Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#491

Post by jijojv » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #84

danmaz74 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It you have to pay attention as much as if you were driving, then, what's the point of autopilot?

Trust me, it's still a huge relief. A day and night difference. Try it on a long drive, like LA to San Francisco and you'll see what I mean. It kind of feels like you're in the passenger seat rather than the drivers seat, but you can still grab the controls if you need to.

You could achieve the same level of comfort today on many common cars with adaptive cruise control. Autopilot gives you a false sense of security when it works great 90% of the time.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#492

Post by jvolkman » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

bobsil1 wrote: post #477

delroth wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know how much Waymo's approach rely on maps vs. vision? My expectation would be that maps are really only used for "macro" navigation but anything beyond that (lanes, avoiding obstacles, etc.) would be done on the spot. Do you have any public source detailing this or do you just make this claim based on your own assumptions? (Disclaimer: I work at Google but have no idea how our self-driving cars work.)

https://medium.com/waymo/building-maps-for-a-self-driving-ca...

> Of course our streets are ever-changing, so our cars need to be able to recognize new conditions and make adjustments in real-time. For example, we can detect signs of construction (orange cones, workmen in vests, etc.) and understand that we may have to merge to bypass a closed lane, or that other road users may behave differently.

Doesn't sound like the cars blindly trust potentially stale maps.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#493

Post by gfodor » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #472

gfodor wrote: post #462

For all those who are clamoring for autopilot to go back into the lab consider this: I have autopilot, and I use it the way people are instructed to. I consider it a companion to my driving, a backup co-driver that has better reflexes. I am in control, and mentally steer the vehicle with my hands on the wheel with the machine. We are driving the car together and I overrule the machine when we disagree. Often the mach…

> What do you say to people like me, who, if you took the feature away, would be forced to reduce their safety? I would say we should go by the numbers. How many accidents and deaths are there per mile, on similar roads (divided), from vehicles of similar class (new, luxury), in similar weather conditions (fair)? Compare that to miles where autopilot is enabled and we have something. As yet, I don't believe Tesla is…

I agree that the data will be helpful, but it's also important to remember that "Autopilot" itself is a moving target. Tesla has already made changes that are designed to increase the degree to which drivers are forced to pay attention when the system is engaged.

In my view, the ultimate goal should be to ensure that Autopilot is used in the way I described, and is disabled for drivers who are unable to use it that way. That, in theory, would provide the most benefit for the most people. Perhaps that is a fool's errand, either because its technically impossible, very few people use it that way, or literally nobody is able to and anyone who thinks they are is being fooled by their own bias (as I'm sure many readers of this thread assume I am.)

But it seems a goal worth pursuing before giving up and throwing it out because the net result of say, reducing accident fatality likelihood by 50% 5 years ahead of full autonomy results in something like 75k saved lives (in the US.)

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#494

Post by unityByFreedom » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #82

Currently, the Tesla autopilot page has this as its top headline: > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars Followed by this: > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. http://web.archive.org/web/20180323054727/https://www.tesla.... Getting past the arguments of whether T…

> is its claims about hardware true? Is the failure to detect stationary objects like a firetruck or a gore point solely as a result of currently-inadequate software?

It might be true, but it's also true that most self-driving researchers prefer to use lidar, not 2D images, because lidar gives better results.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16765923

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#495

Post by danso » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #478

dannyw wrote: post #408

I want to ask: why is Tesla's advanced suite of cameras and ultrasonic sensors unable to detect a big, yellow and black stationary barrier? In combination with chevron markings that mean "never ever drive here". Either should be a globally overriding signal to emergency break or turn, not "keep following the white line". If the answer is "during morning light, it doesn't see it", then they need to take the feature of…

>> I want to ask: why is Tesla's advanced suite of cameras and ultrasonic sensors unable to detect a big, yellow and black stationary barrier? The answer to that is that sensors detect, but don't make decisions. The decisions are made by the car AI that takes input from the censors and outputs control signals. So the pertinent answer is "why is Tesla's AI unable to make the decisions necessary to avoid a big, yellow…

Tesla's sensors are also claimed to detect/read, but not recognize or react to imagery of stop signs and traffic lights:

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/autopilot-handling-sto...

