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

U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 507 posts

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#51

Post by Robotbeat »

cmpb wrote: post #17
gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

I disagree. One feature my car has is to pull me back into the lane when I veer out of it (Subaru's lane keep assist). That is still incremental improvement towards "full self driving". I agree, however, that Tesla's Autopilot is not functional enough, and any tool designed to allow humans to remove their hands from the wheel should not require their immediate attention in any way.

Tesla’s autopilot does not allow you to remove your hands from the wheel. You must keep them on, and apply torque occasionally, to keep it engaged.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#52

Post by 3pt14159 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #40
gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s…

I largely agree with you, but I just wish regulators would start by only allowing these assist programs for people that are already known to be poor drivers. The elderly and convicted drunk drivers, for example. That way we could have the best of both worlds.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#53

Post by gccs »

Waterluvian wrote: post #19
gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

I have a Subaru Forester base model with lane keeping and adaptive cruise control. I need to be touching the wheel and applying some force to it or it begins yelling at me and eventually brings me slowly to a stop. I’ve had it for a year now and I cannot perceive of a way, without physically altering the system (like hanging a weight from the wheel maybe?) that would allow me to stop being an active participant. I th…

Shove a can of soda in the wheel and it will stop beeping.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#54

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

jdavis703 wrote: post #39
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. As long as the resulting package (flawed self driving system + the average driver) isn't significantly more dangerous than the average unassisted human driver, I don't consider it irresponsible to deploy it. "The average driver" includes everyone, ranging from drivers using it as intended with close supervision, drivers who become inattentive because nothing is happening, and drivers who think it's a reas…

The average driver breaks multiple laws on every trip. Most of the time no one gets hurt. But calibrating performance against folks violating traffic and criminal laws sets the bar too low for an automated system. We should be aiming for standards that either match European safety levels or the safety of modes of air travel or rail travel.

I disagree. Perfect is the enemy of good, and rejecting a better system because it isn't perfect seems like an absurd choice.

I'm not saying improvements should stop there, but once the system has reached parity, it's OK to deploy it and let it improve from there.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#55

Post by salawat »

mnmmn123456 wrote: post #15
gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

Today, there is at least one of the most advanced Neural Networks entering each car: A human being. If we could just implement the AI to add to this person and not replace it...

This is the bit nobody likes to realize. FSD at it's best...is still about as fallible as a human driver. Minus free will (it is hoped).

I will be amused, intrigued, and possibly a bit horrified if by the time FSD hits level 5, and they stick with the Neural Net of Neural Nets architecture if there isn't a rash of system induced variance in behavior as emergent phenomena take shape.

Imagined news: All Tesla's on I-95 engaged in creating patterns whereby all non-Teala traffic was bordered by a Tesla on each side. Almost like a game of Go, says expert. Researchers stumped.

Then again, that's imply you had an NN capable of retraining itself on the fly to some limited degree, which I assume no one sane would put into service... Hopefully this comment doesn't suffer a date of not aging well.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#57

Post by fzzzy »

gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

Do you hate regular cruise control? How is that not partial self driving?

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#58

Post by treeman79 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #40
gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

I actually disagree. (And before you respond, please read my post because it’s not a trivial point.) The fact that an huge formal investigation happened with just a single casualty is proof that it may actually be superior for safety in the long-term (when combined with feedback from regulators and government investigators). One death in conventional vehicles is irrelevant. But because of the high profile of Tesla’s…

Ignoring other issues.

Asking someone to pay attention when they are not doing anything is unrealistic. I would be constantly bored / distracted. My wife would instantly fall asleep. Etc etc.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#59

Post by helsinkiandrew »

gundmc wrote: post #3

This is why I believe the approach of incremental improvement towards full self driving is fundamentally flawed. These advanced driver assist tools are good enough to lull users into a false sense of security. No amount of "but our terms and conditions say you need to always pay attention!" will overcome human nature building that trust and dependence.

> you need to always pay attention

That is the fatal flaw in anything but a perfect system - any kind of system that is taking the decisions about steering from the driver is going to result in the driver at best thinking about other things and worse getting into the back seat to change. If you had to develop a system to make sure someone was paying attention, you wouldn't make them sit in a warm comfy seat looking at a screen - you would make them actively engage with what they were looking at - like steering.

And ultimately it doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands of hours of driving you teach your system with, it may eventually be able to learn about parked cars, kerbs and road signs, but there won't be enough examples of different accidents and how emergency vehicles behave to ever make it behave safely. Humans can cope with driving emergencies fairly well (not perfectly admittedly) no matter how many they've been involved in using logic and higher level reasoning.

Re: U.S. opens probe into Tesla’s Autopilot over emergency vehicle crashes

#60

Post by [deleted] »

tmountain wrote: post #43

> In one of the cases, a doctor was watching a movie on a phone when his vehicle rammed into a state trooper in North Carolina. Doesn't autopilot require you to put your hands on the wheel fairly regularly? Are these incidents just a matter of people using this feature outside of its intended use case?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN