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

221–230 of 351 posts

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

#221

Post by MSM »

erobbins wrote: post #138

I think Tesla eventually has a catastrophic accident and is sued and/or criminally prosecuted into oblivion. I feel sorry for the people who are going to have to die for this to happen. This trope that humans are bad drivers is, in general, crap. Humans are very good drivers. The US has 7.3 deaths per billion km driven. This means if you drive 50km a day, every day, you are (essentially) guaranteed to die... after 75…

You're looking at it strictly from a safety perspective which is a small part of the whole picture. If we looked at transportation from a safety perspective throughout history, we'd still be walking everywhere. What's the risk of crashing and dying while walking? Zero; it's fully optimized for safety. We rode horses and now drive cars to save time. Driving to work is unquestionably a better experience than riding a horse into work every day, but it could be better- we could be sleeping on our way into the office, or starting our work day as we leave our driveway, or eating a good breakfast and finishing our makeup (while not endangering everyone else).

Having commuting time available as what amounts to "free time" is an insane boost to daily life. A quick google says Americans spend 12.2 days per year in their cars. If 300 million people can save 12 days' time per year, you're freeing up ten million years of time every year.

I'm not advocating for throwing everyone in self driving cars untested and who cares how many people die, but if, on the journey to saving many millennia of time every year, a person is killed, why should the company be sued into oblivion? If we're going to sue everyone into oblivion whenever anything doesn't go quite right, why would any company ever try to take on difficult problems?

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

#222

Post by deevolution »

erobbins wrote: post #138

I think Tesla eventually has a catastrophic accident and is sued and/or criminally prosecuted into oblivion. I feel sorry for the people who are going to have to die for this to happen. This trope that humans are bad drivers is, in general, crap. Humans are very good drivers. The US has 7.3 deaths per billion km driven. This means if you drive 50km a day, every day, you are (essentially) guaranteed to die... after 75…

Certainly we can do better than this tho? Your bar for very good driver" is pretty low. I'm sure everyone has at least one acquaintance they know who has died in a car crash. I can count 3 who have died from car crashes and 3 others who have been seriously injured. Humans arent going to get any better at driving. Something has got to change.

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

#223

Post by dmitrygr »

ben174 wrote: post #216
tbabb wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

not if they are on the same axis. then anything along that axis cannot have its depth determined

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

#224

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

dahfizz wrote: post #220
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It has been in the media.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+ignores+stationary+obj...

Edit to add: apologies for terse response, a bit distracted at present

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

#225

Post by dragontamer »

throwaway789214 wrote: post #73

Crazy how people are blatantly ignoring that even on autopilot drivers need to be attentive and keep situational awareness at all times. I can't remember that there was ever a case in which autopilot caused a situation that an attentive driver couldn't have recovered from. Yet it is blamed on the system when people ignore this requirement and end up in an accident. Throw-away for obvious reasons...

Other companies call their technologies by more precise names. Other companies call it "Lane Keep Assist". Tesla is the only one calling it "autopilot". Therefore, people have different expectations when they use the thing.

Its Tesla's marketing that people are really complaining about: "Full self driving", "Navigate on Autopilot", "Enhanced Summon".

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1067967799547449344

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

#226

Post by Bluestrike2 »

DarmokJalad1701 wrote: post #148
txcwpalpha wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elevators and medical devices go through extensive testing and certification processes before they ever go near being put into service. And when they are updated, they again go through extensive testing and certification. Teslas, on the other hand, apparently change their handling and driving profile overnight at the whim of the software engineers at Tesla, without even telling the drivers , and introducing bugs like…

> apparently change their handling and driving profile overnight at the whim of the software engineers at Tesla, without even telling the drivers OTA updates only happen after confirmed by the users. Where did you hear that it happens without user intervention?

You're right. The owner/driver has to approve the update, if I recall. But putting responsibility to review and understand release notes on the car's owner seems kind of absurd. And that's assuming that you have accurate and descriptive release notes, which was most certainly not the case for the described instance. In any case, clicking "update" is such a rote behavior for users on computers, phones, and now their Teslas, I'd argue that it's effectively no different than an update happening without notice or user intervention.

There's only so much you can learn from even the best release notes, period. The ever-so-common "bug fixes," for example, is so broad that it effectively means nothing at all. At best, it's telling the end user "this little update just changes some stuff hidden under the hood. You won't notice anything, so don't give it any thought."

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

#227

Post by heavenlyblue »

SilasX wrote: post #205
heavenlyblue wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla would have had 0 fatalities in total if the Autopilot disengaged just before hitting the barrier.

For all driving protocols P, and accidents A, P would have zero fatalities if it switched to a better protocol just before encountering the situation that led to A.

That's exactly what I am trying to say. Yet Tesla implies their tech is statistically superior to human drivers, yet can disengage at any time.

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

#228

Post by serf »

warp_factor wrote: post #26
bdcravens wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a $700 car I might consider crazy compromises, but $70k+? Absolutely not.

That's what I find so interesting with Tesla owner. They spend a fortune on a car, then they minimize every single issue they have with the car. My explanation for this is that for a lot of owners, the car is a way to be part of a hyped group more than being a utilitarian object (what a car should be).

what's even more interesting is when a market of people choose to act out of the ordinary to cope with a product that has an issue, but in the situation where the product is self-learning to a degree.

Tesla hits a wall, Folks drive abnormally due to qualms with incident, Tesla receives data and throws it in the ML mix, Car learns from people driving purposely strange.

Of course, it doesn't work out like that; not enough people will do it to influence anything very much, but it's a funny thing to consider.

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

#229

Post by yellowapple »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #209
gamblor956 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pacemaker has objective improvements over the alternative, namely, death. So if a pacemaker has a bug, it's still overwhelmingly better than the baseline scenario of "no pacemakers." A self-driving Tesla is not objectively better than a regular, human-driven car. The jury's still out on whether any self-driving car is even as good as the average human driver, so if one of them has a bug that causes serious accident…

> So if a pacemaker has a bug, it's still overwhelmingly better than the baseline scenario of "no pacemakers." Unless it goes of when it's not needed and kills you.

Right, but the probability of you dying because you do have a pacemaker is (in the situations for which a pacemaker is prescribed) far less than the probability of you dying because you don't have a pacemaker.

The same cannot yet be said about "self-driving" cars.

Post reply on HN