Judging by the lack of a market reaction this morning, this is mostly immaterial.
Stocks like Tesla have long been divorced from business realities so I wouldn't put too much stake in that
U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
11–20 of 507 posts
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#12Unfortunately the article doesn't mention anything about how common it is for human drivers to crash into first responder vehicles during the night. I'm not trying to downplay these cases, as hitting emergency vehicles is very bad indeed, yet ~4 such crashes per year might be in the same ballpark or even better than "unassisted" drivers that cause such crashes.
Also doesn’t mention that this is an inherent limitation in TACC+ systems, and is specifically called out as such in Volvo, BMW, and Cadillac vehicle manuals as a limitation. Much ado about nothing unless regulators are going to outlaw radar based adaptive cruise control (which, of course, they’re not).
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#13This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
that's not human nature, that's user stupidity
What's the... Difference?
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#14Predictable outcome of a sensing system fully based on deep learning. Rare unusual situations don't have enough training data and lead to unpredictable output. I still think that Tesla's approach is the right one, I just think they need to gather more data before letting this product be used in the wild unsupervised.
Current TACC/auto-steer doesn’t use deep learning except on the newest Model 3/Y vehicles with “TeslaVision”. All cars with radar use the radar and radar only to determine if they should stop for the following car.
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#15This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
Today, there is at least one of the most advanced Neural Networks entering each car: A human being. If we could just implement the AI to add to this person and not replace it...
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#16Oopsie. This strikes me as perhaps one of the growing pains of not-quite-self-driving: common sense would dictate that manual control would be taken by the driver when approaching an unusual situation like a roadside incident, but we just can't trust the common sense of a minority of people.
Tesla perhaps isn't being loud enough about how autopilot isn't self-driving, and shouldn't even be relied upon to hit the brakes when something is in front of you.
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#17This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
I disagree. One feature my car has is to pull me back into the lane when I veer out of it (Subaru's lane keep assist). That is still incremental improvement towards "full self driving". I agree, however, that Tesla's Autopilot is not functional enough, and any tool designed to allow humans to remove their hands from the wheel should not require their immediate attention in any way.
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#18This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
I’d be curious if there are studies out there on how to do automated assists in machines that require vigilance that don’t have this problem.
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#19This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
I have a Subaru Forester base model with lane keeping and adaptive cruise control.
I need to be touching the wheel and applying some force to it or it begins yelling at me and eventually brings me slowly to a stop.
I’ve had it for a year now and I cannot perceive of a way, without physically altering the system (like hanging a weight from the wheel maybe?) that would allow me to stop being an active participant.
I think the opposite is true: Tesla’s move fast and kill people approach is the mistake. Incremental mastering of autonomous capabilities is the way to go.
Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes
#20This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.
It depends. As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver, I don't consider it irresponsible to deploy it.
"The average driver" includes everyone, ranging from drivers using it as intended with close supervision, drivers who become inattentive because nothing is happening, and drivers who think it's a reasonable idea to climb into the back seat with a water bottle duct taped to the steering wheel to bypass the sensor.
OTOH, the average driver for the unassisted scenario also includes the driver who thinks they're able to drive a car while texting.