wrote: post #60
Gys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://comma.ai/faq Why even ask? Long trips means spending a lot of time boringly driving on the highway with clear weather. I do not care for help in the more difficult first 15 min or last 15 min. I care about having help during the many hours in between.

That's interesting. I'm the complete opposite. Highway driving is the least taxing -- I can do it subconsciously. It's the more difficult first/last 15 mins of stop and go that I want automated. I could care less about the highway in clear weather. I might even enjoy that bit occasionally.

I thought the same until I tried a good L2 system. ACC and LKA are pure value adds. Lower the number of moments where your focus snaps back in as you are meandering out of the lane or creeping up on the person in front of you.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#96

Post by stjo »

thethethethe wrote: post #87

It seems like the market for a product like this (augmenting older vehicles) will diminish over time as more and more vehicles come with these features plus rolling updates and more advanced sensors standard. If this proves to be the case, I wonder what the company will do to pivot

Sell directly to manufacturers? Nearly no one (except Tesla) has anything coming in the near future. Why anyone they pay billions to develop the technology in-house if they can just pay Comma.ai to integrate a sub $1000 thingy in their cars.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#98

Post by yannoninator »

slg wrote: post #86
yannoninator wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. I definitely would not consider any car with adaptive cruise control without driver monitoring, especially one that touts self driving capabilities.

Be my guest if you want to argue the merits of one system over another based on some technical specs or design decisions. My point is that the track records are not long enough to draw any statistical conclusions and the Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't argument is at best wildly misleading given the large differences in miles driven.

> Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?

> ...Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn't...

So no then.

This is the correct answer, thank you.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#99

Post by gonehome »

slg wrote: post #34
delightful wrote: post #18

Is it correct Comma.AI sees this as the following statement below appears to say, or am I missing something? If so, why would anyone be using this product outside of a test environment that’s fully controlled? — “Any user of this software shall indemnify and hold harmless comma.ai, Inc. and its directors, officers, employees, agents, stockholders, affiliates, subcontractors and customers from and against all allegati…

>THIS IS ALPHA QUALITY SOFTWARE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT. It is weird that one of the only things I see above the fold on the company's home page is a "Buy Now" button considering they don't actually sell "a product".

Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways.

Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road.

This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it.

Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we have millions of miles driven on it and obviously expect you to do so.

I'd think they'd be better off with some sort of honest policy around this that they could actually defend, but I am not a lawyer.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#100

Post by stjo »

akira2501 wrote: post #76
madamelic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human life is sacred. Absolutely. but. If we are concerned with cars killing people, we should get rid of cars. This FUD around self-driving == killing people will, in the long-term, cause more deaths than the handful of sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. The only reason those car crashes get national attention is because they were self-driving. In every other way they are boring. Bicyclists hit by ca…

> sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems. > is because they were self-driving. Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we know that the mobility that cars provi…

> human drivers _wouldn't_ make

But human drivers make a lot of mistakes that computer drivers _wouldn't_.

If it is safER than humans - it is better. No need to be perfect.

Post reply on HN