Tesla dropped by Mobileye for “pushing the envelope in terms of safety”(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Tesla dropped by Mobileye for “pushing the envelope in terms of safety”
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/tesla-dropped-by-mobileye-for-pushing-the-envelope-in-terms-of-safety
116 comments
> Most of Tesla's issues are with the name. Drivers assume this is a fully autonomous driving system.
You are jumping too short.
In my first year studying engineering, a professor told us "Expect misuse. If you're designing a radiator shaped such that people can sit on it, expect them to sit on it. I agree that it's a radiator and not a bench, but if you don't design for this kind of situation you are a terrible engineer."
Translated to Tesla's situation: It's absolutely not enough to tell people that they should behave a certain way, and expect them to follow. Design the system such that they either have no choice but to obey, or have safe mechanisms for disobedience.
Or don't deploy the system.
If you want an automotive example, think of how your automatic gear lever is locked in P unless you have your foot on the brake. Braking when changing gears isn't just an admonition in the manual, it's enforced.
You are jumping too short.
In my first year studying engineering, a professor told us "Expect misuse. If you're designing a radiator shaped such that people can sit on it, expect them to sit on it. I agree that it's a radiator and not a bench, but if you don't design for this kind of situation you are a terrible engineer."
Translated to Tesla's situation: It's absolutely not enough to tell people that they should behave a certain way, and expect them to follow. Design the system such that they either have no choice but to obey, or have safe mechanisms for disobedience.
Or don't deploy the system.
If you want an automotive example, think of how your automatic gear lever is locked in P unless you have your foot on the brake. Braking when changing gears isn't just an admonition in the manual, it's enforced.
But how do you design a bench to avoid it being used as a radiator.
Sure Tesla could've named it better, but anyone who put their life on the hand of an immature technology is beyond my comprehension. News of crashes from people using Auto Pilot comes up here and there, why are people still willing to risk their life on trusting it?
Most people aren't and shouldn't be concerned with the technical details of a consumer product's implementation, especially when it is marketed as Autopilot and, in practice, it creates a false sense of security.
Tesla marketed their immature technology with the name Autopilot, they failed to include safety features their competitors' vehicles had and they knew how people behaved (trusted and crashed) because of it.
I find it hard to fault consumers for naively putting trust in their vehicles.
Tesla marketed their immature technology with the name Autopilot, they failed to include safety features their competitors' vehicles had and they knew how people behaved (trusted and crashed) because of it.
I find it hard to fault consumers for naively putting trust in their vehicles.
This is like arguing that people are stupid for thinking that their email is private.
Most people don't know even 1% of the intricacies of the technology products or services that they are using. The responsibility rests almost entirely on the provider to offer a "safe" product (and that means also offering protection against the "stupidity" of users).
Most people don't know even 1% of the intricacies of the technology products or services that they are using. The responsibility rests almost entirely on the provider to offer a "safe" product (and that means also offering protection against the "stupidity" of users).
> but anyone who put their life on the hand of an immature technology is beyond my comprehension.
Because humans are flawed.
The real question is why is our regulatory framework so weak that they can ship "immature technology" that's safety critical in a consumer vehicle.
Because humans are flawed.
The real question is why is our regulatory framework so weak that they can ship "immature technology" that's safety critical in a consumer vehicle.
Is there any proof of your claim? I see it repeatedly repeated here on HN, but that doesn't make it true. For example, a video of a driver sleeping while driving doesn't mean that the name is an issue.
Ironically, I recall it was called autopilot to be the conservative synonym for self-driving. I guess it wasn't conservative enough.
How would autopilot be "conservative"? It's right there in the word: Pilots itself.
Well, not really. Autopilot, in airplanes at least, can maintain the course, but not much besides that.
The catch being that muggles do not understand that autopilot isn't taking decision-making and situational awareness responsibility away from the human pilot.
In an airplane of sufficient complexity, the autopilot will be controlled by a computer (ussually refered to as an FMS {Flight Management System}).
You can program a set of desired waypoints, along with a desired time of arrival, and the plane will fly the desired route with high accuracy.
(auto-throttle system is also required)
That's why autopilot is probably a misnomer even in aviation, that doesn't make its use in Teslas any better though.
That has been my thought exactly! And they'd still have the opportunity to then use the autopilot brand once the appropriate level of autonomy was reached. Co-pilot --> Autopilot feels much stronger than Autopilot --> Autopilot Plus™ or similar.
Don't pilots typically sleep on long trips while their co-pilot flies the plane? Maybe a better term to use would be "assist". "assisted driving system" or "assisted highway driving"?
I never understood how the public decided that "autopilot" means a fully autonomous system. I grudgingly admit that some people think this way, but how did it happen?
