591–600 of 850 posts
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/apples-steve-wozniak-doesnt-... "Man you have got to be ready — it makes mistakes, it loses track of the lane lines. You have to be on your toes all the time," says Wozniak. "All Tesla did is say, 'It is beta so we are not responsible. It doesn't necessarily work, so you have to be in control.'
You don't beta test with human lives.
This is so frustrating to me. 50 years ago we had the ability to fly to the moon. A played out trope, sure. But today we can't even do a basic 'dont run into shit' on a perfectly clear day. Physics in this way is and has been a solved problem for decades. The fact that people are dying from hitting stationary objects should be criminal. At lightest, they should bar these companies from even participating.
>But today we can't even do a basic 'dont run into shit' on a perfectly clear day. so,uh, the emergency braking systems on other cars...so called 'AEB' systems, or what Honda calls Collision Mitigation Braking System... would that have caught this? I would expect this sort of thing "big object in road" to trigger the AEB system... even if it didn't stop me, I'd expect it to trigger before the collision and slow me do…
"Collision Mitigation Braking System™ (CMBS™) Can assist you when there is a possibility of your vehicle colliding with a vehicle or a pedestrian detected in front of yours."
I think like Tesla, it would run right into it - the systems have been tuned to reduce false positives and so only detect and stop on objects matching vehicles or pedestrians, not arbitrary objects like a road barrier.
The difference being, the Civic system doesn't give people nearly the same sense of false assurance that the Tesla one does...
Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles. Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look norm…
" Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles." I have been thinking that too. At what point do you decide that the autopilot is making a mistake and take over? That's an almost impossible task to perform within the available time.
They fucked up big.
Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles. Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look norm…
>> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. If this was true, wouldn't Tesla vehicles have a higher rate of crashes, all things being equal? Is there any evidence that this is the case?
Maybe the cost of improvement is failure in this case. For Tesla to fix the issue of a crossing tractor trailer not being positively detected there had to be an instance of a Tesla hitting a crossing tractor trailer. Maybe for road work barriers that change position as the road work progresses to be avoided there needs to be an impetus for Tesla engineers to build in detection of these cases. This is all a way of say…
It turns out that humans are really bad at paying attention to be able to take over for an autonomous system; but computers are pretty good at paying attention in order to take over for a human driven system.
I do believe that eventually autonomous vehicles could be safer than a manually driven vehicle with computer assistance, but Telsa's are not currently autonomous vehicles, despite the perception that many of their drivers apparently have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you don't use beta features where the ultimate mistake can cost you your life.
No. You don't put beta features in that have life on the line. People always laugh at ridiculous warning labels, saying not to stick a fork in a toaster, or not to do something else obvious. Funny as it is, they are there for a reason, and it's not a corporations sense of humor. Tesla is the opposite of that, more or less advertising a feature that could kill you. It should be illegal, and if not, they'll eventually…
Unless you absolutely have to (in case with a doctor), you do not outsource the life-threatening decisions to someone else. If you're tired and cannot drive, park and have a rest instead of watching movies while driving on Autopilot.
What I'm trying to say is that in the end it's your decision, and you have to live with the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Tesla creates the misinterpretation by explicitly stating that Autopilot is a self-driving system rather than a driver-assist system. It's a fatal choice of words.
That's not what the Tesla system says when you turn it on, every time.
That is exactly what the CEO says
Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. The driver has to detect automation failures after they occur, but before a crash. This requires faster reaction time than merely avoiding obstacles. Here's a good example - a Tesla on autopilot crashing into a temporary road barrier which required a lane change.[1] This is a view from the dashcam of the vehicle behind the Tesla. At 00:21, things look norm…
>> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving. If this was true, wouldn't Tesla vehicles have a higher rate of crashes, all things being equal? Is there any evidence that this is the case?
Yes.
>the Model S had higher claim frequencies, higher claim severities and higher overall losses than other large luxury cars. Under collision coverage, for example, analysts estimated that the Model S's mileage-adjusted claim frequency was 37 percent higher than the comparison group, claim severity was 64 percent higher, and overall losses were 124 percent higher. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/52/4/4