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

Tesla Autopilot

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 347 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#291

Post by tmzt »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #178
the_rosentotter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It terrifies me to think of relying on image recognition software to correctly determine an upcoming crossing road (with cars zipping across) so it can properly slow down, rather than get broadsided at full speed. Or a number of other life-and-death situations (which are common during driving). It just seems fragile (what if the 'vision' is somehow impaired, f.ex. blinded by sunlight, or the road markings are wrong o…

I agree that 'properly' marking roads for self driving vehicles is better. But this is a chicken and egg problem. There is no incentive to create such markings until self driving vehicles are common. And limiting self driving vehicles to properly marked roads will make them useless for most people, resulting in less funding for further development.

These would also apply to Lane Departure Warnings present on more and more cars each model year.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#292

Post by defterGoose »

ageofwant wrote: post #132
Animats wrote: post #64

Watch this at 0.25x speed or slower to see what's going on. This is a carefully chosen environment. Every place it drives has very clear highway centerline markings. It seems to be highly dependent on those for guidance. Sometimes it can't quite identify the road edge, but the centerline provides a position reference. The inputs seem to be road line recognition, optical flow for the road, and solid object recognition…

And yet, its still an objectively better driver than you.

It's not objectively better if I've caused 0 accidents to the autopilot's several, even if I've driven several million fewer miles.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#293

Post by Matthias247 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #12
arikr wrote: post #4

> Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. I wonder what the current status is, both in terms of software validation, and regulatory appro…

You can look at their CA DMV disengagement report here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen... . They were very far away as of the start of this year.

The lists are interesting. And for me they are mostly telling that they are all in some super early prototyping phases. E.g. Tesla lists tests with To give some comparison numbers how normal series cars are tested at bigger automotive companies: There are test fleets of partly over 100 cars for a new car model, where some of those are tested all around the clock (> 600 miles per day). All in all often 2digit million kilometers.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#295

Post by resf »

Animats wrote: post #125
madaxe_again wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had to reverse early cars up hills due to their gravity fed fuel systems. Yet here we are, driving forwards up hills.

Compare Chris Urmson's SXSW talk from 2016 about Google's system.[1] Look carefully at the graphics which show what the sensors are detecting, and compare with Tesla's. Watch Urmson discuss hard cases, problems, and failures. Not seeing that with Tesla. Or Uber. Or Cruise. Or Otto. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik

Tesla want a system that works all the time, even if that means it kills some pedestrians once in a while.

Waymo want a system that has a zero accident rate, even if that means it can't operate in the rain.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#296

Post by Reason077 »

tmzt wrote: post #289
Reason077 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't fully understand why more effort is not put into a hardware solution, where roads are simply marked up for self-driving vehicles, e.g. magnets lining the lanes or something like that." How would "magnets" be any improvement over visual markings? Is there some sensor that can track magnets at greater distance, or with greater reliability than visual markings? Besides, how many millions of miles of road would…

A simple RF transmitter in new versions of the existing reflector discs would do it. It wouldn't need to do anything but "ping", the battery could last for years. You could even have a mechanism to disable it when the lines are repainted, though normally roads that use the existing version of these reflectors would have them removed when moving lines. The transmitter would have to be powerful enough to go through a s…

But what is the actual advantage of this RF system? Why is this any better than just using a camera and image processing?

OK, RF would mean the lane geometry can be "seen" through all weather conditions (fog, snow). But so does precise-enough mapping/fleet learning. Neither would help in detecting traffic and transitory obstacles that might be hidden by that fog - you still need other sensors for that!

A "safe" autonomous vehicle should perhaps simply slow down in adverse weather conditions just as a human driver would. Even without additional sensors, their ability to see through snow and fog is certainly no worse than a humans.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#297

Post by delinka »

joeblau wrote: post #190
aidos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the teslas are going to be trained to see elephants either!

You don't necessarily have to train it to see elephants, but Neural Networks fail in pretty interesting ways. This that are very obvious to you and I have the ability to confuse a CNN[1]. [1] - http://www.evolvingai.org/fooling

These look like a digital Rorschach test. With the minor difference that a human "knows" the image is not really an object and is being asked to interpret in some way; where the machine has no "knowledge" nor "understanding" but has an imperative to match this input to something in its repertoire of knowledge.

As a human, if you asked me to match these synthetic images to a most-likely real-world match, then my responses will also look "confused."

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#298

Post by make3 »

Tesla plans to restrict the use of their car AI when it is for uber-like uses to their own to-be-announced network! That's probably the biggest news here, for me at least! "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#299

Post by make3 »

Tesla plans to restrict the use of their car AI when it is for uber-like uses to their own to-be-announced network! That's probably the biggest news here, for me at least! "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#300

Post by eeZah7Ux »

obastani wrote: post #203
Daviey wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never been temporary blinded by a low-sun? Never sneezed and had your eyes closed at the wrong moment? This is the same thing..

Humans know when they can't see properly. The problem with adversarial examples is that the neural net thinks it's doing great. You have to manually specify every possible failure mode for the neural net before hand -- if you miss one, you might have an accident.

> Humans know when they can't see properly

There's plenty of conditions that are more difficult to humans: cars that are painted with the same color of asphalt seem to disappear in highways. Also, fog.

Post reply on HN