Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#101

Post by PKop » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 2:34 AM UTC

ActorNightly wrote: post #70

PKop wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get killed on the roads due to this stupidity.

Regulated by whom..... the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works, and are only interested in getting reelected? Its funny how people rightfully criticize the government and laugh at videos of senator grilling the CEOs of Facebook or Google with stupid questions, but then as soon as a company does something that they don't like, they somehow expect those people to get their shi…

>the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works

This won't be a problem when the regulation equates to: "get these death traps off the road, now". Or, "disable your not-intelligent pseudo-self driving now".

I'm not talking about working on the technology, I'm saying if it doesn't work get it off the market.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#102

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #80

PKop wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is building "full self driving" using a feature called "Autopilot". You're playing stupid but nobody is fooled by this sophistry.

Doesn't Ford call their version Co-pilot360 or something? What are your thoughts on that?

[deleted]

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#103

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 2:48 AM UTC

PKop wrote: post #100

Manuel_D wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only so much a company can do to protect against user error. People stick their fingers down a running drain garbage disposal. People will look down the barrel of a loaded gun and pull the trigger. The question is not "has anyone hurt themselves?", the question is "does the product have reasonable safety precautions?"

Themselves? This is about their cars being a threat to everyone around them. >so much a company can do Yes, therefore the product should not be legal if these error's can't be minimized or the magnitude of the consequences are disastrous (random unpredictable crashing etc). "Errors" are not all created equal. Some are catastrophic and occur at random.

If I turned on cruise control in my previous car and took a nap it'd happily drive me into the rear end of the car in front of me, or off the road. Where's the outrage over cruise control? And again, I'm highly confident that plenty of people do get in collisions while they're neglectfully driving on cruise control, but those incidents don't catch headlines.

Tesla does have safeguards to prevent people from dozing off on autopilot: there's sensors on the steering wheel, and apparently some models have front facing cameras. Some people put weights on the steering wheels, but at that point people are taking deliberate efforts to bypass safeguards. If someone jams a shim in their microwave latch, they can turn it on while the door is open and fry themselves. That's comparable to putting weights on Tesla's steering wheel.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#104

Post by zionic » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

lolc wrote: post #78

zionic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because before Tesla launched the feature, "Autopilot" was known in the general consciousness to mean a specific thing Not that I agree with your statement, but the "general consciousness" would be wrong in that case. Autopilot in most aircraft will gladly fly you into the side of a mountain or other aircraft.

The environment matters. An aircraft autopilot will allow the pilot to safely disengage while in controlled airspace. A Tesla "Autopilot" will not let the driver disengage in any situation.

>A Tesla "Autopilot" will not let the driver disengage in any situation.

Um, what? A driver can override Tesla autopilot at any time.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#105

Post by PKop » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 3:58 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #103

PKop wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Themselves? This is about their cars being a threat to everyone around them. >so much a company can do Yes, therefore the product should not be legal if these error's can't be minimized or the magnitude of the consequences are disastrous (random unpredictable crashing etc). "Errors" are not all created equal. Some are catastrophic and occur at random.

If I turned on cruise control in my previous car and took a nap it'd happily drive me into the rear end of the car in front of me, or off the road. Where's the outrage over cruise control? And again, I'm highly confident that plenty of people do get in collisions while they're neglectfully driving on cruise control, but those incidents don't catch headlines. Tesla does have safeguards to prevent people from dozing of…

Does cruise control require the same, more, or less focused attention from the driver than whatever it is these new features require (or will require)?

What are these features for, if they require 100% attention from the driver to monitor? At that point, why not just drive the car? Is there a goal for these features to take incrementally more and more proportion of the responsibility away from the driver, such that the driver can incrementally devote less attention to monitoring? We all know the answers to these questions. We know what the goal is here.

But the problem is, human's cannot sort of, kind of, partially pay attention to the road and the car. And any feature that propagandizes them that it will take care of incrementally more of the driving responsibility will result in less (rounded to none) attention devoted to by the driver. It's a binary proposition beyond some threshold as mutli-tasking is a myth. Do you see the problem?

