Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#151

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

wingineer wrote: post #77

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #70

The absolving argument that it's still the drivers responsibility to intervene has flown out of the window with this request. The federal safety agency is not having any of that excuse anymore. They might find that Tesla did no wrong here, further enabling Tesla to get away with this. But this looks a lot like they want to regulate the feature a bit more. If self regulation via companies and humans does not work, the…

IMO this is a good thing, and should be applied to all manufacturers of driver-assist technology. Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too.

> Tesla has certainly been at the bleeding-edge of overly optimistic and confusing marketing for their product, but others should be on alert too.

I think the word you're looking for is "dishonest."

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#152

Post by snovv_crash » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #101

guhidalg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s also 12 than any normal attentive human has gotten into Are you comparing a fleet of cars driving millions of miles to the performance of one ostensibly good driver? Ok, I guess we’ll need perfect systems, see you after the heat death of the universe.

I get this argument in abstract, but I don't think it's fair when we're talking about obviously unsafe behaviour that literally no human driver should ever do, except in cases of like, extreme medical distress. It's about the unknown unknowns. If you have Teslas slamming into stopped emergency vehicles with their lights on, and you don't know why, what else don't we know about their ability to perceive and reason abo…

The failure modes of a new driving system are going to be distributed differently than the old system. This is exactly the same flawed argument as "we should ban all human drivers because in the situation where they get drunk they have lots of accidents and self-driving cars don't have that problem".

That said, I suspect there is some systematic issue with Tesla's system and flashing lights, and I bet they are working like demons to identify and fix it already.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#153

Post by cptskippy » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #112

Someone wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, it can detect them just fine, but it is bad at discriminating those its collision avoidance part should pay attention to from those it shouldn’t pay attention to (e.g. the road surface, traffic signs on the side of or over the road), so they (¿mostly?) chose to ignore all of them.

That just means it lacks the ability to place objects in 3D space and plot a course, which is... sad.

Most collision avoidance systems aren't that sophisticated. Radar based systems like those used in Volvo's Pilot Assist suffer from the same inability to discern stationary objects.

Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and actually produce a 3D space.

The fact that they're still suffering from the same problem as other manufacturers shouldn't be an admonishment of their technology or attempts unless or until it's proven that their approach is fundamentally worse.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#154

Post by burnished » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

u10242 wrote: post #130

grondo4 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it have to better than an attentive driver or the average driver ? I figure if the Tesla has less crashes per mile than the average driver than that's a success? Even if the accidents a Tesla does get into are ones that a normal attentive driver wouldn't get into, if it avoids just as many accidents that a normal attentive driver would get into isn't that enough?

Well, I'm an attentive driver, so I wouldn't use anything that drives worse than me. A lot of people probably feel the same.

I hate to put it this way, but I think it'll be easier to get people to use autopilot (that performs better than your average driver) than it will be to get people to get gud at driving. You're an attentive driver right? You've probably noticed people lane changing without looking, causing or almost causing collisions. Or jockeying for position fruitlessly. Or being drunk or getting sleepy. Or getting aggro. Back when I was driving a lot I would have been grateful for anything that meant I wouldn't have to drive around people like that. I dunno where I'm going with this exactly, I suppose we've had similar experiences and it makes me a little surprised that you'd be against automated systems bringing the skill floor up.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#155

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

panick21 wrote: post #136

longcommonname wrote: post #67

I wonder if the NHTSA could require all self driving cars to use lidar if the safety stats show it is a significant safety improvement.

Then the waste majority of cars simply wouldn't come with lane assist. Deploying lidar on such scale is simply not practical at the moment. Check out how long it took for even simple safety features to make it into all cars.

>> I wonder if the NHTSA could require all self driving cars to use lidar if the safety stats show it is a significant safety improvement.

> Then the waste majority of cars simply wouldn't come with lane assist. Deploying lidar on such scale is simply not practical at the moment.

IMHO, lane assist isn't "self driving" any more than cruise control is.

