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

Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

kqed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 919 posts

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#631

Post by UI_at_80x24 »

neuronic wrote: post #441
Alupis wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole self driving, fully autonomous thing has become some sort of strange faux-religion. It's followers see no other possible solution as acceptable. Instead of putting our heads together to make really good driver assistance technologies and being satisfied, the darn thing needs to also drive itself everywhere otherwise we're leaving something on the table! Untill we have zero deaths, we cannot stop demanding…

> This whole self driving, fully autonomous thing has become some sort of strange faux-religion. What really bugs me, as someone working in consulting as a hands-on backend developer with a previous background in technical consulting at an accounting Big4 (student job), is the insane amount of PR, politics and marketing talk by people who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they are talking about. I witnessed politicians an…

>...without a single brain-byte spent on ...

This is a glorious Gibson-esq turn of phrase that I hope goes down in history and is picked up in common vernacular.

Back on topic: The more I know about technology the less I want it or trust it to work. I assume this is similar to Pilots not wanting somebody else to fly, or surgeons not wanting to go under the knife.

We know, that we don't know enough about autonomous driving. Instead of the 'unwashed masses' saying "gee-whiz that is cool", we think "this isn't ready yet!"

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#632

Post by crazygringo »

Yesterday here on HN there was a top thread about how a open dataset used for training self-driving cars is rife with missing labels and mislabeling. [1]

Quite a few commenters insisted the issue was a non-issue -- that all datasets are noisy and mislabeling occurs all the time, that nobody's building actual self-driving cars from it, that surely if an object isn't labeled in one frame it'll be labeled in the next.

Now obviously we don't what the cause of this particular crash was.

But I will say that I found people's willingness to defend widespread sloppy labeling in training sets used for literal high-speed life and death situations rather shocking.

And that, hopefully, crashes like this serve to remind us of the far greater responsibility we have with regards to quality and accuracy when it comes to building ML models for self-driving cars, rather than when we're merely predicting how likely a credit card customer is to pay their next bill on time, or which ad is likely to be most profitable.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22298882

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#633

Post by throwawayhhakdl »

reallydontask wrote: post #603
Klathmon wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I misunderstood your previous comment. I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do, not that they shouldn't charge anything at all for safety features, which is such a weird and extreme take that I'm not sure what to even say...

my original comment was around the point of mixing morality and business. > I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do I could buy a car without it for 37500 and now I can't but I can now buy a car with it for 39500 and you would still consider this is no extra cost? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying

There’s no moral problem with increasing the price when it becomes a better product.

There arguably is a moral problem selling a product with optional safety features that cost extra.

If tesla invented immortality fields within their vehicles, I have no doubt they would jack up the price, and that would be fine, because it’s now a much better car. To think otherwise would be silly.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#634

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

fxtentacle wrote: post #187

I avoid new technology, exactly because I'm an engineer. I wonder if that is just me, but when new technology is introduced and hyped, I usually take a quick look at implementations, research, and talks just to get an idea of what the state of the art really is like. As a result, I have become the late adopter among my group of friends because the first iteration of any new technology usually just isn't worth the iss…

It's not. I got my pilot's license and fly in a technically advanced aircraft, and all that it means is that there's quite a bit of automation there to help you out. The lessons imbued in it, the issues you learn exist, actually using it in very critical phases of flight, etc., builds an appreciation for both the wonders and dangers of automation.

Going through that experience has 1000% made me more weary of autonomous vehicles.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#635

Post by NotATroll »

Alupis wrote: post #388
fxtentacle wrote: post #187

I avoid new technology, exactly because I'm an engineer. I wonder if that is just me, but when new technology is introduced and hyped, I usually take a quick look at implementations, research, and talks just to get an idea of what the state of the art really is like. As a result, I have become the late adopter among my group of friends because the first iteration of any new technology usually just isn't worth the iss…

This whole self driving, fully autonomous thing has become some sort of strange faux-religion. It's followers see no other possible solution as acceptable. Instead of putting our heads together to make really good driver assistance technologies and being satisfied, the darn thing needs to also drive itself everywhere otherwise we're leaving something on the table! Untill we have zero deaths, we cannot stop demanding…

> Forget better frame, chassis, and body panel design to protect pedestrians! We won't need them if AI never hits anyone.

Most car manufacturers have had this figured out for a long time with crumple zones and the like.

> Forget better braking systems that apply themselves automatically

Assisted braking technology is already implemented in some cars. Hell, Tesla implements basically exactly what you're asking for...

> Forget seat belt enhancements since that'll just inhibit nap time in my self driving car.

