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

111–120 of 298 posts

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#111

Post by [deleted] »

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".

[deleted]

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#112

Post by slg »

yannoninator wrote: post #98
slg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just started an aerospace company making planes in my garage. My company has killed less people than either Boeing or Airbus. Does that mean I make safer planes than either of those two companies?

A sentence can be technically correct while also being actively misleading.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#114

Post by 3327 »

cbracketdash wrote: post #26
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…

It is still very early in its development stage so they do not want much liability.

I remember the founder interviewed me to be CEO, when he hit the investment and publicly insulted Papa Elon for kudos and bad assness. The guy was a jerk on the phone and 10 mins in I told Him to piss off and thought to myself “wow - who would work with this guy” he’s been at it since 2016 so glad it didn’t flop, but looks like he ate his words to Papa Musk.

Nothin’ like some good old humble startup pie.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#115

Post by alisonkisk »

madamelic wrote: post #41
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…

98% of that is boilerplate language for any product you use. The uppercase is legalese to wiggle out of responsibility.

I don't want to wiggle into a car crash.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#116

Post by Closi »

gonehome wrote: post #99
slg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It’s because the standard product doesn’t have autopilot, they sell a driver assistance tool. The tool they sell does not have autopilot.

The device is open, and you can flash with their open source code from GitHub to give you hacky autopilot. This is how they get around the legal issue.

It’s like a “we sell you a legal product. We advise you don’t flash this code on it which we are hosting on GitHub wink wink”

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#117

Post by almost_usual »

gonehome wrote: post #99
slg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Welcome to the world of aftermarket vehicle modifications.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#118

Post by serf »

slg wrote: post #63
derision wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's pretty cleared being sold as a devkit. would you buy a PS5 devkit and expect it to be exactly the same as the retail PS5? I don't understand the issue here

"Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists." ~ Ian Malcolm

it's interesting to read Jeff Goldblum's characteristic staccato translated to text.

I hadn't thought about how I would have written it out.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#119

Post by stunt »

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…

They are selling this product as a dashcam for obvious reasons. The autopilot feature is an experimental feature that you have to enable yourself on your own risk.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#120

Post by onelovetwo »

gonehome wrote: post #99
slg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I think its just them trying to fend off those people that are looking for anything to sue companies. Telsa gets these lawsuits all the time, but they have a bunch of lawyers to deal with it.
Post reply on HN