To me it clearly means that the system is autonomous while the autopilot is on. What else should it mean?
Real-world autopilots cover a wide range of pilot aids, down to something as simple as a gyroscope mechanically connected to the rudder in order to automatically hold heading. Most are more capable than that, but typical autopilot features would involve holding heading, altitude (or rate of climb/descent), and speed, or navigating towards a particular point. Fully autonomous autopilots are extremely rare, and I'm not aware of any commercial system where the pilot is allowed to ignore the airplane while the system is engaged.
So, again, how did you get this idea?
So, again, how did you get this idea?
> So, again, how did you get this idea?
Because, as JonnieCache pointed out, the colloquial definition of Auto Pilot is more informed by entertainment than by the aerospace industry.
What's more baffling is why anyone would assume that the average person knows what "auto pilot" means in an aerospace setting. I mean, why in the world would that be common knowledge? In fact, I've seen enough bone-headed assertions about collision avoidance capabilities of modern aircraft that I'm pretty certain even people who think they know what auto pilot means, actually don't.
FWIW you can test this by finding people outside of the tech echo chamber who don't know what a Tesla is and asking them to describe the capabilities of a car with an Auto Pilot.
Because, as JonnieCache pointed out, the colloquial definition of Auto Pilot is more informed by entertainment than by the aerospace industry.
What's more baffling is why anyone would assume that the average person knows what "auto pilot" means in an aerospace setting. I mean, why in the world would that be common knowledge? In fact, I've seen enough bone-headed assertions about collision avoidance capabilities of modern aircraft that I'm pretty certain even people who think they know what auto pilot means, actually don't.
FWIW you can test this by finding people outside of the tech echo chamber who don't know what a Tesla is and asking them to describe the capabilities of a car with an Auto Pilot.
You're not answering the question, you're just repeating the basis of it.
I accept that people think it means it's autonomous. Stop repeating that as if it were new to me. What I want to know is why people think that. "Because everybody thinks that, if you'd bother to ask them" is not an answer to that question.
I accept that people think it means it's autonomous. Stop repeating that as if it were new to me. What I want to know is why people think that. "Because everybody thinks that, if you'd bother to ask them" is not an answer to that question.
"Because entertainment commonly portrays it as such, and few people are familiar with the workings of pilot aids installed aboard commercial aircraft" is an answer to that question. Perhaps it is not one you like.
Perhaps also it is not one which is accurate. I'm not really familiar with a lot of entertainment that includes this trope, which is not necessarily a surprise; what is a surprise is that TV Tropes, which is generally very detailed on such matters, doesn't seem to have anything covering it, either. That certainly suffices to inspire some doubt in my mind as to whether "oh, it's just entertainment" is an accurate answer, or a just-so story.
Perhaps also it is not one which is accurate. I'm not really familiar with a lot of entertainment that includes this trope, which is not necessarily a surprise; what is a surprise is that TV Tropes, which is generally very detailed on such matters, doesn't seem to have anything covering it, either. That certainly suffices to inspire some doubt in my mind as to whether "oh, it's just entertainment" is an accurate answer, or a just-so story.
When I asked for examples in another comment, the replies (so far) have been sci-fi movies. I'd hope that people aren't inferring real-world capabilities from sci-fi movies, but they very well could be.
I believe it comes from the fact that, colloquially, being "on autopilot" means doing something mindlessly, without being aware, or without thinking.
So when people engage their car autopilot, they allow themselves to be on autopilot, literally and figuratively.
So when people engage their car autopilot, they allow themselves to be on autopilot, literally and figuratively.
> What I want to know is why people think that
Re-read the first sentence of my post.
Perhaps you could answer my question: why would you assume someone with no knowledge of the aerospace industry would understand what the term auto pilot means in that context?
Why would anyone assume the TCAS specification has a greater effect on public perception than the latest comic book movie?
Re-read the first sentence of my post.
Perhaps you could answer my question: why would you assume someone with no knowledge of the aerospace industry would understand what the term auto pilot means in that context?
Why would anyone assume the TCAS specification has a greater effect on public perception than the latest comic book movie?
Do you have examples of this misconception being propagated by entertainment? I'm having trouble thinking of any, but that might just be my low level of knowledge.
I'm not going to answer your question because you're trying to make me defend a position I'm not taking here.
I'm not going to answer your question because you're trying to make me defend a position I'm not taking here.
Tesla wants to get the credit for using the word "Autopilot" but it doesn't want to take responsibility. If they sold cars only to airline pilots you would have a point but to regular car buyers "autopilot" means it's autonomous.
