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

Comma Two Devkit

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 255 posts

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#171

Post by fabiensanglard »

enragedcacti wrote: post #60
fabiensanglard wrote: post #51

Let's say I order this stuff and flash the firmware of my car. If there was a bug in comma ai program (like jerking the driving wheel and slam my car in the guard rail without giving me time to react) I guess I am liable? That sounds like a bad idea.

OpenPilot doesn't require you to flash anything to your car, everything is done using the same CAN messages that the stock ADAS system sends. Further, the microcontroller that communicates between OpenPilot and the vehicle is hardcoded to block any CAN messages OpenPilot sends that are deemed to be too fast to react to: https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/a2ae18d1dbd1e59c38...

I am not impressed with this source code. Maybe you can tell my why i am wrong.

The safety.h you pointed to is using "int" for variable declaration instead of using stdints to control size. Is there are reason for that?

From safety.h, I tried to follow addr_allowed function parameters. I get here (https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/c025b96e8a15640ee4...) and see this:

int addr = GET_ADDR(to_send); int bus = GET_BUS(to_send);

Where are GET_ADDR and GET_BUS macros declared? There are no header declaration to follow dependencies.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#172

Post by MattRix »

meowface wrote: post #162
gricardo99 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he's quite a character, surely abrasive to some. If you want a sample for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-dgbrB7PZU

His interview with Lex Fridman was quite interesting: https://youtu.be/iwcYp-XT7UI I like him, personally.

Yeah I really enjoyed this interview. Made me respect him much more and realized that he actually is concerned about safety, specifically more than Tesla (especially when it comes to driver monitoring).

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#174

Post by bathtub365 »

chris11 wrote: post #170
o-__-o wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next time you drive, look around you at some of the other drivers. The ones with cell phones in their hands are more dangerous than someone with a comma.ai dev kit. Fun story: I wanted to build a hypermilling coach/trainer system about 10 years ago and got to the point of having a poor mans ACC in a Scion. It didn’t brake though, only coasted to lose speed (thus requiring driver input). So I got the wild idea of tapp…

> but it’s still operating within the bounds of the factory electronic steering That's Comma AI's approach. Their hardware spoofs the stock computer so it can send commands to the car's active safety systems. So there are some stock limitations, like the steering torque, that openpilot doesn't bypass.

This doesn't address the fundamental issue: a car is being controlled by an untested and unregulated system on public roads.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#175

Post by cyc116 »

missosoup wrote: post #161
bathtub365 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a completely different product with a much wider number of configurations that end-users have to piece together from Wiki pages and packages they download themselves, loaded onto hardware they've installed in their cars with zero oversight from anyone qualified.

> end-users have to piece together from Wiki pages and packages they download themselves Which makes it a ton safer than '''autopilot''' because by the time those users are done installing it they have a pretty clear understanding of its capabilities and limitations. vs. the endless videos of morons driving tesla in '''autopilot''' mode with hands off the wheel because it's an incomprehensible black box of magical se…

It doesn't take a 5 year ML PHD and millions of simulation miles to download and install packages.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#176

Post by slg »

missosoup wrote: post #154
bathtub365 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who drives on public roads (and has family and friends who drive on public roads) this is a frightening comparison and attitude.

You're already driving on roads shared with garbage solution like tesla's '''autopilot''' this thing is no different other than the creators not being able to afford the regulatory bribe to deploy it.

Comma is bragging about 6 million miles drive. Tesla's Autopilot has over 2 billion miles driven. This has two cameras (EDIT: and apparently 1 radar that already exists in the vehicle). Tesla's has 12 cameras, 12 sonars, and 1 radar. This is backed by a company that apparently has received $8 million in funding. Autopilot is backed by a company with a market cap of $84 billion. You are welcome to your opinion of Tesla's product, but if that is garbage, I can't image the word you should use to describe this because the two products are in no way comparable.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#177

Post by jdbernard »

Benjammer wrote: post #153
eloff wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand yes, on the other the company wouldn't exist. Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. It's a way to pull the ladder up behind you once you've achieved success. I don't know how we can better balance those seemingly conflicting aspects.

I can never really understand this argument. Why can't we carefully craft regulations to scale in their burden with the company's ability to bear said burden in some way? Scale with revenue or head count numbers? Similar to how income at the lowest bracket isn't taxed, to lessen the burden on people much less able to pay.

We can, but usually it's the established encumbents who are helping draft the language of the legislation (which is better than politicians with no expertise working alone) and they are not incentived to encourage the kind of regulation you propose.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#178

Post by slg »

eloff wrote: post #149
bathtub365 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems irresponsible for an engineering company to avoid regulators.

On one hand yes, on the other the company wouldn't exist. Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. It's a way to pull the ladder up behind you once you've achieved success. I don't know how we can better balance those seemingly conflicting aspects.

> Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers.

Call me crazy, but when it comes to products that could so easily cause death, a barrier to entry is a good thing.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#179

Post by Fricken »

nl wrote: post #165
Fricken wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So nowhere, then.

What is Adaptive Cruise Control and Automated Lane Centering if it isn't self driving? Notably, the NHTSA called out these exact features in their letter to Comma.ai: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/28/comma-ai-cancels-the-comma...

If the car can't drive without you, then it's not self-driving. Those features do not allow the the car to drive by itself. It can't go anywhere without a licensed, attentive driver. This is so thoroughly not complicated.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#180

Post by missosoup »

slg wrote: post #176
missosoup wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're already driving on roads shared with garbage solution like tesla's '''autopilot''' this thing is no different other than the creators not being able to afford the regulatory bribe to deploy it.

Comma is bragging about 6 million miles drive. Tesla's Autopilot has over 2 billion miles driven. This has two cameras (EDIT: and apparently 1 radar that already exists in the vehicle). Tesla's has 12 cameras, 12 sonars, and 1 radar. This is backed by a company that apparently has received $8 million in funding. Autopilot is backed by a company with a market cap of $84 billion. You are welcome to your opinion of Tesl…

You're listing specs which are a proxy for how much money the incumbent has, and saying that the regulatory barrier should be set at those specs for some reason.

None of those specs give any indication to the relative safety of the two systems though. And this is exactly what incumbents want. They want a small player to have to match their massive cash holdings to enter their market, even if the small player has a better product.

Here's some food for though: Tesla has been slapped with multiple lawsuits for misleading advertising of Autopilot. Regulators all agree that Autopilot is just an SAE level 2 system, same like those found on much cheaper cars with far less hardware and none of the marketing oversell.

Post reply on HN