I personally believe that we do have unprecedented number of tools in our disposal to be successful, compared to any other time in our history. The problem is somewhere else.
Tesla’s software is dangerous. I own one and I have to be a lot more alert than when I am actually driving. Just yesterday when I was driving rural town, it was stopping every time it sees a truck in the incoming lane. I suspect if something like that happened in this case as well.
I can't imagine having a Tesla with the drive-assist software in its current state. It's like having a mentally ill spouse at home, you always wonder what irrational thing is going to come next, you have no peace any second of the day. Now try that during something safety-critical, like driving. The constant hypervigilance is exhausting, and when you aren't looking, the Tesla drives itself into a traffic bollard. Why is such crap road-legal?
I have a Model Y, and I don't feel comfortable with autopilot or lane assist. Both of them do "dumb stuff" regularly. The day I got the car, lane assist attempted to steer me into the center median of a highway when the car was going around 50 miles per hour. After that, I realized I'm not interested in "beta" features that put my life in danger. Autopilot drives like a paranoid grandma. It brakes constantly when it shouldn't. All that said, the car is a lot of fun, and I really enjoy it, but I choose to maintain full control at all times.
Whether you like AP or not largely comes down to how your driving style compares to the computer's. If you are a defensive driver, you won't really care for the kinds of obviously dumb situations AP will happily drive you into. Eventually it reacts, but it takes a lot longer for the sensors to notice what a human brain can easily predict is about to occur.
I found AP to be an interesting toy, but it never made driving more relaxing for me, because I had to be more aware, not less, of everything around me.
Autopilot is not as bad as you think it is, for one it does not stop abruptly. Thousands of drivers are using it regularly. Drivers report less fatigue and paying better attention to things that matter rather than keeping the car in line. Of course, there are some drivers that are not comfortable with it yet.
EU seem to have more stringent regulations - for example, to ensure that AI maneuvers will be less unexpected EU regulations put a hard rate limit on steering angle. Trouble with regulating at such level is that in some cases (curved roads, hazard avoidance) it makes the car less safe.
Overall, Level 2 systems, like Autopilot, are not autonomous and their performance depends in large part on drivers judgement. I think regulations need to focus on human - AI interface requirements a bit more.
I agree. Plus it is a lot more stressful to imagine that the car could stop randomly rather that hitting an object in front of you (which is already quite bad). The former is literally mentally exhausting.
As a non-owner it seems kinda scary with the regular updates that the behavior would change. One day it stops for trucks in small towns, the next day it doesnt.
There are a couple controls. You can opt-in to get releases earlier, or wait until they're a bit more fully baked. And you can refuse the update when it pops up. I don't recall it ever being forced, but I could be mistaken.
It comes down to your driving style. Defensive drivers will not like how AP drives, and it makes driving much more tiring, not less. If you are comfortable with the way AP drives, though, I could see it being relaxing. Hell, some people sleep when AP is cruising down the highway, so clearly there is a spectrum.
There's been a number of occasions where I would have been in an accident had it not been for the software saving me. Obviously it is possible that one day the software will result in an accident that would not have happened had I been driving alone, but thus far that has not happened, and so, thus far, I can conclude that the combination is better than me alone.
It’s fairly rare for a driver to be involved in “a number of accidents” in just a few years. Most drivers go decades with zero collisions, so if you’re experiencing multiple per year, saved only by Tesla software, you might try to see if there are other avenues that you could explore to reduce your risk to be more like the population average.
I get what you're trying to say, but if anything, you're just making the case for Tesla software.
Consider that there is a range of drivers, from "good" to "bad". If most drivers go decades with zero collisions, that's great, and it probably puts me closer to the "bad" end of the spectrum. By your own admission drivers like me should explore avenues to reduce our risk. Why is Tesla software not a valid avenue?
If you're a "good" driver, you don't need it, and that's fine, you can get some other car or drive with autopilot off or whatever. But for us "bad" drivers, the software makes us safer (both personal risk and to others on the road) so why not use it? What other avenues would you suggest exploring?
I would say close calls are fairly common, especially in urban areas with lots of traffic. It’s not just your driving but the people around you. It takes two to get into an accident.
Right. I suspect that the net effect is that the Tesla software transforms these what would have been close calls into…still close calls where the Tesla software gets credit for a “save”.
If a Tesla “saved” a driver 5 times in 20K miles, my first question is always going to be “how many collisions did they have in the prior 20K miles in their other car?”
