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

Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–348 of 348 posts

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#341

Post by robbrown451 »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #320
robbrown451 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. He sure isn't expected to be able to jump in with less than a second's notice to override what autopilot is doing. And he typically isn't there to make sure the autopilot isn't doing something stupid. He's there to watch for conditions that the autopilot can't handle...and those typically have plenty of warning time in a plane. And a pilot is a trained professional. The expectation that the driver will ju…

When on a plane there's a "Ground" alert, pilot is supposed to act immediately to prevent a crash. He cannot be absent from the cabin and he cannot finish the game level on his smartphone first. The same is with the car, that is not sold as fully autonomous: if you are on the driver seat, you are responsible for making the final decisions on steering and braking, not a technology. Technology may help you and prevent…

Wow you did that investigation quickly. You should let the NTSB know your results.

Seriously though....I doubt it. The report said he was told to put his hands back on the wheel "earlier in the drive". I seriously doubt he would have had time to react in this case. This is not the same as a plane...there was no "ground alert" or anything like it. From what I can tell, it was doing its job then steered right into a wall. That sort of thing simply doesn't happen with a plane....when autopilot is active on a plane, there is never a situation that requires instantly noticing something is wrong, and correcting it, within a few seconds. Never.

And usability bugs, if that is what you want to call this, are indeed Tesla's fault. They, not the driver, have the resources to test and understand how human attention works (i.e. "vigilance deficit" / "handoff problem")

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#342

Post by aerovistae »

chmaynard wrote: post #339
aerovistae wrote: post #177

I love Tesla to death and in most cases will defend them beyond the point of reason. But I took a test drive in a model S for the first time earlier this year and almost immediately noticed autopilot’s extremely unreliable behavior— it would swerve out of lanes in ordinary situations that should have been easy to handle. The second I saw that, hat was it: I would never use it again before many years of testing and im…

> I love Tesla to death and in most cases will defend them beyond the point of reason. Wow, that attitude strikes me as a little creepy. If you admire Musk to the point of hero worship, that's perfectly fine. But why worship a corporation?

Tesla is a metonym for Musk. Everything they do is by his direction unless he explicitly says "I was unaware of this and will be putting a stop to it immediately," which he has done multiple times. The corporation is ultimately an extension of his will, as Apple was for Jobs.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#343

Post by static_noise »

sjg007 wrote: post #246

Certainly CalTrans is responsible for not replacing the barrier. Expect a lawsuit/settlement. Tesla will be found liable too, that’ll be a jury trial civil suit. Why? Despite reporting that AP failed at that interchange and despite still using it, drivers and juries expect safety features to work as advertised.

The autopilot is not a safety feature.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#344

Post by kwhitefoot »

pacificmint wrote: post #247
DrScump wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does "autopilot on" mean that "autopilot has exclusive control and driver inputs are ignored"?

No, of course driver inputs will not be ignored. They will override the autopilot. But none were given. From the blog: >In the moments before the collision, which occurred at 9:27 a.m. on Friday, March 23rd, Autopilot was engaged with the adaptive cruise control follow-distance set to minimum. The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive and the driver’s hands were not…

Perhaps I am just more cautious than most but I always have the follow distance set to give me the maximum separation. That seems to work out at about three seconds. The minimum seems dangerously close to me.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#345

Post by oldgradstudent »

imtringued wrote: post #312
eanzenberg wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's, actually pretty damn terrible. 1 disengage per 5.5k miles is roughly 1 accident per 5.5k miles if the driver is not paying attention. Look at the Uber accident cam video pointed at the driver. This is the attention levels of drivers in so-called "self-driving cars."

These cars have had far more disengagements than accidents. Why are you assuming that one disengagement is equal to one accident?