I think you get into self driving territory when the car makes lane changes or turns at intersections.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#156

Post by dado3212 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #45

brk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just did a 1,500 mile round-trip journey to visit family. Because of the Tesla stuff, I was casually aware of roadside emergency vehicles moreso than usual. We passed 28 police/fire/emergency vehicles that were next to our travel lane. I saw a number of Tesla vehicles on the road as well, each passing these same emergency vehicles, but not always in the same lane. By this point, there must be 1M+ incidents of Tesl…

>I saw a number of Tesla vehicles on the road as well, each passing these same emergency vehicles, but not always in the same lane. How do you know all of them were on autopilot? >12 crashes is 12 crashes too many, statistically speaking, but it's also a tiny tiny percentage of the total number of cases. It's also 12 more than any normal attentive human has gotten into, and an average attentive human driver is the ab…

Approximately 12 percent of all interstate highway deaths result from shoulder accidents. This means that an estimated 600 people a year are killed—and thousands more are injured—while making emergency stops off the highway.

It’s not just autopilot.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#157

Post by shadofx » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #6

meepmorp wrote: post #2

> The safety agency informed Tesla weeks ago that it was looking into the spate of crashes in which Tesla vehicles operating on Autopilot failed to detect stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights. The regulator originally said it was looking into 11 such crashes. A 12th occurred on Saturday, when a Model 3 hit a police cruiser that had stopped behind a car that had broken down on an interstate in Orlando, Fla.…

> 12 crashes into vehicles with flashing lights on them doesn't sound like great success from Autopilot, gonna be honest. I'm sorry, but how can you form an opinion so quickly? 12 crashes out of what? Any number? 12 crashes out of 10000000 scenarios sound like a pretty good record, while 12 crashes out of 15 scenarios indeed doesn't sound like a great success. But what information do you have that the rest of us does…

When human drivers cause accidents, the causes are collected and analyzed, and laws are proposed to prevent future accidents from happening. It doesn't matter if it's 12 or 12 thousand, or even zero crashes... if there's fear, then society will demand something be done.

The fact that AI can give no easily understood excuses, and improvements to the algorithms is a trade secret means that any fear cannot be abated, aside from outright banning of AI driving.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#158

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #74

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #70

The absolving argument that it's still the drivers responsibility to intervene has flown out of the window with this request. The federal safety agency is not having any of that excuse anymore. They might find that Tesla did no wrong here, further enabling Tesla to get away with this. But this looks a lot like they want to regulate the feature a bit more. If self regulation via companies and humans does not work, the…

I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. I'm not sure that's fixable on the human end.

> I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time.

Exactly, there were some pretty good 99% Invisible podcasts on that topic:

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magen...

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/johnnycab-automation-...

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#159

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #153

sudosysgen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means it lacks the ability to place objects in 3D space and plot a course, which is... sad.

Most collision avoidance systems aren't that sophisticated. Radar based systems like those used in Volvo's Pilot Assist suffer from the same inability to discern stationary objects. Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and a…

Well, no. No system that is unable to detect and map out a 3D maps of obstacles and plot a course through it without hitting stationary, well visible objects, is not suited to being used in a self-driving capacity. Whether it's from Tesla or anyone else.

If their approach fundamentally means they decided to work around mapping their surroundings in 3D correctly, as the GP suggested, there is a strong reason to admonish.

Re: Tesla is ordered to turn over Autopilot data to a federal safety agency

#160

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

matt123456789 wrote: post #76

duxup wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect humans are really bad when they only have to sorta pay attention and it results in just not paying attention a great deal of the time. I'm not sure that's fixable on the human end.

The question is, how much of that is Tesla’s fault? They’re an EV company, not a psychology consultancy. We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products, despite the best efforts of their marketing divisions. Granted “pull trigger get bullet” is much simpler than the Autopilot response.

> We don’t hold gun manufacturers or alcohol companies liable when people do stupid things with their products

I believe we would if the gun design meant it could fire when it wasn't supposed to or if random batches of the alcohol contained a toxic chemical but was label warning the consumer that it was up to them to figure out if the bottle they want to consume was safe.

There's a big difference between users "do[ing] something stupid" and manufacturers "making something that puts unreasonable demands on the user to ensure safety."