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

331–340 of 347 posts

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#331

Post by wheelerwj »

function_seven wrote: post #170
wheelerwj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the driver allows themselves to lose focus, they are just bad drivers. autopilot won't change that. what it will do is reduce the number of collisions by people who are shitty drivers and are currently driving unprotected. the data already demonstrates that autopilot reduces collisions and fatalities. to argue that it doesn't put you in league with climate change deniers.

> if the driver allows themselves to lose focus, they are just bad drivers This needs empirical support. All of us are human, and are susceptible to false senses of security. Most of us are not good at assessing real-world risks and probabilities. If the autopilot software is good enough to drive the car successfully for months on end, drivers will start to trust it. It will be very hard to stay vigilant and aware, w…

its only worth discussing if you can prove it exists. you've just offered supposition, not fact.

the fact that safety features such as seatbelts and airbags save lives is undeniable. they didn't lead to uncanny valleys of complacency for anyone but drivers who chose to abuse those features with wreckless driving. the data for AP already indicates this trend will continue with ML drivers.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#332

Post by wheelerwj »

function_seven wrote: post #172
wheelerwj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the same can be said for the examples i gave. if you get used to being vaccinated but forget your boosters before traveling to a new part of the world, should you have forgone your vaccinations altogether? of course not. if you have technology that makes it safer to drive 99.9% of the time but you expect it to cover for you when you're not paying attention, should you disregard the benefits of the other 99.9% of the…

This is not a good analogy. Being vaccinated is strictly better than not being vaccinated, even if you don’t get your boosters. It’s not settled yet whether a three-nines level of automation is strictly better than zero automation. It’s entirely possible that this level of automation is good enough to convince most users of its infallibility, but not good enough to reduce the statistical accident or fatality rate. Pe…

more data IS needed. but some automation is indeed better than no automation. this has been settled time and time again. computers are more accurate, more precise, and don't get tired, sick, or drunk.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#333

Post by function_seven »

wheelerwj wrote: post #331
function_seven wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the driver allows themselves to lose focus, they are just bad drivers This needs empirical support. All of us are human, and are susceptible to false senses of security. Most of us are not good at assessing real-world risks and probabilities. If the autopilot software is good enough to drive the car successfully for months on end, drivers will start to trust it. It will be very hard to stay vigilant and aware, w…

its only worth discussing if you can prove it exists. you've just offered supposition, not fact. the fact that safety features such as seatbelts and airbags save lives is undeniable. they didn't lead to uncanny valleys of complacency for anyone but drivers who chose to abuse those features with wreckless driving. the data for AP already indicates this trend will continue with ML drivers.

I never claimed anything more than supposition. I think these autopilot features are probably a net safety gain. But that's just a gut feeling.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#334

Post by ebalit »

taneq wrote: post #321
obastani wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it's not limited to cyclists. I think the general term used in cognitive science is "Looked but failed to see".

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#335

Post by bubblethink »

grkvlt wrote: post #323
bubblethink wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...?

There is no legislation about ride sharing/taxi with self driving cars. So whether or not an extra authorization is needed by the owner of the car is a different issue. Here Tesla is asking you to not engage in ride sharing unless Tesla gets a cut. i.e., Even if the government and insurance companies allow you to do so, Tesla won't unless you hand over your cut to them. Is there more to it than that ? Tesla is getting approval to make a car road legal. An insurance company may underwrite insurance for various purposes including taxi. Why do I need tesla's permissions to combine a road legal car for taxi purposes ?

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#336

Post by prostoalex »

Tentakill wrote: post #318
prostoalex wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dash cam videos would be correct, outside of high-occupancy lane (2+ people) there are no lane speed restrictions, and if someone feels like getting into the left-most lane and driving 5 miles below the speed limit, they most certainly act on that impulse. As you can imagine, anybody intending to use the left-most lane for high-speed driving is now forced to use the brakes, execute a [rarely safe] lane merge to t…

My driving instructor and parents all told me that driving in the left lane when not passing is illegal and that people who do it are dickheads. I see signs reminding people to stay in the right lane when not passing on a regular basis. Is it just the state I live in (WA) or is the rule not as solid as I thought?

It seems like even in WA the "Slow Traffic Keep Right" is more of a suggestion than a hard rule. There's also subjective interpretation of the rule - someone driving 71 in a 70-mph speed limit zone might not qualify themselves as slow, while someone behind who's okay with going 80 mph might disagree.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#337

Post by photojosh »

jclardy wrote: post #269
TeMPOraL wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but a) we have thousands of years of experience with those, and b) none of those are caused by little random noise in the visual input. Brains are incredibly robust against noisy data.

Our vision and persistent world model are good, but all humans are overconfident in their ability to drive in poor conditions (or even normal conditions, for many people.) A computer isn't going to look down at a text message on their phone, fall asleep at the wheel, or get in a car while intoxicated. All which occur literally every day. People take driving for granted, because (at least in the US) we have to. Our sp…

Yes! Tesla will take any death due to a failure of self-driving quite seriously indeed and work to fix the failure mode.

Whereas humans get the same kinds of fatal crashes over, and over, and over...

The Australian government has a "Black Spot" [1] program to provide federal funds (often millions) to fix up locations with a history of crashes. Bet it's cheaper to make those fixes to software.

[1] http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/blackspots/

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#338

Post by dzhiurgis »

Reason077 wrote: post #296
tmzt wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" auton…

We need transmitters in licence plates and on street signs too.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#339

Post by Reason077 »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #338
Reason077 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" auton…

We need transmitters in licence plates and on street signs too.

Why? So they can be "seen" through rain, fog and snow?

Reading road signs optically is a solved problem. Mobileye and similar systems have been doing this for a decade or more.

Re: Tesla Autopilot

#340

Post by djloche »

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…

The line is "software provided by the manufacturer is driving" vs "person is driving".

When you cede control of the steering, braking, acceleration, and even watching the road to software, you are no longer driving.

Post reply on HN