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

Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 348 posts

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#151

Post by mirimir »

antirez wrote: post #61

"Our data shows that Tesla owners have driven this same stretch of highway with Autopilot engaged roughly 85,000 times since Autopilot was first rolled out in 2015. ... There are over 200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road." Who wrote this statement does not understand software. If there is some kind of Heisenbug, those numbers are too small to prove that the software is ok, and actually…

It's possible that some of those "200 successful Autopilot trips per day on this exact stretch of road" also involve pulling toward that barrier. However, it's not likely a huge percentage, or we'd have seen that posted. So the implication is that his Tesla was relatively unique. That is, broken.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#152

Post by joshuamorton »

baddox wrote: post #144
smartician wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't many AI methods also inherently probabilistic? That would make it by definition impossible to definitively explain any particular behavior.

What do you mean by probabilistic? If you mean that the models takes input and outputs one or more labeled probabilities (e.g. “90% confidence the input photo is a dog, 10% confidence the input photo is a cat), then yes, I believe that many AI systems work this way. If you mean random , in the sense that the system may return different results given the exact same inputs, then in not sure if there are AI systems that…

There are. Monte Carlo methods is the keyword you're looking for. AlphaGo (Monte Carlo Tree Search) is an example of one such AI.

Obviously you can set the RNG seed to be the same every time too, but even that only works if your system is wholly synchronous, which a car probably isn't.

Note that I doubt Monte Carlo methods are common in the autonomous vehicle space.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#153

Post by Natsu »

ucaetano wrote: post #3
MBCook wrote: post #2

If he had seen this issue multiple times before why would he keep using autopilot in that area? That seems like a very odd decision.

True, but let's not blame the victim.

There's an old rhyme about that:

"He was right, dead right, as he drove along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#154

Post by neffy »

baddox wrote: post #143
azinman2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id be willing to take a 1k bet that computers won’t approach sentience in our lifetime. Don’t believe the AI hype train, there hasn’t been a real breakthrough. Just more accurate versions of the same (dumb) classifiers.

Why do you think that humans are not just even more accurate versions of the same types of classifiers?

because we invented cars. And a few other things.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#155

Post by anonytrary »

I can't believe this person kept using it. If I had noticed a bug in auto-pilot and complained about it, I would be way too scared to ever use auto-pilot again. Personally, I never use auto-pilot because driving is piss easy, as it's designed to be.

Perfect self-driving cars is a nearly impossible feat to accomplish in an unbounded track. I can only imagine automated driving in a system which has no room for error. Examples include: tunnels under the ground, chain links on the ground (as in trolleys, trains, etc.), or anything else that vastly reduces the entropy involved in driving.

With self-driving cars on current roads, it will probably take years to get from 1% error to .1% error, and decades to get from .1% error to .01% error, which isn't even good enough. Perhaps it will take a century or longer to develop the required artificial intelligence to make self-driving cars perfect "enough". There's just too much room for unique problems to spawn. Bounding vehicle freedom seems to be the only way forward.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#157

Post by stevep98 »

vvanders wrote: post #28
segmondy wrote: post #19

One of the things you learn in flying is not to force it. If conditions are not safe. Just forget about it. It almost seems the same type of judgement needs to be made for auto-pilot. If your auto-pilot acts up at all. Just turn it off and don't use it till it's resolved. All you need is one incident to be dead, so if you get a chance to observe any abnormalities, consider it a blessing. Something that will also be g…

> If at any time your car does something unsafe, you can hit that button. Tesla actually has that, it's not widely documented but you can do a voice command of "Report bug" followed by a brief audio description and it's uploaded to Tesla. No idea how it gets triaged but I wish more products had a similar feature.

Really they should have some kind of flag when they get a high number of autopilot disconnects ( or steering overrides) happening in the same place. I had to disconnect every day because it ignored temporary lane stripe markings, and it never improves, despite Tesla’s claim of fleet learning.

Seems an obvious way to improve: look at where your drivers are overriding your system.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#158

Post by gameswithgo »

anonytrary wrote: post #155

I can't believe this person kept using it. If I had noticed a bug in auto-pilot and complained about it, I would be way too scared to ever use auto-pilot again. Personally, I never use auto-pilot because driving is piss easy, as it's designed to be. Perfect self-driving cars is a nearly impossible feat to accomplish in an unbounded track. I can only imagine automated driving in a system which has no room for error. E…

i admit i immediately thought it was suicide-life insurance scam.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#159

Post by neurotech1 »

twblalock wrote: post #43
ucaetano wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but let's not blame the victim.

I'd definitely blame an airline pilot who crashed because he relied on autopilot in a situation he knew was not handled well by the autopilot. (I would also blame the autopilot.) I don't see why the driver of a car with any kind of semi-automated system should be held to a lesser standard. It sucks that the driver died, and it sucks that the Tesla autopilot system had problems handing that kind of situation, but that…

This actually happened. A glitch with the 737-800 [0] radar altimeter caused the aircraft to go into flare (touchdown) mode at altitude resulting in the jet to basically dropping out of the sky, with rapidly decreasing airspeed.

They should have been able to fly manually and safely land with a faulty radar altimeter. It is likely the crew didn't understand the significance of the fault, even though Boeing had issued previous warnings.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

Post reply on HN