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

Autopilot on Cars for $999

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–298 of 298 posts

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#291

Post by Piskvorrr »

bko wrote: post #202
gkop wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volvo sells a car with an optional feature that has hardware and software components. If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo. Comma sells only some hardware (with some limited software?). Comma suggests, but is careful not to encourage for street use, that customers modify the hardware with open source software that ma…

> If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo I imagine this is true for comma as well. I don't think their little waiver and notice that it should only be used in a research setting would hold up in court. Much like "incense" were banned despite being marked "not for human consumption". > My beef is that Comma-the-product…

In the technical aspect you are correct. In the legal aspect, nope. Even if (for the sake of the example) this were identical technology under the hood w/ Volvo and Comma, there's a world of difference between "I bought a stock car that is certified to be street-legal" and "I installed some aftermarket thing into my car, despite being warned that it might void the car's street-legality."

It's not just what you think, not least because your driver's license is a permit, not a right. (On the other hand, I agree that the bar requested for computer driving safety is at least an order of magnitude higher than for human driving safety, and that the elephant in the room is the risky road environment that we pretend doesn't exist for humans.)

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#292

Post by buran77 »

gonehome wrote: post #275
buran77 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German authorities did find Tesla's claims about the AP as misleading [0]. Tesla's AP page was updated (globally) to reflect "full self driving in the future" but until recently it just said "Tesla cars come equipped with all the necessary hardware for full self driving" with a footer claiming some features are unavailable due to local laws. Regardless, Tesla was not found guilty for anything other than misleading ad…

I don't agree, but I know this is a position a reasonable person could hold. I just don't think autopilot means autonomous driving and I think that's clear to people. If someone thinks cruise control means you can crawl into the backseat of the car, is that the fault of the car manufacturer? I also think Germany may have a bias given their own car industry. What comma.ai is doing I think is categorically different. I…

> I also think Germany may have a bias given their own car industry.

This isn't really a fair argument to be honest. You're brushing the court's justification aside ("By using the term 'autopilot' and other wording, the defendant suggests that their vehicles are technically able to drive completely autonomously.") to focus on a weak link between the country having a strong auto industry, and the justice system banning advertisement for something Tesla does not actually deliver.

> I just don't think autopilot means autonomous driving and I think that's clear to people.

Tesla was claiming their cars have "all the necessary hardware for FSD" since at least 2016 [0]. That's an obviously misleading statement since not even expert engineers know if that hardware is enough. If anything the general consensus is that it isn't, and Musk's missed promises support this.

> If someone thinks...

When it comes to misleading advertisement the technical definition isn't very relevant. As the name suggests, it's about whether enough people are mislead into believing they're buying something else. This was raised by consumer groups after realizing the payed promise of FSD never came. Customers shouldn't be expected to be experts in all things. So if the marketing makes it sound to regular people like the product is something other than what it actually is then it's fair to call it "misleading".

[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=all+the+necessary+hardware+...

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#293

Post by Piskvorrr »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #146
gonehome wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road. This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we…

I think their distinction is that they’re selling the hardware, which is capable of controlling the car just fine. So the thing you’re paying for is delivering as promised. The software is a separate project, and you could theoretically load whatever software on the hardware you wanted. So the fact that the software is glitchy is not (in the view of the company) something you can hold them responsible for. You paid f…

Sure. You can load any software you want on that, so it's actually for playing DOOM on your car's entertainment system, and it has absolutely no relation to the demos on their pages.

IANAL, but "the dog ate my steering wheel" would be a more plausible defense.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#294

Post by Piskvorrr »

almost_usual wrote: post #117
gonehome wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road. This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we…

Welcome to the world of aftermarket vehicle modifications.

...and woe betide you if you try to get your insurance company to pay up, ever again. "Aftermarket? Cool, a get-out-of-reimbursement-free card, have a nice day!"

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#295

Post by dukedave »

gregatragenet wrote: post #232

Surprised how much hate there is here for this technology from people who never tried it. I've had one for a year. It is game-changing. You can drive what you like - it supports many different cars.. I can road trip for hours on autopilot and then drive my Subaru on rocky forest roads that would rip the undercarriage out of a Tesla.. It does adaptive cruise control and lane centering for hours on end.. Being able to…

I've been using openpilot for about 6 months and this is exactly how I feel.

Even if it did do something erratic (which it hasn't so far) the torque limit means there's just no way the car's going to do anything so fast and aggressively you couldn't take control.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#296

Post by almost_usual »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #294
almost_usual wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of aftermarket vehicle modifications.

...and woe betide you if you try to get your insurance company to pay up, ever again. "Aftermarket? Cool, a get-out-of-reimbursement-free card, have a nice day!"

I’ve had aftermarket mods for years and haven’t had problems. There’s a big market and people will do what they want.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#297

Post by evdoks »

t0mas88 wrote: post #138
leesec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far there are only 2 car companies with comparable quality, Tesla, and GM with Supercruise ( available on only 1 model ). This is intended to provide functionality for all the rest

Have you seen recent Volvo, BMW and Mercedes systems? They all have good lane keeping and adaptive cruise / stop & go for several years now. And I'm sure there are many more that I'm not aware of.

I have seen and driven recent BMW, latest VW (ID.3) and OpenPilot on Toyota RAV4 was giving me a much better experience in both lane keeping and as a product (driver monitoring, communication with the driver, overall UI and UX). BMW, VW score by having maps data integrated, that allows them to adjust speed for curves and traffic signs. However, it is not directly related to what comma is doing right now, so I am taking it out of the equation. Moreover, I think adding map data is just a matter of time for Comma.ai and I can imagine that adjusting speed in before entering a steep curve will be much better solved with vision, which seems also to be on Comma's roadmap.

Re: Autopilot on Cars for $999

#298

Post by Piskvorrr »

almost_usual wrote: post #296
Piskvorrr wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and woe betide you if you try to get your insurance company to pay up, ever again. "Aftermarket? Cool, a get-out-of-reimbursement-free card, have a nice day!"

I’ve had aftermarket mods for years and haven’t had problems. There’s a big market and people will do what they want.

Sure, I'm all for that. OTOH, my experiences with insurance companies is that they'll spend 10x the money and effort for denying payment, and the contracts are heavily weighted in their favor.
Post reply on HN