71–80 of 95 posts
Yesterday a Model X just changed lane into me. I barely avoided hitting it. Not 100% sure but it almost seemed that it was in self drive mode. Or, the guy with MIT sticker at the back was just a bleeping bad driver. They are making things worse for everyone.
Self drive mode is fundamentally unsafe. This bullshit where companies are allowed to say “the driver must always be in control”, is just that. Either it is self driving, or it is not. You cannnot make a product that is physiologically impossible to use, and then say that fault lies with anything other than the product. This is before you get to it being labeled and advertised explicitly as literally “full self drivi…
To clarify on the physiologically impossible bit: 1. The NTSB and FAA both found repeatedly, as have pretty much every other study - academic or otherwise - that people _cannot_ focus on watching a task without actually being involved in or doing the task. Any "self driving" model that requires the non-operator to be engaged in driving is simply not humanly possible. So the only reason for that stated rule is the man…
It boggles my mind that any self driving system would knowingly drive into any object, no matter what it is, as large as a police car. I'd be willing to bet that Elon's insistence on only using cameras is combining with the flashing lights to effectively make objects that appear in some frames of video, and not in others, as the camera recovers from the flash... and this makes it appear as noise, and below a certain…
Contrast this with Subaru, who uses binocular view through two widely spaced cameras to build a depth map of the view in front of it. It doesn't know or care what is there, only that something is there it shouldn't hit. And so the emergency breaking will trigger for things like trains and stationary emergency vehicles that Tesla seems oblivious to.
Sometimes simpler really is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify on the physiologically impossible bit: 1. The NTSB and FAA both found repeatedly, as have pretty much every other study - academic or otherwise - that people _cannot_ focus on watching a task without actually being involved in or doing the task. Any "self driving" model that requires the non-operator to be engaged in driving is simply not humanly possible. So the only reason for that stated rule is the man…
re: #1, I’m curious how life guards stay attentive.
The inherent problem of constant attentiveness being extremely challenging means that most relevant authorities say a life guard should not be on duty for more than an hour at a time, and they should have at least 15 minutes break between those hour shifts.
Even with those minds are going to wander (or there will be distractions - people asking for directions, etc) but there are multiple failsafes: there's generally more than one life guard, being distracted for a few seconds is not a failure (a life guard is having to scan a significant area so they don't have 100% awareness of 100% of their zone at once, so there's always potentially significant delay between something going wrong for someone, and a life guard seeing it), and the time to catastrophic failure is measured in (contextually) significant amounts of time.
The issue with self driving cars, as they are currently set up, is that they say "the car will do everything" and it does, but they then say "however the driver is still in control of the vehicle so if a crash happens it was the drivers fault for not paying sufficient attention".
In the pilot case: there are periods of flight where the pilot is doing very little for extended periods, but those are all at altitude, and the time from "something went wrong" to "it is irrecoverable" (in non-aircraft failure modes) is remarkably large (at least to me - my mental model was always 'something went wrong, it's seconds to crashing' until I binged air crash documentaries and even if they're trying it takes a long time to go from cruising altitude to 0). There are also modes where the pilots must always react immediately, whether or not they were distracted, or if they were focused but on a completely different task, but those modes are all close to "this alert occurs->reflexively do a specific action before you even know why".
Attentiveness is a real problem for long haul train traffic and multiple accidents have occurred because of it (or the loss of it), and there are many things they've tried to do to prevent the exact same problem that self driving cars introduce, and they simply do not work. At least for trains you can in principle (those the US seemingly does not) use safety cut offs such that a train that is not responding correctly to signals is halted automatically regardless of the engineers and operators. What companies frequently try to do is add variations of dead controller switches (similar to the eye tracking in "self driving" cars), but for the same reason that attentiveness is an issue in multiple hours of no operation those switches get circumvented (brains don't like to focus on a single thing while not actually doing anything for hours, muscles don't like being constantly in a single stress point for hours).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's to be expected. Most driving infrastructure is designed for human eyes and brains, including flashing lights on police cars. If you redesign the driving system from scratch to work on silicon and not brain, you pretty much expect its failures to not look like the kind of failures we're used to. Even if it's objectively better, with a lower accident rate, lower fatality rate and so on, it will occasionall…
> redesign the driving system from scratch to work on silicon Nobody proposed this. My Subaru can lane keep even in whiteout conditions (if there is a car in front of me) due to radar. I can’t do that. Tesla’s can’t do that. > it will occasionally do something as stupid looking as "drive into a police car with flashing lights on" Two sensors operating on different wavelengths can add more information than a single do…
https://www.subaru.com/eyesight.html
IME it works pretty well but cuts out in heavy precipitation because the cameras don't get a clear image.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reporter claims "autopilot" yet the description and title of the youtube video says "self-drive mode". Probably the reporter was correct and it was changed for clickbait reasons.
You are asking for a YouTube video to be precise when Tesla is ambiguous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope there are also repercussion for whoever named this tech "full self driving"
In the future we will have the Samsung effect on naming this technology, because once they went to high definition, they had to upgrade to ultra high, then mega. Extra full self driving?
Self drive mode is fundamentally unsafe. This bullshit where companies are allowed to say “the driver must always be in control”, is just that. Either it is self driving, or it is not. You cannnot make a product that is physiologically impossible to use, and then say that fault lies with anything other than the product. This is before you get to it being labeled and advertised explicitly as literally “full self drivi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK the latest betas have switched to a cutting edge “transformer” model (or models?). I wonder if it’s prone to hallucinations like its LLM cousins. On a different note, I like how Mercedes changes the color of external lights when in self-driving mode to make others aware. A bit like outsourcing the responsibility externally - but maybe this is the way forward until the tech is reliable/better than people.
>I wonder if it’s prone to hallucinations like its LLM cousins. When was their vision system not glitching? A year ago it was seeing the moon on the sky as a perpetual yellow traffic light.
It boggles my mind that any self driving system would knowingly drive into any object, no matter what it is, as large as a police car. I'd be willing to bet that Elon's insistence on only using cameras is combining with the flashing lights to effectively make objects that appear in some frames of video, and not in others, as the camera recovers from the flash... and this makes it appear as noise, and below a certain…
First off, Tesla 'self driving' isn't a self driving system. Read their letters to the California DMV and ignore their marketting, including their choice of names. Second, radar wouldn't be better here. Afaik, all of the radar assisted cruise control / emergency braking systems ignore stationary objects when travelling above a certain speed. Using radar, it's difficult to determine the height or shape of a potential…
Why, actually? Luminar sells LiDARs (that they market as intended for vehicles) for $1000. Tesla sells FSD Beta for $12000.
Do you believe a much more expensive LiDAR (than Luminar) is needed?