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

Comma Three Devkit

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#51

Post by sjburt »

kelnos wrote: post #36
woodruffw wrote: post #33

I'm not anywhere near a specialist when it comes to car software, CAN, or self-driving, but I'm concerned by some of the code that (appears to) control some of the supported cars: I pulled up a random file[1], and it's littered with undocumented bytestrings that are apparently sent over the CAN bus, as magic constants (with accompanying comments that mention "aggressive" and "laggy" behavior). I have no insight into…

On one hand I agree with you wholeheartedly (I also think python is a weird language choice for something that probably has some hard real-time requirements), but also consider that stuff like that may very well be present in the code bases of the closed-source commercial solutions, but unless someone who has worked on one of them speaks up, we'll never know.

If actual controls engineers are involved, it's probably going to a be a terrifying blob of C autogenerated from Simulink or something like that.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#52

Post by DesolationJones »

kelnos wrote: post #36
woodruffw wrote: post #33

I'm not anywhere near a specialist when it comes to car software, CAN, or self-driving, but I'm concerned by some of the code that (appears to) control some of the supported cars: I pulled up a random file[1], and it's littered with undocumented bytestrings that are apparently sent over the CAN bus, as magic constants (with accompanying comments that mention "aggressive" and "laggy" behavior). I have no insight into…

On one hand I agree with you wholeheartedly (I also think python is a weird language choice for something that probably has some hard real-time requirements), but also consider that stuff like that may very well be present in the code bases of the closed-source commercial solutions, but unless someone who has worked on one of them speaks up, we'll never know.

There's openpilot code, and then there's panda code that runs on a separate real time micro chip. All the safety relavent code runs on the panda, and it's written in C following misra c guidelines. They also comply with iso 26262.

See more info about their safety model in the safety architecture section of this blog post.

https://comma-ai.medium.com/how-to-write-a-car-port-for-open...

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#53

Post by DesolationJones »

woodruffw wrote: post #47
solarkraft wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s some messing around involved in building the interfaces to the cars. Comma’s excuse for why you shouldn’t be concerned is that both Open Pilot and the cars themselves have limits against erratic movements.

> Comma’s excuse for why you shouldn’t be concerned is that both Open Pilot and the cars themselves have limits against erratic movements. Are these limits baked into the cars at some level beneath Comma, or do they rely on the same physical layers and networks? It makes perfect sense to me that the car has its own limits; my concern is that installing Comma takes the car outside of its expected operating parameters…

They have a seperate device that enforces more conservative limits than what the car allows.

https://comma-ai.medium.com/how-to-write-a-car-port-for-open...

Any safety limits like on the eps firmware stays intact and aren't bypassed.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#54

Post by sjburt »

woodruffw wrote: post #44
kelnos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand I agree with you wholeheartedly (I also think python is a weird language choice for something that probably has some hard real-time requirements), but also consider that stuff like that may very well be present in the code bases of the closed-source commercial solutions, but unless someone who has worked on one of them speaks up, we'll never know.

Yeah, that's why I couched my critique a little bit: I have no insight whatsoever into the commercial side of this and, for all I know, it could be even worse! But that alone is bloodchilling: it terrifies me, as a pedestrian and cyclist, to think that stuff like this is probably controlling the pieces of machinery that could kill me in a split second.

In their system, the actual real-time safety critical code is elsewhere, on a dedicated processor. The python code sends messages to the safety code, which applies limits and sends commands to the car hardware. And other safety systems like AEB are totally untouched and still functional.

The safety code has a limit on steering ramp rate and a max torque limit. The driver can easily overpower the torque limit, and the ramp rate limit means it won't suddenly jerk.

The python code I think is temporary, they ultimately want to do end-to-end models that do both perception and control (rather than a model to do perception and traditional controller to do control). If that effort fails I think they would probably replace the python code, the current stuff is definitely amateurish.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#55

Post by treelovinhippie »

kelnos wrote: post #45
treelovinhippie wrote: post #27

For those new to the comma.ai strategy: Autopilot is iOS. Openpilot is Android. Far more devices running Android than iOS in the world. And unlike consumer tech, the average car on the road is over 12 years old. So there's a long window of opportunity where we might see more people choose to upgrade their current vehicles to self-driving, versus those choosing to buy new vehicles with inbuilt self-driving hardware.

I think a big barrier to adoption here is that your Android phone most likely won't kill you if it has a bad bug[0]. Comma almost certainly won't get widespread adoption until it has enough miles driven on it (at least a billion?) for people to have enough data to start talking about its safety record. So that means it'll be stuck in the realm of enthusiasts for quite a long time. If it does prove itself, though, I a…

Yeah definitely. Though the timeframe is in the 10-30 year range. Safe bet that 10 years from now most vehicles on the road will still be human-driven. Openpilot with 10 more years of development will be impressive.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#56

Post by varelse »

birken wrote: post #32
varelse wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um... Have you driven a Mach E yet? No interest in its upcoming FSD, but the adaptive cruise control and lane assistance is wonderfully conservative and useful.

I've only driven my car, but Consumer Reports tested a bunch of cars and rated Comma the best [1]. Maybe another car since then is better, but of course Comma is always getting updated and you just download the new version to your device when it comes out. 1: https://data.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/...

