Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#341

Post by roenxi » Fri, May 28, 2021, 7:59 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #298

roenxi wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make any sense to look at a situation and say "well, I could save 5 lives at no cost ... but nah". It really doesn't matter who is responsible when a self driving car kills someone. We're going to respond by making the self-driving module of the car safer whether it is responsible or not. We're putting a driver on the road who can still learn after suffering a fatal accident! This is huge, it means all par…

> who cares about philosophical technicalities The whole argument above is built upon the assumption that everybody agrees with a utilitarian mindset so I’m assuming the answer to the question, in part, is you should care about the philosophical underpinnings.

Which philosophy are people subscribing to where they are happy to accept a mound of corpses in exchange for holding someone accountable?

Not preventing them from doing something in the future, mind you. Holding them accountable won't be a net long term improvement. Just accountability for the sake of punishment.

I'm sure there are people who believe that, but I suspect most of the reputable philosophers will agree with the utilitarians on this particular issue.

It is difficult to defend against "your stubbornness will cause mounds of corpses for no obvious gain". This is a pretty clear cut line of approach.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#342

Post by Corrado » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:02 AM UTC

qubitcoder wrote: post #312

tzs wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't engaged autopilot since then. I can't trust auto pilot anymore- it couldn't deal with a dead-simple scenario of a clearly marked lane getting added. I have a question about Tesla Autopilot. Looking at the common driver assistance features that are common nowadays even on many entry level models from most car companies, I see adaptive cruise control (often with low speed following), warnings if you start t…

Absolutely. All the features you mentioned are standard and work independently of Autopilot [0] It probably has the best and most intuitive lane keeping, adaptive cruise control, blind spot alerts, collision detection warnings, etc. out there (at least from the cars I've driven). For example, other intelligent cruise control systems I've used will rigidly and aggressively maintain a fixed distance from the car in fro…

I just finished a couple of 500 mile drives in my Model Y and can confirm that Autopilot was wonderful. The lane keeping was great and the adaptive cruise control was outstanding! It was very relaxing being able to relax a bit while letting the car make most of the decisions.

On straight highways with little traffic there I had zero problems with Autopilot. As a test, I engaged it in some not-so-great conditions (rainy, twisty mountain roads with lots of tractor trailer traffic) and the result was a bit more exciting. So, yes, used appropriately, Autopilot is great. I'm not really sold on FSD yet.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#343

Post by LeoPanthera » Fri, May 28, 2021, 8:55 AM UTC

gauravphoenix wrote: post #106

dkonofalski wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. If a new left-only turn lane was added, wouldn't it have steered you into that new lane? How did it steer you into oncoming traffic?

Nope. I was going straight and had no intention of turning at all anywhere. Just because a lane is getting added doesn't mean I want to move to that lane.

I think what he's asking is, a new left-turn lane would have been to your left. So, in order to steer into oncoming traffic it would have had to change lanes at least twice, first into the new left lane, and then left again into traffic. There's something missing from your description.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#344

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 28, 2021, 9:03 AM UTC

osmarks wrote: post #255

IncRnd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related to what you wrote, I strongly disagree with the argument that some people make, where it is said X lives were saved. But, what they are really saying is that Y people, who wouldn't otherwise die, were killed by the new technology, yet overall fewer died! What good is any technology if it is known to kill people who would otherwise be alive?

Why does the particular set of people matter instead of just the difference in numbers? If the Y people happened to be a subset of those who would die without the technology, is that better? If you somehow move all the deaths caused by a thing to a different but equally large set of people, is that bad because those people "would otherwise be alive"?

[deleted]

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#345

Post by nickik » Fri, May 28, 2021, 10:21 AM UTC

computerex wrote: post #340

nickik wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The redundancy is not free. The false positives cause the car to potentially react in the wrong way and that can also kill people. Tradeoffs have to be made in the real world. Why don't we force ever car to have radar, sonar, cameras, lidar and so on. Who cares what the cost is? If we can save a single life we should equip all 10 million cars that are sold every year with all of these things. This is not how safety w…

The phantom braking is not a radar issue, it's an issue with the vision system. That's why removing radar is such a monumentally stupid idea because Tesla's vision system has proven itself to be a pile of burning dog poop. If their vision system was actually good/safe and was truly unneeded then they'd have a stronger case for removing radar (but not a watertight case, because redundancy). As it is, their vision syst…

> The phantom braking is not a radar issue, it's an issue with the vision system.

Where are you getting that information?

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#346

Post by simias » Fri, May 28, 2021, 10:57 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #341

bumby wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who cares about philosophical technicalities The whole argument above is built upon the assumption that everybody agrees with a utilitarian mindset so I’m assuming the answer to the question, in part, is you should care about the philosophical underpinnings.