As the features appear to be working better and better, the more people will devote less attention to the road even in some bounded range of their drive but this is all it takes for catastrophic errors (that will and are happening because of the nature of failure modes of AI) to occur. And these errors are qualitatively different than the ones humans make. At any given point in time the care can and will just do something completely stupid and dangerous. Swerve into a median, crash into an emergency vehicle, turn sharply into a car in another lane. There's documented occurrences of all of this. When these random catastrophic errors occur, the human will be on the margin paying less attention to the situation than if it was simple cruise control or normal driving.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#106

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 6:55 AM UTC

PKop wrote: post #105

Manuel_D wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I turned on cruise control in my previous car and took a nap it'd happily drive me into the rear end of the car in front of me, or off the road. Where's the outrage over cruise control? And again, I'm highly confident that plenty of people do get in collisions while they're neglectfully driving on cruise control, but those incidents don't catch headlines. Tesla does have safeguards to prevent people from dozing of…

Does cruise control require the same, more, or less focused attention from the driver than whatever it is these new features require (or will require)? What are these features for, if they require 100% attention from the driver to monitor? At that point, why not just drive the car? Is there a goal for these features to take incrementally more and more proportion of the responsibility away from the driver, such that t…

Adaptive cruise control definitely requires less attention than traditional cruise control. Where's the alarm when a car equipped with adaptive cruise control gets in a collision? Same deal with lane assist. And autopilot is basically just adaptive cruise control with lane assist.

Over the last 6 years, there's been 16 collisions, one of them fatal. How many of those accidents would have still happened if people were using adaptive cruise control instead of Autopilot? How many were averted because autopilot is more sophisticated than traditional cruise control. Jumping straight to the conclusion that all of these collisions were due to autopilot, and not considering the fact that it might have been the same or even better than the status quo is naive.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#107

Post by kaba0 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #28

itsoktocry wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how many people turn on traditional cruise control and then crash due to neglectful driving. That's what we should be comparing Tesla Autopilot against, we should compare it against the status quo. This is so disingenuous. Go on YouTube and search for people "self-driving" in their Teslas, then do the same for people doing anything remotely the same with standard cruise control. Tesla and its fanatics want…

Is this actually a problem with tesla marketing? Or is it a problem with people being dumb? An aircraft autopilot will happily fly you straight into a mountain. It just holds altitude and bearing. Everyone I know with a Tesla exclusively uses autopilot on the highway in between exits. I'm pretty baffled as to how some people think it's fully autonomous driving, and I'm dubious as to how culpable Tesla is for that ign…

> Is this actually a problem with tesla marketing?

It is, definitely. How come they advertise it as FSD (and I know they very much circle around the exact wording, but a good Litmus test to see what is the actual expected output from the ads is to ask a random person on the street and they will definitely think that they are full self driving, while most other cars have some basic lane assist, etc)?

Their marketing is absolutely malicious, what else would keep up their massive hype bubble?

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#108

Post by kaba0 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:20 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #68

PKop wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get killed on the roads due to this stupidity.

There's only so much a company can do to protect against user error. People stick their fingers down a running drain garbage disposal. People will look down the barrel of a loaded gun and pull the trigger. The question is not "has anyone hurt themselves?", the question is "does the product have reasonable safety precautions?"

For a start, call it what it is: fancy lane assist. That will remove any blame on the company side, but as it stands now it is a deliberate malicious marketing on tesla’s part.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#109

Post by kaba0 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:32 AM UTC

ActorNightly wrote: post #70

PKop wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get killed on the roads due to this stupidity.

Regulated by whom..... the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works, and are only interested in getting reelected? Its funny how people rightfully criticize the government and laugh at videos of senator grilling the CEOs of Facebook or Google with stupid questions, but then as soon as a company does something that they don't like, they somehow expect those people to get their shi…

> in this case that means accidents and people dying.

It is an absolutely ridiculous view. I really don’t want a shitty company be able to freely test on the streets their shitty technology that can cause the death of innocents. Are you seriously saying that they are free to increase their profits over the lives of people? On what basis is that ethical or moral? Especially when we talk about a company that jumped into an arguably technically inferior solution by having an incentive to develop their “self-driving” based on visual input only. Their competitors at least take it seriously enough and realize that just because humans can manage with a vision-only system (though a goddamn moving one, not static), lidar and other sensors are required on cars, because ML is nowhere near the capacity of even a worm’s brain, let alone what a human has.

Re: Tesla investigation deepens after more than a dozen US ‘Autopilot’ crashes

#110

Post by kaba0 » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 7:35 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #47

kube-system wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe all we need is a requirement for type certification on people's drivers licenses before they can drive a Tesla.

Doesn't Tesla have driver monitoring and a driver score? So to use autopilot, you not only have to roughly pay attention, but also be pretty good at driving in general to use the beta? Or did they get rid of that? It sounded like a good compromise to me.

On what basis can a private company decide what is and isn’t allowable on public roads? Also, there is no human that can engage with a suddenly dangerous situation on a split second basis. People suck at continuous monitoring tasks, if you are driving yourself you are actually engaged.