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

321–330 of 347 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#321

Post by taneq »

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.

Motorcyclists have a word for this phenomenon. It's called SMIDSY - "sorry mate, I didn't see you." Clear road, good vision, bike traveling in a straight line within the speed limit, car still somehow pulls out and hits the bike. Even worse, the times when the bike is stationary at a red light and the car just drives through it.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#322

Post by grkvlt »

falcolas wrote: post #249
TeMPOraL wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those examples show that ML algorithms "see" things much differently from us. It also shows they're very vulnerable to nonsense data. How can I be reasonably sure that some random play of shadows and lights, that would never fool a human, will cause a failure mode in a neural network in a vision-only self-driving car?

Or worse - paint jobs created specifically to muck with image recognition. Or when the graffiti becomes intentionally malicious (thinking of a variation of Wiley E. Coyote's tricks with paint and solid walls)?

Would these be the same graffiti artists that are currently maliciously painting over road warning and direction signs to fool human drivers? Say, whiting out a 'low bridge ahead' sign, so that trucks and double-decker buses crash into it...? Because, nobody is doing that now, and if they tried it, they would be prosecuted, probably for murder or attempted murder.

I don't understand where some people get the belief that automated vehicles will suddenly become targets of murderous or sociopathic pranksters?

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#323

Post by grkvlt »

bubblethink wrote: post #216
djloche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question is one of responsibility in the case of accident. is it the owner of the car? or the driver? what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network where we can self-regulate…

>what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network Why does this argument hold true only for self-driving cars, and not current cars ? As such, self-driving cars are just a point in c…

It sort of does hold for current cars. Generally a driver (in most cases, a human) must obtain a further license or some form of government permission/authorization to drive a vehicle for commercial purposes like a taxi or other passenger carrying service. This seems to be simply pointing out that the same restriction will apply to the software-based driver in a Tesla...?

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#324

Post by andreareina »

delinka wrote: post #297
joeblau wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 respo…

Julia Evans: How to trick a neural network into thinking a panda is a vulture

https://codewords.recurse.com/issues/five/why-do-neural-netw...

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#325

Post by hsod »

adanto6840 wrote: post #11

This is quite interesting, I hadn't seen or heard about their intention to restrict like this, prior reading it tonight: "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."

I think it kinda makes sense considering that Autopilot is going to need constant maintenance/updates/investigations, plus the whole legal liability thing.

Autopilot is a service.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#326

Post by xapata »

pferde wrote: post #309
TeMPOraL wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it shouldn't be above current capabilities. But I'm yet to see anyone doing something like this. And I'm definitely wary about taking the results of toying with "deep learning" and saying we've can put that on a car and expect good results - which is an impression I sometimes get in articles about those topics.

Also, this will stop working the day an elephant escapes from a ZOO and manages to get onto a highway. All the autopilots will declare the elephant's presence as impossible, and will happily crash into it.

Not likely. Computers can do a double-take, just like humans.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#327

Post by bitL »

ktta wrote: post #124
bitL wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LiDAR doesn't work well in rain and it's just a ray of infrared laser light scanning surroundings, so it can be obstructed the same way as cameras; radar is what you want. But NVidia uses just 3 normal cameras and deep learning to drive in rain/snow/night and it seems to be working for them.

If anyone isn't aware: While most companies use LIDAR, Tesla uses radar https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-...

All of them use both, and in multiple instances of each. So they might have two front LiDARs, two side LiDARs, one rear LiDAR, one front and one rear radar, ultrasonic sensors etc. and then perform a sensor fusion to map car's surroundings.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#328

Post by gus_massa »

grkvlt wrote: post #322
falcolas wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or worse - paint jobs created specifically to muck with image recognition. Or when the graffiti becomes intentionally malicious (thinking of a variation of Wiley E. Coyote's tricks with paint and solid walls)?

Would these be the same graffiti artists that are currently maliciously painting over road warning and direction signs to fool human drivers? Say, whiting out a 'low bridge ahead' sign, so that trucks and double-decker buses crash into it...? Because, nobody is doing that now, and if they tried it, they would be prosecuted, probably for murder or attempted murder. I don't understand where some people get the belief t…

Last year, there was a popular hoax about a graffiti of a Road Runner tunnel: http://www.snopes.com/road-runner-tunnel-crash-rumor/

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#329

Post by gus_massa »

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

I guess the CNN was trained only with real images. They must add some [random noise], [crap], [glitch] and [collage] images to the training set. This may reduce the efficiency of the NN in the real world, but it will make more difficult to find funny examples of misclassification.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#330

Post by falcolas »

grkvlt wrote: post #322
falcolas wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or worse - paint jobs created specifically to muck with image recognition. Or when the graffiti becomes intentionally malicious (thinking of a variation of Wiley E. Coyote's tricks with paint and solid walls)?

Would these be the same graffiti artists that are currently maliciously painting over road warning and direction signs to fool human drivers? Say, whiting out a 'low bridge ahead' sign, so that trucks and double-decker buses crash into it...? Because, nobody is doing that now, and if they tried it, they would be prosecuted, probably for murder or attempted murder. I don't understand where some people get the belief t…

> I don't understand where some people get the belief that automated vehicles will suddenly become targets

There is precedent when it comes to the automation of people's jobs (truckers, cab drivers, courier services) and fanatical condemnation of technological advancement; see everything from the Luddite's infamous wooden shoes to the spiking of trees to stop logging.

In the forests near my hometown, some environmental fanatics will string up wire across motorcycle and ATV tracks, or create blockages and attack riders with crowbars and pipes. I wish I were kidding.

As for current graffiti artists - they're taking down stop signs and road markers, defacing handicapped parking signs with stickers, tagging any and all road signs, and so forth. They're minor nuisances for human drivers, who can usually easily identify compensate for such changes. Computers, even those running neural networks, are not able to compensate so easily.

Post reply on HN