Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#111

Post by seg_lol »

izacus wrote: post #25
bipson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually concerning that you can inject false sensor data this easily. I mean, sure, the messages on the CAN will not be encrypted or signed in any way, I know, but still...

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

Android and iOS auto, do you want these systems to attach this easily to the car?

Safety critical CAN bus messages should be signed.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#112

Post by bronco21016 »

m463 wrote: post #109
retSava wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mandated by regulation in all cars after..2002? It's a port most often situated close to the steering wheel, the interface is a bog standard CAN bus. Where it differs between cars is what command sets are used and allowed (eg sometimes proprietary ones are used, and controlling things may not be possible). It's common to extract diagnostics about the car from this port. For example, when buying a used car this i…

mandated for cars that have emissions requirements. I think the obd connector on tesla doesn't do anything

Ha I never really thought of that. Now I wish I had looked for the port last time I was in one.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#113

Post by dheera »

bipson wrote: post #30
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

Because that means not only you (the owner) can do it. Also (caution, tangent): MCUs in cars is one of the systems where I want more encryption/signing and less hacking - especially for owners. Foremost to get rid of all the chip-tuned soot sources I am constanly driving behind. The manufacturer knows how to control the engine, the random idiot with a laptop in 95% of the cases does more harm then good. If the manufa…

> Because that means not only you (the owner) can do it.

Not when it requires physical wires. This isn't some wireless TCP/IP stack connected to the internet.

Car entertainment/air conditioning systems usually also use a physically separate CAN bus so internet-connected dashboard devices don't get access to the engine and steering controls. They may share 12V power and that's it.

Comma.ai gets access to the "secret" CAN bus that can control steering via the lane keep camera next to the rear view mirror, not the OBD port or entertainment system.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#114

Post by dheera »

seg_lol wrote: post #111
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

Android and iOS auto, do you want these systems to attach this easily to the car? Safety critical CAN bus messages should be signed.

Android and iOS auto don't have access to the CAN bus that can control steering. They may have access to a physically separate CAN bus that controls the entertainment system and air conditioning. There are normally multiple buses in a car.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#115

Post by azinman2 »

L4/L5 or crash. Anything below is dangerous because of the propensity for humans to rely on what seems to be working the majority of the time and artificially trust it, especially with a population trained to need to check their phones. We saw this with the infamous Uber training driver crash in AZ, we saw this with the Apple employee in the Tesla, and we'll continue to see this over and over again until we can finally remove the steering wheel so there's no possible ill-informed release of control. Naming L2 systems 'Autopilot' and a bunch of misleading marketing certainly doesn't help either.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#116

Post by btian »

woeirua wrote: post #83

It's neat, and a good application of the technology, but honestly I don't see this taking off because the gap between the tech and execution is closing quickly. Comma was really far ahead of everyone 5 years ago. But... we have gone from a situation where the Level 2 systems available in most new cars went from an impractical gimmick, to very useful and comparable to this in just a few years. New Toyota's (MY 2020) a…

The average car in the US is 11 years old.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#117

Post by shiftpgdn »

azinman2 wrote: post #115

L4/L5 or crash. Anything below is dangerous because of the propensity for humans to rely on what seems to be working the majority of the time and artificially trust it, especially with a population trained to need to check their phones. We saw this with the infamous Uber training driver crash in AZ, we saw this with the Apple employee in the Tesla, and we'll continue to see this over and over again until we can final…

Nonsense. Airplanes can do 99.9% of their flying without human intervention, but we don't hear about planes slamming into mountain sides because a pilot was texting or browsing the internet.

The problem is any idiot can get a drivers license that let's them pilot around a 5000lb steel cube for about $200 and 20 hours of training time. And punishments are extremely lax for when mistakes are made.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#118

Post by bipson »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #63
bipson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main concern would be that the architecture of an OTS Android system does not offer any guarantees regarding real-time i.e. hard deadlines. Ever had an android app or even the whole phone locking up? Even if it is only for a second or two, I don't want this to happen to a device that feeds live data into my car's controller. Even if this is only level 2 driver assist. If a car would get a bogus "you are crossing a…

AutoPilot disengages if you try to take over the wheel, it's one of the basic features that is available. The only instance where you are steering is on the new lane switch (turn on blinker, check lane, depart from current lane)

Are you talking about Tesla AutoPilot?

This system is meant for cars without level 2 driver assist, so not for Teslas.

Further, the system has no control over what "disengages" in the car itself - it is sending bogus sensor inputs to elicit a reaction according to level 2 driver assistance. Thus, if it sends such bogus inputs and fails at doing this "reliably", it will result in misbehaving steering, breaking, etc. which it does not control itself.

Further, if it was in control, my argument would stay: If your controlling device has left the building (crashed), it can also not disengage anything any more reliably.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#119

Post by numpad0 »

seg_lol wrote: post #111
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

Android and iOS auto, do you want these systems to attach this easily to the car? Safety critical CAN bus messages should be signed.

Then you have to certify signing mechanism so that braking works even if cosmic ray ruined brake pedal control unit, and that is half sane and half stupid.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#120

Post by numpad0 »

bipson wrote: post #19
ezconnect wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAN bus is the standard physical interface. What is not standard is the message being passed, so each car will have it's own message for car information. What surprised me about OpenPilot is how some of the electric steering system can be tricked into turning using false sensor data. It's actually amazing that almost all cars now can be driven by software the only thing missing are more accurate and complicated senso…

It is actually concerning that you can inject false sensor data this easily. I mean, sure, the messages on the CAN will not be encrypted or signed in any way, I know, but still...

Not much of false sensor data, they use existing endpoints used by ADAS.

Steering or gas or brake ECUs on older cars without fancy adaptive automatic thingy don’t accept remote control, units in such cars only take analog user inputs and only report statuses on the bus.

Since ADAS is complicated and developed independent to the rest of the car, car manufacturers expanded those actuators to incorporate remote control mechanisms, and ADAS systems are implemented as a self contained computer that send out those control messages. Sort of like a Raspberry Pi with the camera in a case that is advertised as an “Ethernet AI camera”.

Openpilot on officially supported cars impersonate those ADAS unit. They are not directly meddling with pedal potentiometer readouts and such. That kind of rigging are used in some lab experiments but not in the majority of OP driven cars.

Post reply on HN