Teslas don't let you sleep in your car, you have to move the steering wheel periodically to prove you're still paying attention or it'll pull over and shut down.

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're expecting seat belt enhancements to be.

Far be it for me to defend the AI hype, but your "things we should be focusing on instead" don't make much sense when we ARE focusing on them.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#636

Post by bluGill »

xyproto wrote: post #626
bluGill wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying cars might or might not happen (see other discussions here). However they will never be more than a niche. Airplanes need far more safety space than cars. For a car you need a few dozen meters to the cars front and back, and less than 1 side to side. For airplanes it is thousands of meters in all directions, and you are limited as to height before you run out of atmosphere. So even thought planes run in 3d spa…

Humans and bikes need even less safety space than cars. I don't think safety space is a good criterion for predicting how widespread a means of transportation will become. A fast mode of transportation, with a large safety space requirement, may be more efficient than other modes and/or become popular.

The point is there isn't enough space for all the [single occupancy] cars to become airplanes. Speed doesn't change that because speed increases the space needed between airplanes.

Now if we change to flying buses we might be able to pull something off, an express bus that picks up people for a few stops in the suburb for 10 minutes, then flys at >150mph downtown is a very compelling competitor to a car and will get anybody who currently drives 20 to minutes downtown to ride if the cost is reasonable (those in closer in suburbs will still drive). I don't think the business or environmental models work out.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#637

Post by justapassenger »

tim333 wrote: post #610
ipsi wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that there are so, so many edge cases to worry about. Simple example: someone decides to troll you in your self-driving car and steps out in front of it. You don't have controls in the car, so you can't go around them - you have to wait for them to move. In reality, it seems like it would resolve quickly - you get out and yell at them, call the police if that doesn't work, etc. But it can get more sinist…

Re robbers, car jackers and the like in some ways you may be better with a self driving car as they seem to be covered with cameras and report back to base the whole time so the crooks would be photographed and the cops called. Already the Tesla cameras have caught a few https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqBWt9rRx-U Re all the edge cases - yeah that'll take a while.

License plate can be covered (or more often - using stolen car) and balaclavas cost just few dollars.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#638

Post by ghaff »

vlozko wrote: post #616
keanzu wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAE Level 5 is completely transformative, it will utterly change the market and the use of cars. Once you can conveniently call up an automated Uber the need, at least in cities, to buy your own car will effectively vanish. This is Uber's endgame - get humans out of the loop. As long as cars still need human drivers this cost savings can't be realized. > Forget better braking systems that apply themselves automatical…

> Once you can conveniently call up an automated Uber the need, at least in cities, to buy your own car will effectively vanish. I doubt it. One of the biggest obstacles you have is families and the need for infant car and child booster seats. Car ownership is here to stay for a while.

I suspect that most of the people ready to ditch car ownership don't actually use cars much. In addition to the families/kids gear, a lot of people I know have their cars/trucks setup for various types of outdoor activities such as carrying canoes.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#639

Post by dkonofalski »

fxtentacle wrote: post #187

I avoid new technology, exactly because I'm an engineer. I wonder if that is just me, but when new technology is introduced and hyped, I usually take a quick look at implementations, research, and talks just to get an idea of what the state of the art really is like. As a result, I have become the late adopter among my group of friends because the first iteration of any new technology usually just isn't worth the iss…

This is why I don't understand the sad conclusion of the story in the article. The driver knew that AutoPilot had issues with that stretch of the freeway and was able to repeat the issues on several occasions but still thought it best to be on his phone, while driving 71 mph, at the mercy of AutoPilot? Especially considering that he was an engineer who had expressed concern over this, it seems silly to me that he wouldn't just take over manually during that stretch... He didn't and now he's gone because of it. It's not worth the risk/reward.

Re: Apple engineer killed in Tesla crash had previously complained about autopilot

#640

Post by nradov »

fortran77 wrote: post #607
snowwrestler wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think autonomous driving advocates would do well to look at the history of computer handwriting recognition, an easier technical problem with lower consequences that received significant investment over decades. But it has never gotten good enough to succeed in the marketplace against alternatives. Why? It never exceeded consumer expectations, which are extremely high for automated systems. Even a correctness rate…

Handwriting recognition works very well if you can capture the actual strokes used while writing and not just the end result.

I doubt it. My handwriting is at least average neatness, and stroke based recognition systems still make multiple errors per sentence. It's just a frustrating waste of time and now that we have touch screen keyboards there's no longer any point to handwriting recognition.

The only handwriting recognition system which ever worked correctly with a low error rate was Palm Graffiti. It forced the user to learn a new shorthand writing style designed specifically to avoid errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_(Palm_OS)

Post reply on HN