241–250 of 255 posts
[0] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/tree/aa365e0d48ba29fd44...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an eon and love it for highway driving. It makes long trips relaxing. It's basically the combination of really good adaptive cruise control and active lane keep assist. And I feel it's safe within those limitations. Open Pilot keeps me in my lane on the highway following a safe distance behind other cars. I have a Toyota with TSS 2.0, so the steering is powerful enough on curves. My only complaint about steeri…
Even without openpilot the TSS should have alerted you to brake. On a recent long trip (24 hour drive) TSS 2.0 by itself made the driving stress free. It seems like comma is extending the boundaries of TSS by a little bit beyond what Toyota/Honda can legally do at their scale.
Here's how I compare the two systems. Stock adaptive cruise control is decent and useful. Stock also allows you control the follow distance. Openpilot doesn't allow you to adjust follow distance but it's conservative. OP is really smooth, so I think it's better than stock.
Stock lane keep assist is mildly annoying at best. I find the alarms annoying. And stock active lane keep assist is weak. I wouldn't generally consider stock LKA to be worth using for me. OP LKA is really good. It's great at keeping you in a lane, and it's extremely smooth. OP LKA is something I really appreciate.
You can technically use OP ACC without OP LKA, but the combination of the two is greater than the sum of its parts. Driving with OP is a surprisingly good experience. I was showing it to a relative recently and she said she was surprised at how smooth and how comfortable she was with it active. She mentioned if she wasn't watching the steering wheel she would not have noticed that I was not actually steering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And then we have comma, which controls your vehicle on a non-realtime system... Lol. This is what I found extremely shocking and is the first thing that I noticed. I don't think anyone serious about embedded design would touch it. They are trying to ignore decades of experience in real time systems and build some hacky stuff and make it open source.
I don't understand how you'd do hard real-time when one of the major inputs, the neural-networks, aren't deterministic? In a hard real-time system, what happens if your neural-networks are late telling you where the lanes are? In reality the comma-AI isn't controlling the car, a number of peripherals on the canbus are controlling the car. All those peripherals are hard-real time, and the comma-AI is bridging the non-…
The neural net will never be late. It just might be inaccurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Aaaaand that's why Americans need to pay 500 bucks for an insulin injector pen while Indians pay 10 bucks for the same device. The problem with regulatory capture and arguing it's a good thing, is that there's a downside/cost to the barrier it creates. And often that downside outweighs the upside. To be clear, no one is arguing regulation shouldn't exist. Just that the nature of regulation is to be captured by incumb…
I can't speak for insulin injectors, but I know for a fact that the reason Indian pharmaceuticals are often times massively cheaper is because they ignore patents by which the majority of the world abides.
Now in many cases, the patent system is set up for incumbents who have enough legal muscle to develop and patent isomers, metabolites, or "extended release" versions of successful drugs which are losing their patent privileges. But that's not the whole story. We know that some patents and copyrights are needed to encourage investment in R&D.
India (used to?) just blindly copy drugs, ignore paying royalties, and take the profits. I haven't ever been on any blockbuster meds developed natively in India. Have you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At risk of being snarky, I'm not sure 'engineering company' is the right moniker. They're an R&D shop making bleeding edge research available on a homebrew platform that can interface with recent vehicles to provide a level 2/3 driver assistance package. The stuff required to pass the regulators is the long, slow, boring process of pushing reliability and failure modes into "safe" territory, while documenting the fac…
"At risk of being snarky, I'm not sure 'engineering company' is the right moniker. They're an R&D shop ..." ... doing their R&D on public roadways, with unwitting / unwilling participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What hasn’t changed is that OpenPilot falls under the category of level 2 self-driving as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers [1] Look at the directory structure for the software - it has a "selfdrive" directory where all the code is![2] [1] https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/07/comma-ai-launches-comma-t... [2] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot#directory-structure
The SAE defines level 2 as "driver assist". Who is the driver in this situation? I'll give you a hint: it isn't the fucking car, you morons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Their tech is within the top two right now, how can anyone make that statement in the same breath as declaring that dodging regulators is fine? Who the hell evaluates the quality of the product if not regulators? Are we supposed to take George Hotz's or the companies word for it?
You can use it; you don't have to take Hotz's word, or the compan y's word for it. How everything works is completely open, and it works pretty well. Also, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21987585
Quick bit of feedback for any Comma employees lurking: It took me a very long time to realize that this was a self-driving solution for existing vehicles. The hero just says "Driven over 6 million miles" and then a "Buy Now". When I scrolled down and looked at the product and read: > We’ve added an infrared camera to provide 24/7 driver monitoring, an integrated panda, a custom cooling solution, and an OBD-C port wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how you'd do hard real-time when one of the major inputs, the neural-networks, aren't deterministic? In a hard real-time system, what happens if your neural-networks are late telling you where the lanes are? In reality the comma-AI isn't controlling the car, a number of peripherals on the canbus are controlling the car. All those peripherals are hard-real time, and the comma-AI is bridging the non-…
Neural networks are very much real-time. They generally consist of a fixed series of math operations of fixed size. Only the weights and inputs change. The neural net will never be late. It just might be inaccurate.
I'm still somewhat confused as to how multi-object recognition works in a real-time way, naively I'd presume that recognizing n+1 objects in a frame would take longer than n objects.
You might be able to more practically get real-time neural networks using something like YOLO (you only look once)?
Either way it seems to me like hard real-time neural networks are a very challenging problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, driving is dangerous. Why is the response to add another dangerous hazard? This argument is ridiculous.
Do you have evidence to support the hypothesis that cars equipped with aftermarket equipment are in general or with this specific system are more dangerous? Do you think such evidence should exist/be considered prior to banning a potential device? The reason I ask is because there is a general topic of whether we should preemptively block new technology based on hypotheses, whether we should seek supporting evidence,…