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

161–170 of 298 posts

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#161

Post by mikeryan »

derision wrote: post #52
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'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

I have a PS5 devkit and develop apps for it. Yes I expect it to be exactly like the retail PS5 - or what's the point?

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#162

Post by tomcam »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #69
jeremycarter wrote: post #62

Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. I've looked through some of the code and I think for me to buy into the safety the quality of the code would need to be improved, well commented, and audited.

Haha I just had a horrifying throught about troubleshooting broken virtualenv installs and deadlocked dependencies, while on the side of the road with a car that refuses to start.

Username noted

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#163

Post by jeffreygoesto »

bko wrote: post #157
picks_at_nits wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It may not hold up in court but it can't hurt" If you sell someone something with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, and they get killed using it, it absolutely hurts. You may be able to weasel out of being held accountable for it, in which case it won't hurt you , but the larger issue here is that this kind of misleading copy can lead to people making poor decisions. You may have put it in the fine print that it's not a rea…

What's the appropriate level of liability? If I buy a cell phone holder for my car, and it distracts me and I get into an accident? What if Car Play lags and i'm distracted and I get into an accident? What if radio plays an ambulance and I freak out and get into an accident? What if my sunglasses make me mistake a red light? This product does lane assist. It does a good job according to consumer reports [0], higher t…

Please don't doxx Ford engineers if you don't give any proof. There are hard working, ethical people working who don't want to kill people by lightheartedly pushing stuff on the road. Just because you don't know them does not mean they are not talented.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#164

Post by picks_at_nits »

bko wrote: post #157
picks_at_nits wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It may not hold up in court but it can't hurt" If you sell someone something with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, and they get killed using it, it absolutely hurts. You may be able to weasel out of being held accountable for it, in which case it won't hurt you , but the larger issue here is that this kind of misleading copy can lead to people making poor decisions. You may have put it in the fine print that it's not a rea…

What's the appropriate level of liability? If I buy a cell phone holder for my car, and it distracts me and I get into an accident? What if Car Play lags and i'm distracted and I get into an accident? What if radio plays an ambulance and I freak out and get into an accident? What if my sunglasses make me mistake a red light? This product does lane assist. It does a good job according to consumer reports [0], higher t…

I'm not gonna debate the "appropriate level of liability."

My point has to do with what you're signalling. If a thing is alpha-level, and real humans can get killed, I wouldn't let random people buy it and use it in their cars, period.

Informed consent is deeply problematic for a product like this: Very few people have the expertise to look at the code and the hardware and properly evaluate the risks, right down to understanding which kinds of edge cases need to be very carefully avoided.

Unless you're vetting researchers and barring people who just want to save a few bucks and brag their car self-drives, you really don't know if every person who downloads the extra software really does grasp the implications of what they're consenting to.

You might grasp the implications, and so might many people in this thread, but that doesn't guarantee that everyone does. THE AUDIENCE OF HACKER NEWS IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF SOCIETY.

And we are talking about a product to be used on open roads: In addition to informed consent from the person who downloads the software, if they get into an accident with another vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist, did any of those people consent to share the road with someone who installed alpha software on their device?

Morally, I can't get behind a few disclaimers and a nudge-nudge, wink-wink for any kind of autonomous driving tech, even if it's "just" lane-keeping.

———

Update: But to be clear, I am in favour of people tinkering with all sorts of digital automotive tech, and we really should find a way for lone inventors or small teams to innovate without the "enterprise outfits" using regulatory capture to drown small competitors with red tape.

I'm only arguing in favour of truly informed consent, which I believe is tricky for driver assistance technology being provided to arbitrary customers.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#165

Post by tjoff »

gonehome wrote: post #160
tjoff wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Exactly the same as Tesla then? Though I do think they are both terrible reckless. "The driver is always responsible" might or might not be a good enough legal scapegoat, but morally inexcusable.

Not at all the same as Tesla. Tesla expects you to use its product on the road and expects it to work within the constraints they tell you with you also paying attention.

> "with you also paying attention."

So no guarantees whatsoever then. Because you are always responsible and are always expected to recover from anything the autopilot might ever come up with.

Teslas do fail in deadly ways. Everyone that cares to look knows this. Yet Tesla is fine with it, even while knowing that humans can't reason about safety when the car drives perfectly the other 99% of times.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#166

Post by bko »

coddle-hark wrote: post #122
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…

The latest commit in the repo [0] right now is "should work" (34ff295). Filtering by "bug" in the issue tracker gives: Comma two freeze and reboot while engaged . I recently had an incident on the interstate where my comma two froze completely (while engaged) and rebooted. The video froze, Comma's steering torque turned off, then after about five seconds in this state, the device rebooted. Zygote restarting while OP…

Cool. Now do Volvo Pilot Assist.

Comma.ai is trying to do big things and I hope they succeed. No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car and I have little faith in auto manufacturers to deliver.

Lane assist technology exists. Look at consumer reports for a comprehensive review [0] (comma.ai was #1 in lane assist, above even tesla). They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-ranks-t...

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#167

Post by leesec »

Judgmentality wrote: post #153
crazypython wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. It uses CPython, which is reference counted, letting them ensure predictable timing/hard real-time system.

> hard real-time system It's running on Android.

AFAIK, The safety controls are done in the Connector piece to the car, which uses C/C++.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#168

Post by leesec »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #43
Justsignedup wrote: post #23

Okay, anecdotes aside... What level of autonomy does this provide? Is it just basically lane assist?

I've seen a few videos of it. It really is just a half step up from active lane keeping. It will proactively keep you centered and manage your speed with no interaction, whereas normal lane keeping only kicks in if you are about to drift out of the lane.

A "half step up" doesn't really do it justice. Most current LKA + Adaptive Cruise Control on cars will only keep you in the lane for a few seconds before requiring human engagement. The Comma Openpilot has already driven intervention free for hours.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#169

Post by gkop »

Judgmentality wrote: post #153
crazypython wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. It uses CPython, which is reference counted, letting them ensure predictable timing/hard real-time system.

> hard real-time system It's running on Android.

You’re replying to a joke I think.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#170

Post by gkop »

crazypython wrote: post #97

If self-driving companies really believed in their product, they would bundle car insurance that only works when self-driving is on with the product, and it would be cheaper than normal car insurance.

In fact we have the opposite, where MetroMile advertises lower premiums, while conveniently occupying your ODB2 port, without providing pass-through, preventing the use of Comma’s product (this honestly makes me consider switching from Geico to MetroMile, so I’m not subsidizing Comma customers, but there are other issues with MetroMile...).
Post reply on HN