131–140 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've driven before, and agree with the OP. Now what?
let's experiment. i'll reduce your vision quality, then you try driving
This problem has been solved more than a decade ago by radar sensors (standard on many mid-range cars at the time). They detect imminent collisions with almost perfect accuracy and very little false positives. Having better sensor data is always going to beat trying to massage crappy data into something useful.
Are we sure Teslas dont have radars? We know they don’t have lidars, but that’s irrelevant.
The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…
Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…
You have a main and a backup pilot, but either one must be 100% capable of doing it on their own. The backup is silently double checking, but their assignments are more about ensuring that the copilot doesn't just check out because they're human. If the copilot ever has to say "don't do that it's going to kill us all" it's a crisis.
Lidar is a good backup but the car must be able to with without it. You can't drive just with lidar; it's like driving by Braille. Lidar can't even read a stop light. If they cannot handle it with just the visuals, the car should be not be allowed on the road.
I concur that is terrifying that he was allowed to go without the backup that stops it from killing people. Human co drivers are not a good enough backup.
But he's also not wrong that the visual system must be practically perfect -- if it's possible at all. Which it surely isn't yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass
each year there are millions of car accidents and tens of thousands of fatalities. Are we really sure visual detection works that great?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This issue is unique to Tesla. Other self-driving manufacturers have logged zero motorcycle fatalities in the same time frame” Doesnt give number of driving hours for Tesla vs others though.
Yep! And no stats at all. Pathetic article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think mandating performance makes way more sense.
I'm sure the government, led by Elon Musk, has no conflict of interest with Tesla, run by Elon Musk, that would EVER give Tesla an unfair advantage against its competitors through regularly capture or something similar.
The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…
Instead of critiquing the article for liberal use of words like "overwhelmingly", "unique", and " 100% of Teslas" on an n=5 cars, with limited data and a very questionable analysis of the Snohomish accident, we discuss how Musk is a fraud.
Related: Well-sourced video on the topic https://youtube.com/watch?v=yRdzIs4FJJg
The video title is "Tesla Autopilot Crashes into Motorcycle Riders - Why?"
The amazing part is the one guy who created this video covered all insightful comments here in HN in one concise video 2 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think mandating performance makes way more sense.
I'm sure the government, led by Elon Musk, has no conflict of interest with Tesla, run by Elon Musk, that would EVER give Tesla an unfair advantage against its competitors through regularly capture or something similar.