My point is just that this is the only source of meaning for the word I'm aware of, and so I'm wondering where the other meaning comes from. Apparently the answer is "movies."
Pilots aren't allowed to leave the cockpit just because the plane is on autopilot.
Yet, there are documented cases where the pilots have had enough faith in the system to take a nap or play around on their laptops.
They certainly don't have to be ready to intervene within a fraction of a second as you have to do with
Tesla.
Because every use they've ever seen of that phrase up until now has been in sci-fi shows, where the autopilot is an AI that flies the ship while you go back to the lounge to play 3d chess and drink dry ice cocktails?
In a world where you're constantly bombarded with press releases about self driving cars and how theyre just around the corner, its not exactly unexpected to think that an autopilot system will pilot your car automatically, especially when tesla is so heavily associated with silicon valley.
It may have a real use in planes or boats but approximately noone is familiar with that.
In a world where you're constantly bombarded with press releases about self driving cars and how theyre just around the corner, its not exactly unexpected to think that an autopilot system will pilot your car automatically, especially when tesla is so heavily associated with silicon valley.
It may have a real use in planes or boats but approximately noone is familiar with that.
There's also the part where the sky doesn't have many obstacles, so once you engage the autopilot you can probably go and take a piss, an alarm will go off if something's weird and the copilot will have more than enough time to get their bearings, if only because you're 30kft up not 5ft away from the obstacle.
"autopilot"
"autonomous"
Why is it so surprising that people think the prefix "auto-" means automatic or autonomous.
Why is it so surprising that people think the prefix "auto-" means automatic or autonomous.
It does mean automatic. Automatic does not mean "no human intervention or supervision" though.
And it's surprising because "autopilot" has been a real-world technology for about a century and that real-world technology almost never allows pilots to leave the plane unsupervised.
And it's surprising because "autopilot" has been a real-world technology for about a century and that real-world technology almost never allows pilots to leave the plane unsupervised.
I typed "define automatic" into Google and got "working by itself with little or no direct human control".
A non-pilot probably has very little clue how an actual airline autopilot works. Nor would I expect them to.
I wouldn't either, but I would expect either knowing that or not knowing how it works at all, not "knowing" that they're fully autonomous. But I'm probably expecting too much.
Every time I hear this "defense" it reeks of disingenuous fanboyism.
People invoke factoids about how autopilot for airplane pilots works (they have training!) as if it was common knowledge.
Let's be clear here: Very few people know anything about airplane cockpits. When people read "autopilot" they think "automatic pilot" ie: the thing drives itself, similar to "auto login" login you in without a click. Marketing knows this, we all know this, let's not pretend it was an innocent mistake.
People invoke factoids about how autopilot for airplane pilots works (they have training!) as if it was common knowledge.
Let's be clear here: Very few people know anything about airplane cockpits. When people read "autopilot" they think "automatic pilot" ie: the thing drives itself, similar to "auto login" login you in without a click. Marketing knows this, we all know this, let's not pretend it was an innocent mistake.
It's great that you think I'm being disingenuous. I'm not even defending it here. I'm just asking a legitimate question: how did people end up with this impression? I seriously do not understand it. "Automatic" does not imply "requires zero supervision."
People got the impression from films where the autopilot is a plot device: a character turns it on and then leaves the controls to go further the plot of the film.
Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot
"a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person"
In place of. Not under the constant supervision of.
Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autopilot
"a device that steers a ship, aircraft, or spacecraft in place of a person"
In place of. Not under the constant supervision of.
I don't see how that definition conflicts with real autopilots. The autopilot does the steering instead of the human. The human supervises.
On a ship, for example, the helmsman is steering, but the officer of the deck is in charge.
On a ship, for example, the helmsman is steering, but the officer of the deck is in charge.
It doesn't necessarily conflict, but for someone who has no experience of real autopilots (ie most people), the assumption would be that it can do the job of driving the car so they don't have to.
It seems quite logical that people will in fact infer that it requires no supervision from the term "automatic."
Because automatic is opposed to manual, which requires human intervention, people assume that automatic requires no intervention (of any kind whatsoever).
From there they expect an autopilot to pilot automatically with no human intervention.
You're absolutely correct in distinguishing supervision from other forms of intervention, but it's easy to see how people can merge both concepts.
Edit: To further clarify, people assume "automatic" implies "you don't need to do anything." Supervising is doing something. So it conflicts with people's idea of "automatic."
Because automatic is opposed to manual, which requires human intervention, people assume that automatic requires no intervention (of any kind whatsoever).
From there they expect an autopilot to pilot automatically with no human intervention.
You're absolutely correct in distinguishing supervision from other forms of intervention, but it's easy to see how people can merge both concepts.