Because that's exactly what you would expect from an alert safety driver - to take control and prevent an accident when the car makes a mistake.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#346

Post by azinman2 »

smallnamespace wrote: post #248
azinman2 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we integrate, learn, plan, abstract, create, have way more senses, complex memory, societal and cultural embeddings, and a whole host of things that make us human. A text box on hacker news is not the place for such a reply. Go take some cognitive science, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes and you’ll see why. “AI” as we know it is a joke, particularly as media has hyped…

> Because we integrate, learn, plan, abstract, create, have way more senses, complex memory, societal and cultural embeddings, and a whole host of things that make us human. And yet all this complexity and purpose may potentially be simply the product of putting a large collection of matter in a heat bath for a few billion years. Who says that this process can't be repeated via brute force simulation? That the emerge…

I’m sure some smarter people than me has tried to take stabs at estimating what’s required to do this, so I can’t positively say this will or will not ever happen (especially with quantum computing). But do consider:

We think the brain has 100 billion neurons. Making those work is a very complex network, lots of chemical gradients, bio-electrical systems, cellular-level systems, and probably a host of other things we don’t know about. So it wouldn’t surprise me if for single neuron you’d need to model another billion things at minimum.

Now factor in all of the other input senses, and those 100B neurons have increased dramatically for I/O. Plus a multiplier to model everything going on inside a neuron. Then there’s also modeling the communication layers between, effects of myelin sheaths and all that.

So we’ve established that just to run a single “step in time” (whatever that means, as that’s a computing concept), we’re into probably billions of trillions of calculations.

Now what those model have to make sense and do something coherent. Every future step. So now you need some kind of meta model that is able to push this forward and continue in the right trajectory. Now complexity is dramatically even higher.

Now that we’ve somehow figured out how to model everything required for intelligence, we need to search that space through brute force, as you put it.

To me it seems like the time required will be astronomical — Sun might have blown up by then.

So why go down this route? Nature solved this in parallel relatively cheaply through billions of iterations and billions of permutations over tens of thousands of years.

Seems easier to simplify the problem down to more basic stuff that works well enough and iterate / combine systems. Either that or find a way to grow a “brain in a test tube” that you can hookup to a computer. There’s also always humans available at mass scale for pretty cheap across the globe — sophisticated intelligence built in.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#347

Post by bonestamp2 »

irlib wrote: post #335
bonestamp2 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't absolve Tesla's software of any error As someone who works on software for one of the automakers, I also want to note that there seems to be a lot of focus on the software... but it's also very possible the problem was with the hardware: something in the vision or sensor system was incorrectly installed, defective, was calibrated incorrectly, lost calibration during use, etc. I'm sure the software can alway…

His car does not always veers. He owns the car/work in apple/drive the same road to work - for about half year (i.e. >100 times) and according to the article he has just about 7-10 veering incidents here. Like one or two per month.

Fair enough, and if this has only been happening in the last half year and it doesn't always happen... from my experience, I'd be looking at hardware first. It only happened the past 6 months? You mean the coldest 6 months of the year? Hmmm, is one of the sensors or its mounting hardware susceptible to cold weather? Perhaps a sensor was calibrated properly, but it's just barely within the calibrated range and cold weather is enough to push it out of calibration. Perhaps the sensor is defective and the cold is causing it fail prematurely. I wouldn't rule out software, but this sounds more like a hardware issue to me.

Re: Tesla crash victim had complained about auto-pilot in same location

#348

Post by gomox »

herbst wrote: post #288
gomox wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair that's not really a reasonable train trip for people that want to actually get there as opposed to riding a train. Probably above 9 hours compared to a sub-2h flight. Train routes that are more meaningful tend to be better serviced.

I regularly take a train that takes 6.5 hours. The flight would be 45 minutes. Getting to, into and away from the airport easily ads another 2 hours tho. Also this route has 3 flights a week compared to a train every 2 hours. With the train I just get in and enjoy nice service, free power and WiFi and usually get some work done. Not to mention the difference in my ecological footprint. My point is that it's not like…

I'm a big train fan and do impractical train rides quite often. I dont think millions of people share our appreciation of trains. Most people use whatever is faster, or cheaper. Trains over 3 hours tend to be neither. Paris to Flensburg is both slow and expensive. By most people's standards, the 6h additional duration of the trip offsets the airport annoyance by far.
Post reply on HN