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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 379 posts

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

#351

Post by rootusrootus »

nickik wrote: post #333
gamblor956 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford's EV factory will have the capacity to make at least 1200 trucks/day, or more than 400k/year, with space to double the size of the facility. Once the factory begins production activities, demand will be the constraint on how fast they build Lightnings. People who go off-road absolutely want better clearance; it's one of the most popular aftermarket modifications made to off-road vehicles. On that front, the Cybe…

Go calculated the battery need for these 400k/year and try to understand that industry. And Tesla is building a factory that is equally designed to build that many trucks and the vertically integrate it with a huge battery factory likely even cathode manufacturing and lithium hydroxide production. The last Ford CEO (not that long ago) still believed Ford didn't even need a battery partnership. And the new CEO has bee…

> you just a hater

Just stop

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

#352

Post by ketamine__ »

jonplackett wrote: post #309
gmadsen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are self inflicted problems by only using cameras. These are entirely avoidable problems using the sensors and methods every other company besides Tesla are using

If those cameras were hooked up to an AR helmet and a human had 360 view of the car through them, I bet they could drive just fine. The data is there. Sensors might be an alternate strategy though and a way to at least take vision processing out of the list of hard problems.

Radar and Lidar would make the car safer than if a human was driving?

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

#353

Post by roenxi »

bumby wrote: post #349
roenxi wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Meaning, the intent behind an action matters despite the consequences. So if you are willingly putting people at risk...

People by and large don't intend to put people at risk. The intent of someone who causes a car crash is rarely malicious.

> This comes across as a "no true Scotsman" defense...

I suspect Kant would agree with me that it would be a difficult argument to carry as a philosopher when you are arguing in favour of increasing the corpse count for no particular reason. "If a self-driving car bugs out and kills someone, who's responsible?" certainly isn't a reason to kill people. We can afford to live in ignorance if it means more people live to die in their old age.

I'm on board with the idea that maybe someone has a reason that it is a good idea to just let people kill each other by accident. But so far in this thread nobody has bought one up.

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

#354

Post by computerex »

nickik wrote: post #345
computerex wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The internet. There are hundreds of complaints on the Tesla forums of phantom braking happening due to shadows.

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

#355

Post by computerex »

nickik wrote: post #345
computerex wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Elon's rationale for pure vision: https://urlshortner.org/uwLlv

It shows his ignorance. What happens when their model misclassifies with high confidence and fails to detect an obstacle? A collision.

There is a reason why every major company out there uses radar/LIDAR in addition to vision. It's because machine vision is a heuristic and it can and will fail with high confidence in its predictions. In those situations if you only have vision you are screwed.

Whereas lidar/radar are based on physics. They are physical systems and thus fundamentally more reliable and consistent than MV.

Thats why we use lidar/radar in places like the ISS to dock vehicles, because safety is critical.

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

#356

Post by bumby »

roenxi wrote: post #353
bumby wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> Meaning, the intent behind an action matters despite the consequences. So if you are willingly putting people at risk... People by and large don't intend to put people at risk. The intent of someone who causes a car crash is rarely malicious. > This comes across as a "no true Scotsman" defense... I suspect Kant would agree with me that it would be a difficult argument to carry as a philosopher when you are arguing…

>The intent of someone who causes a car crash is rarely malicious.

And yet it happens, which is to the point and (depending on locality) people are still held accountable. Adopting nascent technologies almost always comes with risk tradeoffs because we don't yet have a solid understanding of the latent risks. Look at aircraft statistics if you need an example. To your point, over time they will improve, but not without accepting additional risk in the near-term. The last point is false only if you believe we understand the risk profile enough to unequivocally say autonomous cars are safer in all conditions. I don't think we can claim that yet.

What you're advocating is like someone in the early 1950s being told "Just make everyone fly in a de Havilland Comet! Don't you know air travel is going to be the safest mode of travel per mile!?" While true over the long run and in the aggregate, that individual on the Comet is being told to take an outsized risk. I'm making the claim that some people (not even necessarily me) would have a moral issue with being told at the individual level they need to take a larger risk for the betterment of society in the future.

So even while in the long time horizon they may be safer, or even be safer in the aggregate now, you could be subjecting passengers to higher risks in those individual cases. I can't speak for Kant, but I think some people may think it's immoral to draconianly force them to accept that risk. Kant speaks against the hypothetical imperative which is a motivation to obtain certain ends (like forcing policy that reduces traffic deaths in the aggregate).

If you disagree, ask yourself or others a hypothetical: take whomever you love the most in this world whether it's a child, a parent, or a dog. Would you be willing to adopt a rule today that they can never step foot in an ape-driven car for the rest of their life and every instance of travel be relegated to autonomous vehicles? Even if you are okay with that risk, there are plenty of people who would balk at it.