Edit: To further clarify, people assume "automatic" implies "you don't need to do anything." Supervising is doing something. So it conflicts with people's idea of "automatic."
Look at how the word was formed. It came from Automatic - "(of a device or process) working by itself with little or no direct human control" and Pilot - "a person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft"
In the 50s or 60s or whenever they were first introduced, it was incredibly novel to have some portion of aircraft control handled by a machine. To go from partial machine control to fully machine control seems like a natural evolution and I think the name speaks for that evolution.
I think it is fair that most consumers think that "autopilot" implies fully autonomous driving. No one calls cruise control an autopilot when in fact it is a crude form of one.
In the 50s or 60s or whenever they were first introduced, it was incredibly novel to have some portion of aircraft control handled by a machine. To go from partial machine control to fully machine control seems like a natural evolution and I think the name speaks for that evolution.
I think it is fair that most consumers think that "autopilot" implies fully autonomous driving. No one calls cruise control an autopilot when in fact it is a crude form of one.
"Little or no direct human control" is pretty far from "zero human supervision" so the etymological argument doesn't really do it for me.
Lots of cars have "automatic transmissions" but nobody gets upset when it fails to shift into reverse on its own based on contextual clues.
Lots of cars have "automatic transmissions" but nobody gets upset when it fails to shift into reverse on its own based on contextual clues.
A big part of this is movies. When they show auto-pilot in the movies, people get up and just leave. There are countless times I have seen this play out in the movies and people think cars with the same name should behave the same way.
Do you have an example? The only one that comes to mind is Airplane! where the whole thing is played for laughs. I'm not questioning it, I'm just unfamiliar.
Demolition Man, I Robot, or Minority Report
It disturbs me that all the examples so far are science fiction. If people are inferring real-world capabilities from SF movies then we're totally screwed!
> If people are inferring real-world capabilities from SF movies then we're totally screwed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
I don't see why my examples should in any way "disturb you". Science fiction frequently is an inspiration for products and ideas that are made real, examples are legion.
I judiciously selected I Robot and Minority Report because Audi and Lexus, respectively, had product placement for future design concepts.
I judiciously selected I Robot and Minority Report because Audi and Lexus, respectively, had product placement for future design concepts.
If these movies are in fact the reason why people overestimate the capabilities of Tesla's system, then that means people's inability to distinguish science fiction from reality is getting people actually killed. That's pretty disturbing! Note, I'm not saying it's wrong, just awful.
I am not trying to imply that people are having difficulty distinguishing fiction from reality.
I am noting that real auto companies have deliberately placed product concepts in media to prime people's expectations of what future products will look like and what they will be able to do. Independently, there are also proper level 4 systems under active development getting plenty of popular press coverage.
I also note that the very public face of Tesla frequently makes very public and (in my opinion, overly optimistic) declarations of their product's capabilities both present and future, for example (Jan 2016), "The Model S is 'probably better than humans at this point in highway driving' according to Musk." [0]
It doesn't strike me to be all that far of a leap for an average person to conclude that the future has arrived.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/11/elon-musk...
I am noting that real auto companies have deliberately placed product concepts in media to prime people's expectations of what future products will look like and what they will be able to do. Independently, there are also proper level 4 systems under active development getting plenty of popular press coverage.
I also note that the very public face of Tesla frequently makes very public and (in my opinion, overly optimistic) declarations of their product's capabilities both present and future, for example (Jan 2016), "The Model S is 'probably better than humans at this point in highway driving' according to Musk." [0]
It doesn't strike me to be all that far of a leap for an average person to conclude that the future has arrived.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/11/elon-musk...
Other way round: real-world capabilities are built out to meet the SF expectations. Star Trek communicators -> mobile phones. Star Trek computer -> Alexa/Siri et al.
(Besides, the alternative is for the layman to infer capabilities from marketing material, which is even more outlandishly fictional)
Oh, and if you want an exhaustive list of when something appears in media, TVtropes will always deliver: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=6zj22p5kr47sfh2...
(Besides, the alternative is for the layman to infer capabilities from marketing material, which is even more outlandishly fictional)
Oh, and if you want an exhaustive list of when something appears in media, TVtropes will always deliver: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=6zj22p5kr47sfh2...
automatic washing machine
automatic login / logout / lock
automatic debit of monthly bills
automatic reply to calls / emails
automatic plant watering
automatic login / logout / lock
automatic debit of monthly bills
automatic reply to calls / emails
automatic plant watering
> automatic washing machine
Will happily flood the house if something goes wrong.
> automatic login
Frequently requires manually reentering credentials.
> automatic debit of monthly bills
Will happily send your life savings to the power company if they typo a couple of extra zeroes on your bill.
