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

George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 498 posts

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#281

Post by smallnamespace »

kefka wrote: post #277
smallnamespace wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by 'well-connected', you mean people who have the means and resources to properly test their products, then I agree.

"Product" ? I'm seeing a demo he wasn't selling. And when a big govt stick comes a'knocking, unless you're also big and well connected, you will get shut down. This was clear as a way to "do insane amount of documentation in a laughably short timeframe, or fuck your business with a fine-stick." Yeah, GeoHotz is an ass, but this is inane. Great way to kill small businesses.

So what would you have the regulator do here--wait until the product is on the market first?

He's publicly stated they were aiming for year-end release.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#282

Post by FeepingCreature »

rgbrenner wrote: post #244
tim333 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To estimate your questions, probably no lives have been saved so far through self driving, possibly one extra guy killed in the Telsa crash which you could say was maybe half the systems fault and half the driver not following instructions. In the future, 1.2m people die a year so say self driving reduces that to 0.2m/year, that's a million lives saved per year. You family is thousands of times more likely to die in…

If unnecessary red tape slows things down and causes 100k extra deaths is that ok? That's an imaginary scenario. You have no idea if that's the way it plays out. Let me give you another scenario: the first self-driving cars kill a bunch of people, and no one wants to touch them for years after they finally become safe; delaying the adoption of cars, and causing millions of additional people to die.

Very unlikely. Self-driving cars are potentially enormously profitable; with such profitable products I think you'll find that the opinion of an outraged public matters somewhat less than it customarily does.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#283

Post by Animats »

Analemma_ wrote: post #16

He's currently throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter, and all because the NHTSA wanted to ask him a few questions about the product (you can see it here: https://www.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special... ). Like, how dare the government try to have basic standards for multi-ton hunks of metal hurtling down the highway without human input. I've been trying to convince people lately that Silicon Valley isn…

Holtz's Twitter rant is at [1].

Cruise Automation was very lucky to be acquired by GM before they got a similar letter. Similarly, Otto being acquired by Uber. They were both proposing to sell similar add-on systems. Their valuations would have been much lower after receiving such letters.

NHTSA has it right. "It is insufficient to assert, as you do, that 'your product does not remove any of the driver responsibilities from the task of driving'. As you are undoubtedly aware, there is a high likelihood that some drivers will use your product in a manner that exceeds its intended purpose."

Did Tesla got a similar letter? They have exactly that problem and exactly the same excuse. Tesla claims “Autopilot is an assist feature. You need to maintain control and responsibility of your vehicle.”

Here are three dashcam videos of Teslas crashing on autopilot. These are the three where there was a stopped vehicle partially blocking the left edge of the lane, and the Tesla plowed right into it. Tesla blames the driver. Looks like the NHTSA isn't buying that.

[1] https://twitter.com/comma_ai [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ7vqAUJdbE [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoSNw_n1Xgk [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQkx-4pFjus

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#284

Post by drvdevd »

robotresearcher wrote: post #240
wyager wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? If not, you clearly didn't read the letter; it's more than "a little regulation", it's a huge set of requests on an unreasonably short timeline. With regard to the more general point of your post, even if it's nominally possible to eke out a profit under overburdening regulation, you're still allowed to take a principled stand against it.

He chose the launch date without making sure he was legal first.

I think this is the most sane, non-politicized way of stating what happened here. You can speculate as to the motives of the regulator (short timeframe, high costs, certain friends), but the fact of the matter is this was a major flaw in his plan which he didn't see coming.

[edit] unless his real plan was to go to China all along...

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#285

Post by ubernostrum »

6stringmerc wrote: post #98

Do I think Hotz has a viable product? Yes. (A comment over at Jalopnik linked to a Tweet where an actual human rider / journalist experienced the Hotz vehicle and was quite impressed) Do I think there's significant political pressure to have his product, ahem, driven into the ground as to not be a viable competitor to larger firms? Yes. Do I think it's a sign of immaturity to pack up your stuff and leave when confron…

Do I think there's significant political pressure to have his product, ahem, driven into the ground as to not be a viable competitor to larger firms?

I think it's likely that he's getting exactly the same treatment one of those "larger firms" would get if they did the same.

The difference between him and those "larger firms" is that the "larger firms" would've been planning for the regulatory checks from the start. They would never have been blindsided by a request for information because they'd have known this stuff is a legal requirement and would've been proactively having discussions with regulators, figuring out what they'd need to provide, etc.

And speaking from what I've seen working at a startup in a heavily-regulated industry: federal regulators aren't black-suited startup-killing robots. They don't seem to care much how new or "agile" or "lean" or "disruptive" a company is. They care that the things or people protected by the relevant regulations... are actually protected. Crazy idea, I know, but it certainly does appear to be the case most of the time (cue people lining up with anecdotes to angrily tell me I'm some kind of statist apologist whatever and shouldn't be listened to...).

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#286

Post by zodPod »

mikeash wrote: post #219
abduhl wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that. My question was: what is the casualty rate currently and what is the casualty rate in the self-driving car future? I am asking what you think this reduction actually is and how high of a price you're willing to pay to see that reduction. I am specifically asking what you think the reduction is so that we can have a discussion on 1) whether that is a realistic reduction and 2) whether that is, in tu…

My mind is made up only because I'm pretty sure the casualty rate will be sharply lower. Humans are horrible at driving. As for your question, you basically destroyed the conversation when you asked "Is your family an acceptable casualty?" If you just wanted numbers, you shouldn't have made it personal like that. That's all my point is here.