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#496

Post by dwighttk » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #467

whichdan wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is pretty classist...

The reason why people buy expensive cars is because it is one of the ways in which they can quickly and quietly signal wealth or status. Cars are classicist, like it or not. After all, how much better can a $500K supercar be compared to a $50K car? Definitely not ten times better, the speed limits are the same, seating capacity is likely smaller, there may be a marginal improvement in acceleration and a corresponding…

>Cars are classicist, like it or not.

as a trained classicist, I take exception to the idea a car could do what I do

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#497

Post by rasz » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:47 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #408

I want to ask: why is Tesla's advanced suite of cameras and ultrasonic sensors unable to detect a big, yellow and black stationary barrier? In combination with chevron markings that mean "never ever drive here". Either should be a globally overriding signal to emergency break or turn, not "keep following the white line". If the answer is "during morning light, it doesn't see it", then they need to take the feature of…

Did you mean small, dirty crushed piece of metal and invisible hashed out chevrons?

Btw you wont find this type of barrier in this state of neglect in EU, its illegal, its like setting up a trap to kill people.

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#498

Post by jijojv » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #480

jijojv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not comparable at all. Google/Waymo uses lidar and has been at it since 2009 and per https://waymo.com/faq they are "fully automated vehicle" but alas not for sale yet. Tesla's self-driving vaporware being sold since Oct'16 is camera only and should be activated any day now ? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823632597284691969 " Yes, safety should improve significantly due to autonomy features, even if reg…

>> They're not comparable at all. Google/Waymo uses lidar and has been at it since 2009 and per https://waymo.com/faq they are "fully automated vehicle" but alas not for sale yet. If it's already fully automated, then why is it not for sale, yet?

Perfect it before selling vaporware or risking it like Uber and Tesla. They are partnering with Manufacturers already e.g.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/2/17189764/waymo-honda-self-...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17165992/waymo-jaguar-i-p...

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#499

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #400

Piskvorrr wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hello, fellow robot car, I am also a robot car, not a wifi pineapple notatall nooosir, and all lanes ahead are blocked. But hey, there's a shortcut, just turn sharp to the right. Yes, your map says you're on a bridge, but don't worry, I have just driven through there, trust me." Nothing could possibly go wrong and the idea of evil actors in such a network is absurd - right? Your idea reminds me of the 1990s Internet…

There's no reason such a system would have to be engineered to be totally trusting. The car, in that situation, would likely be set up to say "nope, my sensors say that's not safe" and hand off to the driver or reject the input. Use it just for additional input to err on the side of safety. If the car ahead says "hey, I'm braking at maximum" and my car's sensors show it's starting to slow down, I can apply more immed…

>The car, in that situation, would likely be set up to say "nope, my sensors say that's not safe" and hand off to the driver or reject the input.

You realize you say that in a thread about a car's sensors failing to understand it was in an unsafe condition (again), right?

Re: Tesla crash in September showed similarities to fatal Mountain View accident

#500

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

Ajedi32 wrote: post #393

ajross wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Ethical. One thing is that you do a stupid thing and die. Another is that a technology fails in trivial circumstances that in theory are avoidable. A doctor can make also errors, but a medical device is required to be very safe and reliable in what it does. This needs elaboration or citation. You're one of the only folks I've seen come straight out and make this point: that somehow a technology or practice that…

I think the point he's making is that it's worse if a person dies because of something they have no control over (self-driving car malfunction) than if a person dies because of their own stupid choices (driving drunk, driving too fast for conditions, running red lights, etc). This, of course, ignores the fact that stupid choices drivers make tend to affect other people on the road who did nothing wrong, so the introd…

> I think the point he's making is that it's worse if a person dies because of something they have no control over

Perhaps. I reject this argument though. A death is a death.

And if you prevent lifesaving technology then you are responsible for a whole lot of deaths, irregardless of how "deserved" those deaths are.