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

After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

np.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 351 posts

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#211

Post by [deleted] »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #80
lambda_lover wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great that you're willing to die for Tesla's profit, but you realize that autonomous vehicle-induced crashes affect everyone on the road? Even someone who doesn't consent to Tesla's TOS is still sharing the road with potentially dangerous software. Granted, individual drivers are awful enough that it probably doesn't make that huge a difference in danger. But would you still feel the way if a family member was k…

Everyone puts their lives in the hands of other machines daily, for instance brakes or automated elevators or medical devices; driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Computer or human won't change that. If we delay computers getting better than humans, we will just have status quo which is 30k or more road deaths yearly in the US.

[deleted]

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#212

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

slg wrote: post #106
SilasX wrote: post #7

I would be a lot more forgiving of these screwups if Tesla didn't constantly swear up and down that they've solved self-driving cars. As far back as 2016 they were claiming they had full SDC capability above human driver safety [1], and their recent Model Y announcement suggests that the only thing holding it up is regulatory approval, and not failure to achieve the desired spec. >Model Y will have Full Self-Driving…

I don't want to dismiss your whole point, because it is certainly valid, but that isn't really the issue here. It is entirely possible for bugs like this to exist in the self driving tech and for Tesla to be correct in their claims that Autopilot is on average safer than a human driver. It is obviously troubling to see self driving cars run into solid and stationary objects, but human drivers do that all the time too…

Hang on.

Unless something has changed, the Telsa self driving tech intentionally ignores stationary objects.

And Telsa are claiming this is a feature not a bug.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I don't know anyone who isn't suicidal who intentionally ignores stationary objects while driving.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#213

Post by [deleted] »

Domenic_S wrote: post #199
simple_phrases wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't excuse them when users take Tesla at their word that their Autopilot feature is fully self-driving and end up in an accident and/or dead.

Is this hyperbole, or do you think Tesla actually said that?

[deleted]

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#214

Post by leggomylibro »

skwb wrote: post #172
bsaul wrote: post #16

I wonder how do unit tests work with NN (or if they're even a relevant concept at all). You could replay some testing video frames and make sure the objects are correctly identified, but i suppose that's already what training is about... If an issue like that resurface, does it mean that the original frames leading to the 2018 accident aren't part of the training (or at least frames from someone driving in this kind…

You don't unit test a NN. You can unit test certain functions, but fundamentally this is an integration test. This is why serious scientific training is needed to understand these complex systems when health and safety are on the line.

"Autonomous vehicle integration test track" could make for a great setting in a spy thriller. The villain could own the megacorporation which makes the cars, and the heroes could find evidence of their evil plot among the sprawling acres of labs and potemkin streets. But then, in the distance, the sound of revving engines...

Seriously though, I wonder if that sort of physical test track will become popular. You would load your build onto an idle car, queue it up, and make sure that it didn't hit any of the silhouettes which spring up, unusual traffic and weather conditions, etc. They must already do that in some capacity, right?

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#215

Post by edshiro »

ip26 wrote: post #110
syntaxing wrote: post #102

Tesla should just partner or acquire a LiDAR startup already like Baraja [1]...They can let the computer vision do all the magic they want. Just have one scanning LiDAR as a redundant system so that it doesn't run into anything in front of the car. [1] https://www.baraja.com/

I don't know why, but supposedly they've made "no LiDAR" their hill to die on.

Costs. Installing LIDAR will significantly hike up the price of their vehicles.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#216

Post by ben174 »

tbabb wrote: post #180
eclipxe wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have stereo cameras and sensor fusing, as well as detecting more than just the lines in the road. Here is what the camera sees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACZACXgreQ

What in that video suggests sensor and/or stereo fusion to you? I notice that the temporal coherence is pretty bad-- Pedestrians pop out of recognition when they go behind trees; lane/exit boundaries wiggle all over the place and occasionally frame-pop into different configurations. A kalman filter, for example, is a state estimator which maintains temporal coherence, and makes heavy use of previous estimates/sensor…

Certainly two cameras with different FOVs could be combined to give the same depth data that a stereo camera setup could give, right?

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#217

Post by kirse »

1123581321 wrote: post #191
kirse wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel sorry for the people who are going to have to die for this to happen. I try to explain this to friends who are far too optimistic on self-crashing car technology. Self-driving cars (SDC) ultimately trade one class of problems that result in death (human-attention deficit) for another class of growing issues (sensor malfunctions/incapabilities, software defects). Ultimately SDC deaths end up as bugs/features on…

You are saying that the cost to develop successful self-driving cars is 1-50 quadrillion dollars using an optimistic estimate of rail costs. That does not seem reasonable. Perhaps 200 billion across all companies have been invested in self-driving cars so far (I.e., Waymo is just a fraction of that.)

Agree, SWAG was heavily W. Updated. I still think we're 50 years off from near-flawless SDC's though, assuming current LOE.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#218

Post by craftyguy »

falcolas wrote: post #55
craftyguy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you construe the meaning of 'fixed' to mean 'roll back all events and time', which I don't think anyone expects. They probably fixed the software bug.

I think that it's important to note that "we'll fix bugs via live patches" is a deadly decision when it comes to self driving software. Just discussing the incident in terms of a "software bug" does a disservice to the severity of the issue.

No, it does not. While I agree that testing patches on users with no testing beforehand is horrible, 1) I doubt Tesla does this, and 2) the person died before they fixed it, which GP seemed to be confused about.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#219

Post by dragontamer »

slg wrote: post #173
rayiner wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. We're not even at the point where we're comparing safety rates. Can a Model Y drive through DC? Can it ignore traffic signals in favor of following hand signals from a uniformed traffic officer, or follow the directions of a construction worker having traffic in turns through a road that they've decided to turn into one lane? Can it deal with an unannounced presidentia…

As far as I'm aware, Tesla has never claimed their cars will be able to handle all those situations. "Self driving car" is a vague term that has different definitions depending on who you ask. You are considering "self driving" as level 5 autonomy and Tesla probably considers it somewhere between 3-4 autonomy. I don't think it makes sense to get angry because their definition of the phrase is not the same as your def…

Tesla skirts morality.

The feature is called 'Full self driving'. Their sales reps regularly told customers to take their hands off the steering wheel of their "Autopilot". Sure, the fine print says "always pay attention", but there's an entire marketing scheme going on here which is borderline dishonest.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#220

Post by dahfizz »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #212
slg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to dismiss your whole point, because it is certainly valid, but that isn't really the issue here. It is entirely possible for bugs like this to exist in the self driving tech and for Tesla to be correct in their claims that Autopilot is on average safer than a human driver. It is obviously troubling to see self driving cars run into solid and stationary objects, but human drivers do that all the time too…

Hang on. Unless something has changed, the Telsa self driving tech intentionally ignores stationary objects . And Telsa are claiming this is a feature not a bug . Am I understanding this correctly? I don't know anyone who isn't suicidal who intentionally ignores stationary objects while driving.

Do you have anything to back this up? That seems like a pretty big claim to make unsubstantiated. If autopilot literally ignores staionary objects, you would see them crash much more often than they do.
Post reply on HN