> As for your question, you basically destroyed the conversation when you asked "Is your family an acceptable casualty?" If you just wanted numbers, you shouldn't have made it personal like that. That's all my point is here.

This is a really fair point but I also don't think it's a bad thing to say this. I think people distance themselves from possible problems by calling things a numbers game but they don't factor in the fact that they could be part of those numbers.

If I say that 27000 people per year die from listening to Mambo Number 5 then I say that we can lower that to 15 if we remix it to take out the deadly frequency but we will have to test it on 20 people to find which is the deadly frequency for sure. That sounds great. A couple people might die but what's that to save 27000/year?

Well, take that and say we will have to test it on 20 people and 5 of those will be your family. That makes the decision a lot harder. Logically it's exactly the same but emotionally instead of "people" it's 15 "people" and 5 of your family.

So, it's important to mention it could be your family because if someone was alright with it because they are looking at the pure numbers, they should be brought back to the reality that we all actually live in a little.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#287

Post by HCIdivision17 »

hartator wrote: post #120
gavman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The NHTSA memo seems extremely reasonable to me. If you're going to put to market a product where the smallest malfunction could easily kill many people (both those using your product and those around them), answering a couple regulation questions seems like a small hurdle to pass. Nothing here is saying "we want to shut you down", it's saying "we want to make sure you pass the most basic safety standards".…

I feel $21,000 fine per day sounds pretty like "we want to shut you down". He never presented comma.ai as an autopilot but as a very smart line assist and adaptive cruise control.

The fine is punative. Noncompliance is often not acceptable when it comes to safety and environmental regulations. When I worked in plants, you can bet there were only two groups that would put the fear of God in operations: OSHA and the local environmental regulations agency. Fines could be thousands per hour (or per infraction, which could be collected hourly). Even if it's unreasonable (and for damn sure it can be - Argon metering was my personal worst hated), you better comply until you successfully sue or negotiate it down.

And it is likely necessary. Meeting regulations is far harder and more expensive than just the feel good that you met the reqs. If there wasn't a stick held up as a credible threat, plants would just trash everything. Not because they're evil, but because plants simply can't care - they aren't people. Thusly these agencies are impersonal and brutal in kind.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#288

Post by fiatpandas »

Analemma_ wrote: post #16

He's currently throwing a temper tantrum on Twitter, and all because the NHTSA wanted to ask him a few questions about the product (you can see it here: https://www.scribd.com/document/329218929/2016-10-27-Special... ). Like, how dare the government try to have basic standards for multi-ton hunks of metal hurtling down the highway without human input. I've been trying to convince people lately that Silicon Valley isn…

That letter was an easy out for him. When you boast about your tech and it doesn't deliver on the promise (and don't forget the Musk challenge), it looks much better if your exit is caused by government interference than if you were to quit on your own. It's kind of less of a failure.

Granted, it's a huge stretch for him based on the language of the letter, but that's how I read the situation.

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#289

Post by DannyBee »

tptacek wrote: post #51
probdist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have asked for George's middle name and the cost of compliance would be burdensome. It is not the rap but the ride that you can't beat.

This list of requests is, for a self-driving car startup, indeed pretty close to simply asking for middle names.

THe funnier thing is if you search google for NHTSA special orders, you will find this is pretty much the nicest and simplest one they've issued in quite a while :)

Re: George Hotz cancels his Tesla Autopilot-like ‘comma one’

#290

Post by throwaway729 »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #256
throwaway729 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 10,000 people were killed on the way to making driverless cars safe, and this wild west approach ended up getting them into mass market use a few years earlier, it would save the lives of thousands of people overall. This is a perfect example of the biggest and IMO most compelling critique of utilitarianism -- namely, that it's too susceptible to bullshitting. People decide what they want to do, then completely…

Lots of things are susceptible to misuse. That doesn't invalidate them unless they are in fact misused. Moreover I don't see how you can conclude on a whim what's possible to estimate and what is not. Given these things take expertise in the relevant field and more than just casual analysis. Finally, it's not like there is a small margin of error. Can you even really comprehend 30,000 deaths every single year caused…

> Moreover I don't see how you can conclude on a whim what's possible to estimate and what is not

Yes, exactly. Like in so many cases, coming up with good values for the parameters is often the most difficult part of the analysis... that was exactly my point!

> Given these things take expertise in the relevant field and more than just casual analysis.

Except in this case, there are a lot of experts, and they all seem to be taking roughly the same approach.

> Finally, it's not like there is a small margin of error

It's not clear to me, at this point, what your assumptions even are. What percentage of those deaths would be prevented by self-driving technology? How many new types of accidents would be caused by self-driving technology? By what percentage would that number decrease if the regulatory environment were more friendly? And what's your basis for these numbers?

Also, it's perhaps telling that there really hasn't been a single example of regulators preventing self-driving up until this one, which is rather extreme. Google, Uber, and the scattering of startups and car companies have all taken a more cautious road to deployment of entirely their own making.

> and you're not even willing to consider that speeding up r&d might save a few lives?

There's a big difference between speeding up r&d and rushing unproven tech to market.

Post reply on HN