After reading a description of the comma device and how it's being used it seems uncannily like how my Mach E drives. But also as both my first EV and my first semi self-driving car, perhaps I have a different set of standards. My TLDR was that the adaptive cruise control and automatic lane keeping extended my daily driving range by several hundred miles by reducing cognitive load significantly. It was the best 900 miles I've ever driven.

But watching people nitpick various variants of electric crossover SUVs, I realize I would probably like just about all of them because none of my cars have been anything like that up to now.

So I keyed in my other two cars to see if I could put the comma into it and alas I cannot. They are 2013 and 2016 models respectively.

And yes the system in the Mach E is brand new:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32896537/fords-driver-ass...

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#57

Post by bobsomers »

stefan_ wrote: post #13
yewenjie wrote: post #2

AFAIK Comma.ai is the only open-source company in the self-driving cars space. It is very interesting that they are continuously launching consumer-products with a small team and in a highly competitive space where the other players are quite big.

This does not in any shape or form compete in the self-driving cars space; the thing doesn't have a rear camera! This is basically the "rsync as Dropbox" approach to augmenting your car with a hacky version of automatic cruise control, with a bonus lawsuit should you ever be in a crash significant enough to warrant the attention (think paralysis).

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. This is an accurate, if colorful, assessment. It has all the same safety problems as a Tesla with even worse sensors, less compute, and practically zero real safety V&V work.

They cutely dodged NHTSA's regulatory ire by shipping a "dash cam" that happens to run software you can install which makes it semi-autonomous... even though said software is made by the same company that ships the "dash cam". NHTSA isn't stupid, so I'm curious what it will take for this loophole to eventually be properly closed.

Sadly, safety is a lot like security. When it's done well, it's invisible, but when it's done poorly...

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#58

Post by DesolationJones »

kelnos wrote: post #45
treelovinhippie wrote: post #27

For those new to the comma.ai strategy: Autopilot is iOS. Openpilot is Android. Far more devices running Android than iOS in the world. And unlike consumer tech, the average car on the road is over 12 years old. So there's a long window of opportunity where we might see more people choose to upgrade their current vehicles to self-driving, versus those choosing to buy new vehicles with inbuilt self-driving hardware.

I think a big barrier to adoption here is that your Android phone most likely won't kill you if it has a bad bug[0]. Comma almost certainly won't get widespread adoption until it has enough miles driven on it (at least a billion?) for people to have enough data to start talking about its safety record. So that means it'll be stuck in the realm of enthusiasts for quite a long time. If it does prove itself, though, I a…

No OEM tests their ADAS for a billion miles before release. It's a level 2 system that requires human attention, not a 100% self driving level 5 system. Ford claims they'll release their new adas, Blue Cruise, when they reach 500,000 miles of testing. (doubt it was that much for their current co-pilot 360) Openpilot so far has 50 million miles.

I think safety has already been proven, and I don't think that's preventing widespread adoption at all. It's not like most people even know about this product. It's currently being purposely kept down-low in order to only attract a certain type of tech savvy person who is more likely contribute to the project in some way (pull requests, bug reports) or at a type of person who at least won't need heavy hand holding. A large mainstream consumer audience for a dev kit is too much for them to handle, and would just be a distraction.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#59

Post by loganboyd »

sjburt wrote: post #54
woodruffw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's why I couched my critique a little bit: I have no insight whatsoever into the commercial side of this and, for all I know, it could be even worse! But that alone is bloodchilling: it terrifies me, as a pedestrian and cyclist, to think that stuff like this is probably controlling the pieces of machinery that could kill me in a split second.

In their system, the actual real-time safety critical code is elsewhere, on a dedicated processor. The python code sends messages to the safety code, which applies limits and sends commands to the car hardware. And other safety systems like AEB are totally untouched and still functional. The safety code has a limit on steering ramp rate and a max torque limit. The driver can easily overpower the torque limit, and the…

George just said today during a Q+A session that they do not intend to do learned control because traditional control is already greatly exceeds human ability.

Re: Comma Three Devkit

#60

Post by bertil »

robbedpeter wrote: post #12
bertil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m generally not a fan of that kind of fig-leaf (say “we are not sharing weapons, just information” when encouraging people to print a gun-shaped bobby trap that is more likely to blow your hand than change anyone’s mind about gun control) but in this case, the veneer of technical engagement seems to filter for, or encourage people who are excited enough by self-driving that they actually pay attention and send feed…

It's very likely a deliberate and precise execution of the legal requirements to shield themselves from legal liability, under the advice of lawyers. At each step, from the coding to the hardware development to installation and configuration the responsibility is clear. The installer of both hardware and software ends up being responsible for the use of the system in a way that is much more legally clear than other a…

> deliberate and precise execution of the legal requirements

I really want to agree with you, all evidence says you are right — but then I see any 30 seconds of geohot, speaking a mile a minute and saying about 40 things that would give any lawyer a heart attack, assertively antagonising _everyone_ and piling on the least politically correct way of seeing things. Either he’s the Top-Gun of walking the fine legal line, or he’s incredibly lucky. Inexplicably, lucky seems more likely.

Post reply on HN