> automatic reply to emails
Notorious for massive screwups when people enable them without adequate controls, especially when multiple people on the same mailing list do it at the same time.
All of these examples seem to reinforce the idea that "automatic" does not mean "requires no human supervision."
Will happily flood the house if something goes wrong.
> automatic login
Frequently requires manually reentering credentials.
> automatic debit of monthly bills
Will happily send your life savings to the power company if they typo a couple of extra zeroes on your bill.
> automatic reply to emails
Notorious for massive screwups when people enable them without adequate controls, especially when multiple people on the same mailing list do it at the same time.
All of these examples seem to reinforce the idea that "automatic" does not mean "requires no human supervision."
The day Tesla's helper requires as much supervision as my washing machine or bank or email client, maybe they can claim naivete. Today, it's a cavalier and underhanded marketing tactic.
You're exactly the kind of fanboy I accused you of being, btw. Proper rules of engagement on HN be damned: you're wasting everyone's time with goalpost-moving and dis-ingenuousness.
You're exactly the kind of fanboy I accused you of being, btw. Proper rules of engagement on HN be damned: you're wasting everyone's time with goalpost-moving and dis-ingenuousness.
That's a little harsh, both in general and specifically here. I've observed 'mikeash to be relatively level-headed in his comments here, even against the general baseline of HN's usually quite high level of quality; while he does make occasional excursions into unreasonability, so do we all, and I think it's worth making allowances for such things in the cause of a process which, in my experience, generally results in a stronger understanding of an issue all around.
If you feel your time is being wasted, perhaps you may wish to consider making the choice to spend it otherwise. Were it I who felt that way, I might still hesitate to generalize from myself to everyone, no matter how justified I might imagine myself to be in so doing.
If you feel your time is being wasted, perhaps you may wish to consider making the choice to spend it otherwise. Were it I who felt that way, I might still hesitate to generalize from myself to everyone, no matter how justified I might imagine myself to be in so doing.
> Will happily flood the house if something goes wrong.
It isn't supposed to flood the house. It is designed to be automatic. Meaning no supervision. Tesla's Autopilot isn't designed this way yet carries the name.
Let's keep going.
> Will happily send your life savings to the power company if they typo a couple of extra zeroes on your bill.
This has nothing to do with automatic payment being poorly designed. It is designed to pay the balance without your intervention...hence automatic.
> Notorious for massive screwups when people enable them without adequate controls, especially when multiple people on the same mailing list do it at the same time.
Depends on how it is implemented. There are usually more knobs to this feature and it is designed to have you program it. Based on programming, settings, etc, it will do whatever you set it to without you having to be there...hence automatic reply.
It isn't supposed to flood the house. It is designed to be automatic. Meaning no supervision. Tesla's Autopilot isn't designed this way yet carries the name.
Let's keep going.
> Will happily send your life savings to the power company if they typo a couple of extra zeroes on your bill.
This has nothing to do with automatic payment being poorly designed. It is designed to pay the balance without your intervention...hence automatic.
> Notorious for massive screwups when people enable them without adequate controls, especially when multiple people on the same mailing list do it at the same time.
Depends on how it is implemented. There are usually more knobs to this feature and it is designed to have you program it. Based on programming, settings, etc, it will do whatever you set it to without you having to be there...hence automatic reply.
I'm not saying automatic bill pay is poorly designed, I'm saying it requires supervision to make sure it doesn't do anything stupid. We don't expect "autopay" to be foolproof, we expect it to handle the mundane stuff.
[deleted]
Captain America - Civil War
Don't you think the people who coined the term autopilot envisioned an eventual future when it was fully autonomous or "fully automatic?"
It seems your major sticking point is about the state of the art of autopilots in other fields.
It seems your major sticking point is about the state of the art of autopilots in other fields.
I'm pretty doubtful that when Lawrence Sperry connected a gyroscope to a hydraulic control system in 1912 that he envisioned a future where the plane handled all aspects of flight.
Ironically, Mr. Sperry apparently trusted his own device too much, as he crashed a plane after accidentally disengaging the autopilot in the midst of becoming possibly the first person to have sex while airborne.
My sticking point is the state of the art of all autopilots in all fields. Fully autonomous systems are very new and still highly experimental (most drones still have human pilots, just remote, for example) and so I don't get how this popular conception that "autopilot = fully autonomous" happened. It's as if everyone thought that "boat" meant something with wheels that can drive on land.
Ironically, Mr. Sperry apparently trusted his own device too much, as he crashed a plane after accidentally disengaging the autopilot in the midst of becoming possibly the first person to have sex while airborne.
