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

Autopilot: an open source driving agent

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#81

Post by canada_dry »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
shostack wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further complicate it...would this be standardized? Would a cheap economy car opt to kill the driver, but a Mercedes try to preserve the driver at all cost? How much say would insurance companies that insure the automakers have? What about the government? Also, what level of information about how this logic works is necessary to share with a potential buyer to judge them sufficiently informed? I know I'd sure as h…

And what if the child's parents have paid Mercedes to avoid hitting their kid? You think you are safe in your golden Mercedes, but not when the kid's got Platinum Protection on his phone!

Oooh, so then maybe I'll be able to pay Mercedes (or more likely VW) to target the neighbors kids... I've never liked them little brats. ;)

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#82

Post by sapphireblue »

throwaway729 wrote: post #32
hasbroslasher wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really following. If it works then why not use a control loop on top of Python? We are engineers, after all.

Because by "works" you mean "I tried it out a bunch of times and nothing bad happened, so must be production ready", because that's what you do when you build websites and desktop CRUD apps and nobody ever died cause the web server choked under load or the web page rendered a bit funny or the request took a full quarter second because the GC kicked off as a wave of requests came in. And then one day a one-in-ten-mill…

You have a lot of solid points, but note that Linux is currently being used by SpaceX in an even more safety-critical aerospace setting.

Also note that interpreters have their place in safety-critical aerospace as well: some satellites run Forth.

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#83

Post by gridspy »

sounds wrote: post #3

I have my reservations about this code. I am a long time free software developer so it is hard to say it but it seems clear to me that a single entity (from a legal perspective) has to "own" the self-driving car software. In the future bits of a self-driving car system may get open-sourced the way Facebook Open Compute has emerged in data centers, but first the proprietary implementations will need to pave the way in…

Assuming that what you say is true, I believe the distinction here is that a single entity here must package, release and deploy the driving software.

But like RedHat and Ubuntu, building a distribution of well proven and flexible open source software is likely the best route to success.

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#84

Post by gumby »

hasbroslasher wrote: post #27
Matthias247 wrote: post #7

Really, a safety critical hard realtime system with control loops on top of Python, a general purpose OS and a CAN-USB adapter? There are reasons why we have realtime operating systems, deterministic bus systems and dedicated CPUs for these kinds of applications. That might be an interesting research, prototyping or simulation platform. But nothing you want to have on a real public road.

I'm not really following. If it works then why not use a control loop on top of Python? We are engineers, after all.

This comment shield should not have been downvoted. Downvoting should be reserved for off topic comments. Someone who is confused and brave enough to ask a question should not be discouraged through downvoting.

The question is naive and has a dangerously ignorant view of what "engineering" means. But it has been properly and usefully answered by others.

(sorry for a meta comment rather than a substantive response, but I feel strongly about this).

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#85

Post by MichaelBurge »

ryaneager wrote: post #10
randomdata wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these kinds of applications. As in research projects, which this project expressly states that it is? What are those reasons? It seems like being able to test theories as quickly and cheaply as possible is the top priority. If Python, a general purpose OS, and a CAN-USB adapter is sufficient to conduct the research and satisfies those attributes, it seems like the perfectly logical way forward. I understand why you…

Why wouldn't you do the research on a platform that could actually be deployed? Build the core using the proper tools and techniques. Any bug in a system like this could be life threatening at worst. Wouldn't you want to use the research phase to help eliminate such bugs? Unless you're not planning on ever releasing then a platform like this makes sense for strictly research, but Comma AI did plan on releasing their…

As an example of some requirements, any recursion is banned unless accompanied by a termination proof that keeps track of stack size. No calls to malloc() or free() are allowed, and so any library you might use that allocates memory is banned.

It's far easier to get the code working in something like Python, and then rewrite it in safety-critical C later. And the kinds of people who can write self-driving cars in Python are using very different skills than the kinds who can write safety-critical C, so it might not even be the same person.

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#86

Post by bdrool »

randomdata wrote: post #9
Matthias247 wrote: post #7

Really, a safety critical hard realtime system with control loops on top of Python, a general purpose OS and a CAN-USB adapter? There are reasons why we have realtime operating systems, deterministic bus systems and dedicated CPUs for these kinds of applications. That might be an interesting research, prototyping or simulation platform. But nothing you want to have on a real public road.

> these kinds of applications. As in research projects, which this project expressly states that it is? What are those reasons? It seems like being able to test theories as quickly and cheaply as possible is the top priority. If Python, a general purpose OS, and a CAN-USB adapter is sufficient to conduct the research and satisfies those attributes, it seems like the perfectly logical way forward. I understand why you…

> As in research projects, which this project expressly states that it is?

This is from comma.ai, who famously tested on public roads with a reporter in the car and very little prior testing ("the first time it worked was this morning").[1]

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#87

Post by jakevn »

__jal wrote: post #36
throwaway729 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet comma ai were definitely testing their products on public roads, products which were presumably running this code.

...Which is why it says "YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS".

Ah yes, laws are definitely the determinate for safety. This is why texting and driving is illegal everywhere.

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#88

Post by KKKKkkkk1 »

Matthias247 wrote: post #7

Really, a safety critical hard realtime system with control loops on top of Python, a general purpose OS and a CAN-USB adapter? There are reasons why we have realtime operating systems, deterministic bus systems and dedicated CPUs for these kinds of applications. That might be an interesting research, prototyping or simulation platform. But nothing you want to have on a real public road.

Human drivers don't run an RTOS and a deterministic bus system either. In fact, I would argue that very rarely do human drivers fail because of jitter or nondeterminism.

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#89

Post by savanaly »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #88
Matthias247 wrote: post #7

Really, a safety critical hard realtime system with control loops on top of Python, a general purpose OS and a CAN-USB adapter? There are reasons why we have realtime operating systems, deterministic bus systems and dedicated CPUs for these kinds of applications. That might be an interesting research, prototyping or simulation platform. But nothing you want to have on a real public road.

Human drivers don't run an RTOS and a deterministic bus system either. In fact, I would argue that very rarely do human drivers fail because of jitter or nondeterminism.

The more relevant question is not do they but if they could would we want them to?

Re: Autopilot: an open source driving agent

#90

Post by hasbroslasher »

throwaway729 wrote: post #68
hasbroslasher wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that you reduced that to a one-liner, and I understand your point. I sure as hell wouldn't hook my car up to this software. But I also feel like you're being a bit hasty. Obviously a Python script isn't going to turn into a Tesla overnight. But maybe it'll help you find a few bugs before you throw all that time and effort into building the real deal. When I look at a Github repo that claims to be a self-drivin…

Yes, I absolutely agree with you on that. Nothing wrong with prototyping in whatever setting is most convenient. I think w/ self-driving cars there is an interesting ethical question. The full auto cars on the roads today definitely aren't production ready, but they also have constant safety drivers. Probably even ACC systems are tested in the wild with a safety driver before production. Basically, "is the safety dri…

Yeah, that's a tough question that we as a society will have to wrestle with. Knowing that humans are imperfect drivers as well doesn't make it any easier. Even cars today have crippling safety flaws -- remember that one Lexus model that had a sticky gas pedal? Or worse yet, the Ford Pinto. I'm genuinely interested to see how the governments of the world weigh in on this, if at all.

Intuitively, though, I think that buying/using the software is tantamount to accepting its imperfections, so long as they are adequately (factually) presented to you beforehand. You're signing off your ability to make your own decisions, but are still responsible for them.

Post reply on HN