Which philosophy are people subscribing to where they are happy to accept a mound of corpses in exchange for holding someone accountable? Not preventing them from doing something in the future, mind you. Holding them accountable won't be a net long term improvement. Just accountability for the sake of punishment. I'm sure there are people who believe that, but I suspect most of the reputable philosophers will agree w…

It's not so much about accountability in the legal sense, it's in the public perception sense.

"Old Uncle Bob forgot his glasses again and ran over a kid" doesn't have any implication regarding my use of a car. "A self-driving Tesla was confused by work signage and ran over a kid" would destroy a lot of trust into self-driving cars.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#347

Post by bengale » Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:02 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #243

bengale wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument could be that drivers also only use vision, but other cars do come with radars to supplement driver's vision. I don’t buy this argument at all, a lot of drivers are absolutely terrible. I think we should be making automated vehicles better than humans.

You've been drinking kool aid, because right now self driving cars are much worse than humans. Maybe in future, but we are not there yet. We are discussing about he change happening right now.

But these cars aren't disposable, the whole point is that they are upgradable via software, is it not? These self driving cars will hopefully improve, but limiting them because 'humans don't use radar' seems short sighted. Perhaps we would be better drivers if we'd evolved with some sort of radar.

Also I'm not sure to which koolaid you refer, but if its the Tesla one you should probably know I'm extremely sceptical of their claims and have no intention of owning one.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#348

Post by juanani » Fri, May 28, 2021, 12:05 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #278

Lendal wrote: post #55

The irritating thing is it's all so unnecessary. My Tesla is a great car. But I paid an extra $10,000 for a feature that was promised but still hasn't been fully delivered, FSD. It feels like I paid extra for my awesome car to be sabotaged. What was promised by FSD was never going to be possible, and yet they are doubling down. They need to stop this idiocy. The vision system is horrible. The car stops at green light…

But having auto-parallel parking on a rainy night with tight spacing is awesome. (even though I think it exclusively uses sonar)

Some luxury cars have had this feature for over a decade.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#349

Post by bumby » Fri, May 28, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #341

bumby wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who cares about philosophical technicalities The whole argument above is built upon the assumption that everybody agrees with a utilitarian mindset so I’m assuming the answer to the question, in part, is you should care about the philosophical underpinnings.

Which philosophy are people subscribing to where they are happy to accept a mound of corpses in exchange for holding someone accountable? Not preventing them from doing something in the future, mind you. Holding them accountable won't be a net long term improvement. Just accountability for the sake of punishment. I'm sure there are people who believe that, but I suspect most of the reputable philosophers will agree w…

>Which philosophy are people subscribing to where they are happy to accept a mound of corpses in exchange for holding someone accountable?

(I'm not a philosopher so maybe somebody with an actual background can correct me if I'm wrong)

Ignoring the hyperbole in your statement, I think the traditional counterpoint to consequentialism is deontology. Meaning, the intent behind an action matters despite the consequences. So if you are willingly putting people at risk in the short-term for the "long term good", it's morally wrong. History is rife with examples of how taking an "ends justify the means" philosophy can lead to truly abhorrent policy decisions.

>but I suspect most of the reputable philosophers will agree with the utilitarians on this particular issue.

This comes across as a "no true Scotsman" defense by implying if one is not a utilitarian in this case, they must not be reputable. Kant is generally considered a "reputable" philosopher and would likely fall on the deontological side of the argument as would many others.

>This is a pretty clear cut line of approach.

Ethics is not mathematics so there is often no "clear cut" answer. If you are defining policy, absolutism in this realm is dangerous; you have to acknowledge other people's morals may differ from yours and not fall prey to the presumption that just because it makes sense to you, it must be right.

Re: Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

#350

Post by rootusrootus » Fri, May 28, 2021, 1:30 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #335

wearywanderer wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your objective measure other then the look of the Cybertruck are you applying here. What is your objective basis for believing I have said anything about the appearance of cybertruck? My comment talks about availability of spare parts and third party repair. Tesla vehicles are notoriously poor in these regards. You seem to have read quite a lot that I did not write (Tesla fanboys seem to do this a lot.)

I didn't imply that you said anything about the look, I mentioned it as any example of something that is objectively different. So you mentioned actual argument, repair parts availability. So you mention one thing and the declare the CB to be DOA. You must release how incredibly dumb that is right? How would you react if a Tesla fan said 'Cybertruck is faster to 60mph therefore the F-150 is DOA'. Its just disingenuou…

> I assume you have some sort of dislike for Tesla.

This is a theme in your posts. You assume that everyone critical of Tesla's choices must be a hater. Just because you see Tesla as some sort of personal reflection doesn't mean the rest of us do.