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

Tesla Autopilot

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 347 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#171

Post by makomk »

legolas2412 wrote: post #135
ageofwant wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, its still an objectively better driver than you.

Not a better driver than "me +active driver assistance like collision detection, Lane keeping etc".

Indeed, and not only that, Elon Musk's example of Autopilot supposedly saving lives that he famously tweeted a while back was manual driving + active driver assistance in the form of automatic emergency braking (which is supposed to become mandatory on new cars at some point). It happened in conditions far outside what Autopilot was capable of actually driving in.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#172

Post by function_seven »

wheelerwj wrote: post #112
takeda wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between autopilot and examples you mentioned is that autopilot can decrease safety. If it works correctly 99.9% of the time, you get used to it and when 0.1% arrive you will cause accident, because you weren't paying attention.

the same can be said for the examples i gave. if you get used to being vaccinated but forget your boosters before traveling to a new part of the world, should you have forgone your vaccinations altogether? of course not. if you have technology that makes it safer to drive 99.9% of the time but you expect it to cover for you when you're not paying attention, should you disregard the benefits of the other 99.9% of the…

This is not a good analogy. Being vaccinated is strictly better than not being vaccinated, even if you don’t get your boosters. It’s not settled yet whether a three-nines level of automation is strictly better than zero automation. It’s entirely possible that this level of automation is good enough to convince most users of its infallibility, but not good enough to reduce the statistical accident or fatality rate.

Perfectly safe 99.9% and highly dangerous the other 0.1% may be overall more hazardous than human-level safe 100% of the time. Or it may not. I’m not making a claim either way. But it’s not a crazy notion that it may not be.

More data is needed. I’m cool with that data being collected in the real world with real drivers. Gotta crack some eggs...

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#173

Post by riskneural »

the_rosentotter wrote: post #152
Animats wrote: post #64

Watch this at 0.25x speed or slower to see what's going on. This is a carefully chosen environment. Every place it drives has very clear highway centerline markings. It seems to be highly dependent on those for guidance. Sometimes it can't quite identify the road edge, but the centerline provides a position reference. The inputs seem to be road line recognition, optical flow for the road, and solid object recognition…

It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine an upcoming crossing road (with cars zipping across) so it can properly slow down, rather than get broadsided at full speed. Or a number of other life-and-death situations (which are common during driving). It just seems fragile (what if the 'vision' is somehow impaired, f.ex. blinded by sunlight, or the road markings are wrong o…

When did all algorithms become AI?

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#174

Post by tptacek »

ageofwant wrote: post #159
in_cahoots wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what they're claiming here? It looks like they're just saying that the hardware is capable of it, and that it will beat human driving at some point in the future.

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

"Have the hardware needed". Note: not the capability; just the hardware. It's an unnatural way to write promo copy for a feature, and is written that way for a reason.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#175

Post by DanBC »

takeda wrote: post #104
wheelerwj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is probably one of the most ignorant and short sighted comments i've ever read on HN and reaks of competitive shilling. It's like saying we shouldn't have released seatbelts because people moght not have used them. Or maybe we shouldn't have released vaccines because you still need booster shots. Safety features, even incremental ones, make the world safer for everyone.

The difference between autopilot and examples you mentioned is that autopilot can decrease safety. If it works correctly 99.9% of the time, you get used to it and when 0.1% arrive you will cause accident, because you weren't paying attention.

That may well not be a decrease in safety, considering how poorly most people drive.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#176

Post by jedmeyers »

Animats wrote: post #64

Watch this at 0.25x speed or slower to see what's going on. This is a carefully chosen environment. Every place it drives has very clear highway centerline markings. It seems to be highly dependent on those for guidance. Sometimes it can't quite identify the road edge, but the centerline provides a position reference. The inputs seem to be road line recognition, optical flow for the road, and solid object recognition…

> This is a carefully chosen environment.

This is Los Altos - Los Altos Hills - Palo Alto route to Tesla's HQ on Deer Creek Rd. A very expensive area to live and therefore well maintained.

https://goo.gl/s9RJxw

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#177

Post by akira2501 »

rvalue wrote: post #55

I don't think these autopilot systems will work well in crowded cities or cities with poor infrastructure for roads. The amount of objects for detecting and avoiding will be way too high. The tests shows almost clear conditions for driving. This should be tested on streets of NY or a busy city like Mumbai

> I don't think these autopilot systems will work well in crowded cities or cities with poor infrastructure for roads.

I would _love_ to see some serious "read team" testing of these exact issues with driverless cars. Pedestrian issues, weather issues, mixed-use roads, roads with construction crews, roads with simulated accident scenes, roads with physical damage/flooding/large debris.

I'd also be interested to know if the car drives differently between the rear-wheel only and the all-wheel versions and if environmental factors can frustrate these different control modes.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#178

Post by FooBarWidget »

the_rosentotter wrote: post #152
Animats wrote: post #64

Watch this at 0.25x speed or slower to see what's going on. This is a carefully chosen environment. Every place it drives has very clear highway centerline markings. It seems to be highly dependent on those for guidance. Sometimes it can't quite identify the road edge, but the centerline provides a position reference. The inputs seem to be road line recognition, optical flow for the road, and solid object recognition…

It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine an upcoming crossing road (with cars zipping across) so it can properly slow down, rather than get broadsided at full speed. Or a number of other life-and-death situations (which are common during driving). It just seems fragile (what if the 'vision' is somehow impaired, f.ex. blinded by sunlight, or the road markings are wrong o…

I agree that 'properly' marking roads for self driving vehicles is better. But this is a chicken and egg problem. There is no incentive to create such markings until self driving vehicles are common. And limiting self driving vehicles to properly marked roads will make them useless for most people, resulting in less funding for further development.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#179

Post by kaeluka »

PakG1 wrote: post #169
willvarfar wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine (... snip) Do you not drive using only your eyes? If you are not terrified of the sensors, then software? Turing's central belief was that the human brain was 'just' a computer. Regards doing things like embedding reflectors in roads and other ways to simplify lane holding, completely agree. But we can't forego the cameras etc…

If the brain is just a computer, its machine learning algorithms for image recognition at a busy intersection are believably currently more accurate than any image processing software run on any computer that Tesla puts in its cars.

There are ways in which current machine learning is better than your brain -- tracking many objects at the same time is one of them.

Sure, it's worse in many other ways.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#180

Post by TeMPOraL »

willvarfar wrote: post #160
the_rosentotter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine an upcoming crossing road (with cars zipping across) so it can properly slow down, rather than get broadsided at full speed. Or a number of other life-and-death situations (which are common during driving). It just seems fragile (what if the 'vision' is somehow impaired, f.ex. blinded by sunlight, or the road markings are wrong o…

> It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine (... snip) Do you not drive using only your eyes? If you are not terrified of the sensors, then software? Turing's central belief was that the human brain was 'just' a computer. Regards doing things like embedding reflectors in roads and other ways to simplify lane holding, completely agree. But we can't forego the cameras etc…

The thing is, human "machine vision" has graceful failure modes. You don't switch from seeing cars to seeing nothing to seeing an elephant just because the input got a little noisy. The same cannot be said about current ML demonstrations - because they operate on just vision. Humans continuously reconcile visual input with their model of the world and with other inputs, to the point of overriding visual data if needed.

I suppose you could make ML avoid sharp changes in recognition, but I don't trust the current neural-network models to do so reliably.

Post reply on HN