My sticking point is the state of the art of all autopilots in all fields. Fully autonomous systems are very new and still highly experimental (most drones still have human pilots, just remote, for example) and so I don't get how this popular conception that "autopilot = fully autonomous" happened. It's as if everyone thought that "boat" meant something with wheels that can drive on land.
Is "auto" in autopilot short for automatic or automobile? It's just occurred to me it could be either if you want to be strict or pedantic. I automatically assume it's short for automatic pilot, which most people would assume means "it drives - pilots - itself," and that may be reason people assume the technology is more like a chauffeur. But if by autopilot Tesla mean automobile pilot (I admittedly don't think that's the case), then the meaning would probably change.
It does drive itself, with human supervision. Just like the automatic transmission shifts gears by itself but still needs human input.
That's a strange example. An automatic transmission needs no human input at all. You put it in D, and leave it in D, until you stop driving most of the time.
Did you mean manual transmissions?
Did you mean manual transmissions?
It's pretty common that you need to shift it to R. Nobody leaves it in D while backing out of a parking spot and then complains that the automatic transmission didn't do its job when they collide with the wall in front of them.
Sure, when you want to indicate a different intention, you need to interact with it, but you don't need to keep watching over it in case it suddenly switches to R.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
See also the fatal crash in China just popped up today ( crash is from january ) : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12504888
Wow, the autopilot failed spectacularly there. This really is something that is should have caught, IMO. It doesn't even seem to have tried to avoid it, even once it got very close.
Even if you consider it a co-pilot, unless someone is paying as much attention as if they were really driving and was right in position to take control, I don't think they could have done much to mitigate this. At best, they might have jerked the car into the next lane, but even that could cause a fatal crash of that car or surrounding cars.
Even if you consider it a co-pilot, unless someone is paying as much attention as if they were really driving and was right in position to take control, I don't think they could have done much to mitigate this. At best, they might have jerked the car into the next lane, but even that could cause a fatal crash of that car or surrounding cars.
Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system. Not making excuses, just saying it's not a big surprise.
My experience with the system is that it actually allows you to be more aware of things like this, because you can devote all of your attention to scanning the road far ahead, instead of switching between the distance and nearby details like where you are relative to the lines.
However, that requires using the system in a way that understands and accommodates its limitations, which not everybody does.
My experience with the system is that it actually allows you to be more aware of things like this, because you can devote all of your attention to scanning the road far ahead, instead of switching between the distance and nearby details like where you are relative to the lines.
However, that requires using the system in a way that understands and accommodates its limitations, which not everybody does.
> Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system.
Are you for real? Subaru's Eyesight would have detected this, and it is much less sophisticated than Autopilot (just two visible light cameras).
In the first crash Tesla explained how it occurred (strong sunlight blocked the visible light camera, and radar failed since the truck appeared to "hover" over the road) but they haven't explain this crash. Why didn't the visible cameras cause auto-breaking?
Breaking for stationary objects is the PRIMARY purpose of auto-braking systems.
Are you for real? Subaru's Eyesight would have detected this, and it is much less sophisticated than Autopilot (just two visible light cameras).
In the first crash Tesla explained how it occurred (strong sunlight blocked the visible light camera, and radar failed since the truck appeared to "hover" over the road) but they haven't explain this crash. Why didn't the visible cameras cause auto-breaking?
Breaking for stationary objects is the PRIMARY purpose of auto-braking systems.
Yes, I'm for real. Direct quote from the manual:
"Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not detect a stationary vehicle or other object in the lane of travel."
"Warning: Traffic-Aware Cruise Control can not detect all objects and may not detect a stationary vehicle or other object in the lane of travel."
> "Inability to reliably detect completely stationary objects is a known and documented deficiency of the system."
"Caution: car may drive into solid objects at 70mph"
Meanwhile on the front page of HN, a system which is not calling itself autopilot manages to avoid flying a plane into the ground: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501985
Technologies like self-driving/autonomous/autopilot cars need to be very clear about what they can and cannot do. If the human has to be paying attention and able to take over before a solid object appears within the stopping distance of the car, then it should not be marketed as any of those and should limit itself to calling itself a driver assistance device.
"Caution: car may drive into solid objects at 70mph"
Meanwhile on the front page of HN, a system which is not calling itself autopilot manages to avoid flying a plane into the ground: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501985
Technologies like self-driving/autonomous/autopilot cars need to be very clear about what they can and cannot do. If the human has to be paying attention and able to take over before a solid object appears within the stopping distance of the car, then it should not be marketed as any of those and should limit itself to calling itself a driver assistance device.
I would just like to point out that your caution applies to just about all cars currently on the roads.
Yes, but they're not marketed as being self-driving.
