41–50 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would any of that be relevant?
Because the same things that confuse humans can confuse computers that are largely trained with human data.
I wonder how do unit tests work with NN (or if they're even a relevant concept at all). You could replay some testing video frames and make sure the objects are correctly identified, but i suppose that's already what training is about... If an issue like that resurface, does it mean that the original frames leading to the 2018 accident aren't part of the training (or at least frames from someone driving in this kind…
I wonder how do unit tests work with NN (or if they're even a relevant concept at all). You could replay some testing video frames and make sure the objects are correctly identified, but i suppose that's already what training is about... If an issue like that resurface, does it mean that the original frames leading to the 2018 accident aren't part of the training (or at least frames from someone driving in this kind…
Even if there was training based on the 2018 frames, that doesn't mean that you have verifiably fixed the problem. It's difficult to train a neural network selectively – every time you "train" the network with additional data, you are increasing the chance that you are also teaching it something you didn't intend which then can have a side-effect in some seemingly unrelated scenario.
You can see this in real life with image recognition networks. Teach them too much and they gradually become less effective at identifying anything.
Eventually we need the NTSB to certify updates before they are pushed out over the air. Similar to what the FAA does. These OTA updates are not ok for large machinery and endagers not only the Tesla driver but all others on the road.
Additional context: on March 23, 2018, a Tesla Model X, while using autopilot, drove into a barrier and killed the driver. This was fixed in a software update, but the issue seems to have resurfaced. NTSB analysis of the March 23 2018 collision: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HW... Tesla's statement of the March 23 2018 collision: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week%E2%80%99s-accide…
Well, it wasn't really "fixed" -- the driver is still dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but is there a way that could happen without slowing the process to a crawl? Depending on what’s involved it could easily push the gap between updates from months to years.
This is a feature, not a bug, and should be expected in life critical systems. Would you want Boeing to push updates out as frequently as Tesla does with the same sparse release notes Tesla provides (“bug fixes”) when safety system functionality is modified? Disclaimer: I own a Model S
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a $700 car I might consider crazy compromises, but $70k+? Absolutely not.
That's what I find so interesting with Tesla owner. They spend a fortune on a car, then they minimize every single issue they have with the car. My explanation for this is that for a lot of owners, the car is a way to be part of a hyped group more than being a utilitarian object (what a car should be).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I have never understood the cheering for OTA of something that can literally kill you. Were they limited to infotainment and the useless easter eggs I would not care, however AP OTA is downright scary, especially pushed by vendor instead of being initiated by an informed user.
The AP can only kill you if you're distracted/asleep at the wheel and not paying attention. You're always in charge of driving the car appropriately, the "AP" can only provide tentative assistance of a very rough sort. It will try to guess at the control inputs you might want to provide (which does make things a bit more comfortable in the best case) but the actual control always rests with the human driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I have never understood the cheering for OTA of something that can literally kill you. Were they limited to infotainment and the useless easter eggs I would not care, however AP OTA is downright scary, especially pushed by vendor instead of being initiated by an informed user.
The AP can only kill you if you're distracted/asleep at the wheel and not paying attention. You're always in charge of driving the car appropriately, the "AP" can only provide tentative assistance of a very rough sort. It will try to guess at the control inputs you might want to provide (which does make things a bit more comfortable in the best case) but the actual control always rests with the human driver.
Scary... software developers at these robotic cars and their mistakes/bugs aren’t just going to bring down a business application(lose money) but kill their customers and innocent drivers. Progress to where it’s safer is going to be a killer and we the drivers on the road are unwilling guinea pigs to billionaires’ dreams/goals.