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

Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 410 posts

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#391

Post by dmix »

rkomorn wrote: post #263
dmix wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That a human was still in the loop in addition to a computer and both missed it.

But that's not what happened. They saw it, called it out, and very deliberately let the car (not) deal with it because that was the point of what they were doing. They did not "miss" anything.

They had poor incentives. The driver wanted to only use FSD for the video which is dumb.

But it doesn’t help disprove that it’s entirely the computers fault. They could have taken action if they were a rational driver.

From my perspective I think many people would have failed to take action. Swerving or hard breaking at those speeds is very dangerous. And many things on the road like roadkill or bags can be driver over

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#392

Post by dmix »

ModernMech wrote: post #186
dmix wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are right.

Yes many human drivers would hit it. The bad ones. But we should want driverless cars to be better than bad drivers. Personally, I expect driverless cars to be better than good drivers. And no, good drivers would not hit that thing.

I agree

Hopefully we get there. Waymo hasn’t even started highway testing yet but maybe they will be sufficiently better that cameras in cheaper cars simply aren’t worth it. Or maybe a driver will always be in the loop and cross country FSD only is dumb

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#393

Post by rkomorn »

dmix wrote: post #391
rkomorn wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not what happened. They saw it, called it out, and very deliberately let the car (not) deal with it because that was the point of what they were doing. They did not "miss" anything.

They had poor incentives. The driver wanted to only use FSD for the video which is dumb. But it doesn’t help disprove that it’s entirely the computers fault. They could have taken action if they were a rational driver. From my perspective I think many people would have failed to take action. Swerving or hard breaking at those speeds is very dangerous. And many things on the road like roadkill or bags can be driver ov…

I don't know where you're going with this.

You said the driver and car both missed it.

I say the fact that you can hear them discuss the object well before hitting it yet clearly not try to avoid it means they did not actually "miss it", which is also why my first comment in this thread was in response to the notion that "a human did hit that..."

These drivers hitting the object while intentionally not intervening does not actually provide information as to whether other drivers not running the same "experiment" would've hit it.

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#394

Post by anonymars »

anonymars wrote: post #158
Coffeewine wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll defend airbus a little - there are flight laws that more or less provide at any given moment as much automation as is possible given the state of the sensors and computers. So it doesn’t just go ‘oops, a sensor failed, now you have direct control of the plane.’ It does have the same problem - if 99.999% of your flight time is spent in normal law you are not especially ready to operate in one of the alternate law…

Yeah, it's a tricky problem to solve, but other design decisions exacerbate it too, like the lack of visual or tactile feedback in the controls. I was thinking of something similar to XL Airways Germany 888T. I was trying to find it and came across this thread making a similar comparison so I'll link that: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/18ks9nl/p... But I think there was some other example with an…

I looked into China Airlines 006 a bit more (https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-from-the-sky-the...). It's pretty wild how it went and how badly the pilots lost situational awareness. But, sure enough:

> "In trying to explain why Ho never took this critical step and subsequently failed to notice the plane’s increasing bank, the NTSB looked at two areas: fatigue, and overreliance on automation. Regarding the latter, investigators noted that during cruise flight, the job of a Boeing 747 pilot is to monitor the automation, not to fly the airplane. Studies have shown that humans are naturally poor monitors of automation, because it’s boring and does not actively engage our brains and bodies. As a result, when something goes wrong, the brain has to “wake up” before it can assess the situation and take corrective action. Therefore, when flying on autopilot pilots have increased reaction times to unexpected events, as opposed to flying manually, when a sudden change in the state of the aircraft can be instinctively assessed using physical cues transmitted via the control column."

So who knows what we can do. I've definitely experienced this to varying degrees with the fancier cruise controls (e.g. "Autopilot"). It's one thing to just take pressure off the gas and/or steering wheel, but another entirely when you aren't actively "driving the car" at full attention anymore.

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#395

Post by ekianjo »

senordevnyc wrote: post #305
ekianjo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like you are arguing that humans should not be driving

Humans are way better than 99% at driving.

The number of accidents and near misses seem to dispell that number.

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#397

Post by panick21_ »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #306
panick21_ wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so how is SpaceX not succcessful. Please explain.

> > Ok so how is SpaceX not succcessful. Please explain. Only isolated people need Starklink and 95% of people on Earth live in urban cities with pop > 100,000. So it's a product for the 5%

Ok, great so fuck those people then right?

What kind of absurd argument is that? Like any company that doesn't serve 100% of people on the planet is by definition not a success? That's the dumbest fucking argument I have ever heard and I hope you are not actually series about that.

Because Apple doesn't serve 100% of the population either, so clearly Apple is not successful. By your logic right?

And its not even true. People that live in big cities do a thing called 'flying' between big cities quite often. And Starlink is already starting to be dominant in the airline market, meaning all those city people, when they fly use Starlink.

And Starlink is used in agriculture and mining, and shipping. So all those city people do actually use things that have Starlink in the supply chain.

Common man, its fine to hate Musk, but at some point reality is a thing.

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#398

Post by atwrk »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #343
pavlov wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do EU regulations prevent my car from recognizing speed limit signs? The real problem is that Tesla sold this in Europe, but never put the slightest effort towards actually developing the localized ML model that could make it work. (Of course the hardware sucks too, but they could have done a much better job with it.)

The reason is because mobileye patented (US20080137908A1) it and won't let tesla use it.

And why does this only affect tesla?

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#399

Post by jjav »

foobarian wrote: post #370
jjav wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if there is no debris the other 999 times, and the system works fine? This argument makes no sense. I take it that you're saying that if we provide the Tesla a road which contains nothing to hit, it won't hit anything? Well, sure. Also, not interesting. In a real world drive of almost 3000 miles there will nearly always be things to avoid on the way.

> I take it that you're saying that if we provide the Tesla a road which contains nothing to hit, it won't hit anything? Not quite. I am saying that basing the judgment on a rare anomaly is a bit premature. It's a sample size of 1, but I base this on my own driving record of 30 years and much more than 3000 miles where I never encountered an obstacle like this on a highway. > Also, not interesting I would have liked…

> It's a sample size of 1, but I base this on my own driving record of 30 years and much more than 3000 miles where I never encountered an obstacle like this on a highway.

How is that relevant? You may not personally encountered this precise circumstance but that doesn't mean anything.

If you were to encounter this same scenario, however, it is a near certainty that you wouldn't crash into it. And yet the self-driving did. That's what matters.

> I would have liked to see the planned cross-country trip completed

I mean once the car significantly damaged itself, it's not like it can continue.

Big credit to the people running the experiment for letting it run and show failure. Many vloggers might've just interfered manually to avoid the accident and edited that part of the video out in order to continue and claim success.

Re: Tesla influencers tried coast-to-coast self-driving, hit debris before 60 miles

#400

Post by gregoriol »

thefourthchime wrote: post #314
AlotOfReading wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That used to be true. Autopilot was for highways, FSD was for other roads. FSD can be enabled on both since v12 though and this video is specifically an attempt to use FSD on highways to go cross country.

Autopilot and FSD are completely different technologies. When v12 came out it only worked on city streets, and it used V11 for the highway. Later, V12, which is the end-to-end neural network, worked on highways as well, but they use different stacks behind the scenes.

The user doesn't care about implementation details: it works or it doesn't work
Post reply on HN