(This whole issue is very important for people who do want fully autonomous cars, as Tesla et al messing up the PR will get them banned if they're not careful.)
(This whole issue is very important for people who do want fully autonomous cars, as Tesla et al messing up the PR will get them banned if they're not careful.)
This car isn't marketed as self-driving either. Some people are inferring that from the name, but Tesla is fairly clear on the system's actual capabilities.
Incidentally, Mercedes does advertise some of their cars as "self-driving":
https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mercedes-self-d...
I wonder why we don't hear these complaints about them.
Incidentally, Mercedes does advertise some of their cars as "self-driving":
https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/mercedes-self-d...
I wonder why we don't hear these complaints about them.
You didn't hear these complaints. They where made, and Mercedes pulled the ads.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/07/29/mercedes-pulls-self-drivi...
Then they should really design the system with the limitations in mind so that it can only be used like that. It seems like it allows for too much time without hands on the wheel with only a warning that can be ignored.
I agree that it would be great if the system could only be used that way, but I don't see how that could be accomplished. Having your hands on the wheel has almost no correlation with paying attention to the road. I frequently watch the road carefully without touching the wheel, and it's easy to hold the wheel while staring at the clouds or with your eyes closed.
Eye tracking? It's rather good nowadays.
There's no evidence that Autopilot was enabled. It won't perform any avoiding action if it is not enabled.
There is no evidence that Autopilot was disabled either.
No. But it is misleading for media to report "autopilot" caused a crash when we don't know yet.
They did the same thing when a woman plowed into the side of the building at 30MPH. Obviously Tesla said it wasn't enabled, but reporters didn't wait to hear back from Tesla.
Which media did ?
Wow is it me, or is that cleaning-car on the far-left lane of the highway not being very dangerous by cleaning there with such a slow speed?
In the Netherlands the whole lane would be dis-allowed to drive on if there was work going on there.
Any slow moving vehicle on a high way is a hazard to other vehicles. Maybe that's a normal thing in China, but definitely not in Toronto. Judging from the video, the warning light from the cleaning truck was not sufficient even for human driver.
Extremely dangerous. In the US there are entire convoys with giant flashing lights and crash barricades attached to the rear of work vehicles. They'd be blocking the entire left lane. This is a bigger failure for safety standards in China than it is a failing of Tesla. The rear-end collisions like this happen all the time without autopilot.
Maybe it was dis-allowed to drive ... the video does not make this clear. Or better, I do not speak Chinese.
I mean, this doesn't really seem like the grandest news. It could've been safely inferred based on the releases at the time: http://www.wsj.com/articles/mobileye-ends-partnership-with-t...
> Mobileye said it would no longer provide its computer chips and algorithms to Tesla after a current contract ends due to disagreements about how the technology was deployed.
But it's good to have the exact reason Mobileye decided against renewing the contract in writing. I'm still keen to see how Volvo's system ends up since they (if I recall correctly) are the only car company which has so far indicated they would accept responsibility for incidents caused by their driverless system: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34475031 -- hopefully this'll compel their engineering teams to focus more on safety rather than MVP.
I do wonder whether both Tesla and SpaceX are seeing the issues they're seeing because of the abysmal work-life balance at both companies. Great successes on both sides, but there are increases in risks of catastrophic failure in products from both companies which have already been realized. I'm sure work life balance isn't the only reason, but it wouldn't surprise me if Musk's inability to personally burn out isn't actually shared by the vast majority of his engineers.
> Mobileye said it would no longer provide its computer chips and algorithms to Tesla after a current contract ends due to disagreements about how the technology was deployed.
But it's good to have the exact reason Mobileye decided against renewing the contract in writing. I'm still keen to see how Volvo's system ends up since they (if I recall correctly) are the only car company which has so far indicated they would accept responsibility for incidents caused by their driverless system: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34475031 -- hopefully this'll compel their engineering teams to focus more on safety rather than MVP.
I do wonder whether both Tesla and SpaceX are seeing the issues they're seeing because of the abysmal work-life balance at both companies. Great successes on both sides, but there are increases in risks of catastrophic failure in products from both companies which have already been realized. I'm sure work life balance isn't the only reason, but it wouldn't surprise me if Musk's inability to personally burn out isn't actually shared by the vast majority of his engineers.
Volvo's stated goal is improved safety on the road, both for the car's occupants and for other road users. Volvo are not adding sensors to make driving more convenient, they are adding sensors to make driving safer. The whole Volvo brand is built around feeling safe.
Noted caption on photo "A hirsute Sebastian using autopilot in a Tesla Model S." If this was said about a woman it would be sexist. Imagine if it said "Good looking Mary ... etc." outrage would be reasonable and forthcoming.