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

#357

Post by gamblor956 »

nickik wrote: post #333
gamblor956 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford's EV factory will have the capacity to make at least 1200 trucks/day, or more than 400k/year, with space to double the size of the facility. Once the factory begins production activities, demand will be the constraint on how fast they build Lightnings. People who go off-road absolutely want better clearance; it's one of the most popular aftermarket modifications made to off-road vehicles. On that front, the Cybe…

Go calculated the battery need for these 400k/year and try to understand that industry. And Tesla is building a factory that is equally designed to build that many trucks and the vertically integrate it with a huge battery factory likely even cathode manufacturing and lithium hydroxide production. The last Ford CEO (not that long ago) still believed Ford didn't even need a battery partnership. And the new CEO has bee…

Ford has quite wisely chosen to let the battery experts make the batteries for them, and is using scale to drive down the costs of their batteries below what Tesla can achieve through vertical integration. Moreover, by not competing with the battery makers, Ford can always choose the best battery available when it comes time to sign new contracts, and isn't stuck with whatever technology their CEO is promoting on Twitter.

And the new CEO has been scrambling like crazy to get a partnership and they want to build a plant but that is still quite far away.

Ford's EV truck facility is already complete and is in pre-production trials to iron out kinks in the manufacturing lines. It is scheduled to begin mass production by the end of the summer. And unlike Tesla, Ford hits its timelines.

And you know that how?

I'm part of the crowd of people who would use it. And I talk to people, online and off, in the hiking, trail running, mountain biking, and aquatics, and off-roading communities. The interest in the Lightning in these groups is huge. People even cancelled their orders for Subarus when the Lightning dropped. In contrast, the Cybertruck is viewed as a joke: a truck that can't be used for hauling, can't be used for work, and can't be used for any outdoor activities; in short, a truck that can't be used as a truck unless you think a truck just sits in a driveway or a parking spot.

And that modification costs fair amount of money I would bet. The fact is the experience you get for the money is better. And comparing it to a Subaru wagon just tells me you are not actually serious, you just a hater.

No, lifting a car is generally less than $1000.

The fact is the experience you get for the money is better.

A Tesla interior is about the same quality as a 90's era KIA. Or in other words, it's the worst in the industry at almost any price level. And yes, I have ridden in every model of Tesla, including the original hand-made Tesla Roadsters.

And comparing it to a Subaru wagon just tells me you are not actually serious, you just a hater.

You're right, I was being very unfair to Subaru. Their wagons (the Outback and Crosstrek) have superior off-road capabilities compared to the Model Y or the expected capabilities of the Cybertruck. And the Subarus have nicer interiors. And better range. And better warranties. And are easier to get repaired. And are way cheaper.

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

#358

Post by creckic »

ghoward wrote: post #96
gauravphoenix wrote: post #58

>removing radar sensors to transition to a camera-based Autopilot system A few weeks back, I had a terrible experience while using auto pilot. I was driving on a highway (in CA) with autopilot engaged. For the most part, there was a concrete median on the highway. Suddenly, a section came with no concrete median and a new left only turn lane gets added. For whatever reasons, autopilot thought it is a great idea to su…

More people need to see your comment because there seems to be a belief that full self driving is just around the corner. However, IMO, it will never happen because it needs a full artificial general intelligence. In your case, the new lane was clearly marked, which just shows how weak the system really is. Imagine if there was snow covering the lane markings. Or sunlight reflecting off of the road confuses the visio…

> which just shows how weak the system really is

The old system. Current Autopilot is using the old system. Not relevant to the new FSD beta.

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

#359

Post by creckic »

gauravphoenix wrote: post #58

>removing radar sensors to transition to a camera-based Autopilot system A few weeks back, I had a terrible experience while using auto pilot. I was driving on a highway (in CA) with autopilot engaged. For the most part, there was a concrete median on the highway. Suddenly, a section came with no concrete median and a new left only turn lane gets added. For whatever reasons, autopilot thought it is a great idea to su…

> I can't trust auto pilot anymore- it couldn't deal with a dead-simple scenario of a clearly marked lane getting added.

You are not supposed to trust it. You are supposed to use it as an assistance feature. It's not meant to be autonomous.

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

#360

Post by creckic »

Closi wrote: post #108
ghoward wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people need to see your comment because there seems to be a belief that full self driving is just around the corner. However, IMO, it will never happen because it needs a full artificial general intelligence. In your case, the new lane was clearly marked, which just shows how weak the system really is. Imagine if there was snow covering the lane markings. Or sunlight reflecting off of the road confuses the visio…

> However, IMO, it will never happen because it needs a full artificial general intelligence. I don’t think that’s true - but it certainly needs more than a couple of poor resolution cameras and some underpowered hardware powered by hype. You can see how poor the vision of these systems is by just watching a few Tesla autopilot videos and seeing cars flash into/out of recognition on the screen. The first actual self…

> You can see how poor the vision of these systems is by just watching a few Tesla autopilot videos and seeing cars flash into/out of recognition on the screen.

Autopilot is not FSD. Autopilot is using the old system, FSD is using an architectural rewrite.

Post reply on HN