I believe if we're going to be alert to sexism towards women we need to tune up our antennae to all sexism and have simple and clear standards that have a hope of applying cross-culturally.
I welcome your alternate views below. I am genuinely interested in learning why you think I'm out of line here. :-)
I believe if we're going to be alert to sexism towards women we need to tune up our antennae to all sexism and have simple and clear standards that have a hope of applying cross-culturally.
I welcome your alternate views below. I am genuinely interested in learning why you think I'm out of line here. :-)
That's just because "hirsute" is considered to be an undesirable trait in women, but desirable in men. Pick an adjective that's flattering to Mary and I don't think anyone would care.
Considering that Sebastian is also credited for taking the photo, I'd speculate he approved of the caption, or even came up with it.
Considering that Sebastian is also credited for taking the photo, I'd speculate he approved of the caption, or even came up with it.
Just for context, Sebastian Anthony is the editor of Ars Technica UK.
Thanks for your reply. But how does that make my criticism of written sexism here mistaken/inappropriate/wrong?
It just makes it irrelevant. The website has a long-running relationship with Sebastian, who only recently developed a beard. The adjective was highlighting the novelty of his appearance to a readerbase that is more familiar with a depilated Sebastian.
In short, your criticism would have been valid in many circumstances, but does not really apply to this specific caption.
In short, your criticism would have been valid in many circumstances, but does not really apply to this specific caption.
Thank you for your reply. I just didn't get the joke - that makes it a bad joke IMHO. Its the kind of comment that condones irrelevant body references that distract from the point and would likely suppress discussion if the subject were a woman. My point is that we need to get out of that habit entirely.
General rules that you use for strangers don't really apply to anyone you have a personal relationship with. And sexism is usually a problem of power mismatch between the two people, which doesn't really apply here either.
Thanks for your reply. I don't know these people and don't know their history. My opinion is that their comment should be clearly non-sexist or clearly relevant.
Captions are often descriptive of what is actually in the picture, not merely the most relevant thing in the picture but also incidental details.
Do you like sex? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs3OWJ53rHE
In an interview George Hotz said he told Elon to drop Mobileye. George is repeating how bad that company is.
So it seems not only Tesla thinks Mobileye can't keep up with safety. Others noticed this too.
So it seems not only Tesla thinks Mobileye can't keep up with safety. Others noticed this too.
You seem to be confused. Tesla was the one who got dropped by Mobileye.
Maybe you should read the article (or heck even the headline).
Maybe you should read the article (or heck even the headline).
"No matter how you spin it, (Autopilot) is not designed for that. It is a driver assistance system and not a driverless system," Shashua said.
This implies that Tesla's customers were not using the system as designer and possibly didn't want negative publicly of such affecting its business
The article never stated anything about Tesla dropping Mobileye either but implied the opposite.
The article never stated anything about Tesla dropping Mobileye either but implied the opposite.
"According to a Tesla spokesperson in a statement sent to Electrek today, Mobileye tried to convince Tesla to keep using its system for future generations of the Autopilot, but when it became apparent that Tesla was sticking to its new in-house system, which the company confirmed today is called ‘Tesla Vision’, they threaten to discontinue supply of the EyeQ3 chip to cripple the current version of the Autopilot."
The unreasonable demands Mobileye made are listed in the below article I lifted the above quote from.
https://electrek.co/2016/09/15/tesla-vision-mobileye-tesla-a...
The unreasonable demands Mobileye made are listed in the below article I lifted the above quote from.
https://electrek.co/2016/09/15/tesla-vision-mobileye-tesla-a...
What will happen when "autopilot" turns off because the driver ignores notifications? Could that cause more issues? It's good that the cars will use sensors around them better, but turning off the assist function may have some fatal bugs.
A vehicle without driver aids and with sudden loss of driver inputs would tend to idle down the road until it hit an object sufficient to stop movement, or ran out of fuel, or the engine stalled for some reason.
A better response to lack of driver input would be to come to a controlled stop, preferably out of the traffic lanes (since other Tesla vehicles have driver assistance technology which may not respond to a stationary vehicle in the lanes)
A better response to lack of driver input would be to come to a controlled stop, preferably out of the traffic lanes (since other Tesla vehicles have driver assistance technology which may not respond to a stationary vehicle in the lanes)
It seems that a plausible reason warning alarms would be ignored might be that the driver had a heart attack or stroke while auto-pilot was engaged. In that case, disabling all automation might be the worst response to the situation. I'm sure that Tesla engineers have considered this scenario but it certainly makes you realise that this is a hard problem to solve.
A more appropriate name would be co-pilot.