This effect has a large influence on the overall A/B analysis. If pre/post test analysis suggests that Tesla saved you from only 0 to 1x collisions vs a previously estimated 4x-5x collisions, your tolerance for newly introduced collisions would naturally be much lower.
One person cannot drive enough miles in their lifetime to allow making a determination that one system is definitely safer than the other. The reliability that we require from an autonomous system means you might never experience a safety failure (again, even if you drive every minute of the rest of your life), but the system is still less safe.
True, but manufacturers can look at aggregate miles traveled and come to some conclusions about the safety of vehicles without any safety systems, with active safety systems like automatic emergency braking, and in Tesla’s case, Autopilot. They publish the statistics regularly and crashes are far less common per million miles driven when autopilot is engaged.
I think these stats aren’t very useful because 1) Tesla drivers are different than other drives as they are rich. Comparing miles driven by rich people to all miles driven isn’t useful for knowing if Teslas are safer; 2) Tesla has really low numbers so it’s hard to compare a small sample to a huge amount. It would be like comparing walking accidents by 7th Day Adventists. They may walk a million miles among the whole population but that’s nothing compared to the trillion miles of the entire population.
The data is not transparent, they publish what they want. How many times drivers intervened? Does Tesla or the fans consider those as a +1 for human and a -1 for the AI in the stats? Nope.
My wife forbade me from using AP [with her in the car] after a few phantom braking occurrences. I got sorta used to it and could jab the go pedal pretty fast, but it scared the daylights out of her. Can't really blame her. I get nervous enough as a passenger when there's a human driving, much less when a computer is driving that mistakes shadows for obstacles.
Tesla/Elon Musk have this weird irrational obsession with using only cameras for their autopilot. Yes, humans can drive using only two eyes (and also actually ears, touch feedback and acceleration sensors), but they also have a lot of accidents. It's not obvious that you can do better with software only, and in any case you're crippling yourself by not using additional inputs for no good reason.
> irrational obsession with using only cameras for their autopilot
it's so they can upsell FSD with the highest margin using the cheapest hardware (they're not even good cameras, 1280×960 resolution because they want to push pixels directly into their neural net, and dynamic range is poor, I will never understand how they didn't spring for infrared night vision, cadillacs had it 20 years ago)
I think you could also say that people seem to have an irrational obsession with Tesla’s decision to only use cameras. Camera only systems aren’t uncommon among other automakers (Subaru Eyesight, for example.)
There is nothing irrational about being concerned by the fact that complaints of phantom braking incidents increased significantly after Tesla dropped radar from its data sources.
Your comparison does not apply. I do not believe Subaru is selling Eyesight as a hands-off driving system. AFAIK its purely marketed as a safety system for emergency braking, lane keep assist and the like. On Tesla's side they market it as a the holy grail "autopilot".
The reason I’m making the comparison is that there are reports of phantom braking when Teslas aren’t in Autopilot.
The same vision-based system is used for AEB in Teslas. Subarus use a vision-based system for AEB but don’t seem to experience phantom braking.
I think you could reasonably conclude that autopilot aside, a vehicle can safely use a vision-based system for AEB without phantom braking being a huge issue.
And it’s lane assist isn’t “keep the car centered”… it’s the steering equivalent to emergency braking, a sudden jerk away from the line it thinks you’re about to cross.
The newer versions have lane centering which isn’t quite equivalent to Autosteer in a Tesla, but it’s much closer to it than the older versions that only have lane keep assist, which only nudges you away from a lane line you are about to cross.
Our human "cameras" also scan constantly, have crazy dynamic range, employ dynamic shades (hands) and move around several feet, inside a protective weather proof shield, as well employ "sensor fusion" with "microphones" and "vibration detectors".
I think Google might have tweaked their search to not always go to stack overflow. That might be start of their downfall. Recent times it is rarely stack overflow as top result and it happened suddenly, not gradually.
Github is evolving pretty rapidly than I thought it would. I like their new changes. Deep underneath it being with Microsoft just reminds me of oracle/google debacle. Definitely discourages big projects to be hosted there.
"Adjust worldview" sounds deeply pessimistic to me. Anyone can do make life better, specially at time when degrees mean less, they just need to persevere. Stay level headed. If I have to suggest I wouldn't say "Adjust Worldview" at all.
This is good way to start cooking and hit the kitchen. Eventually though you may feel like you want to mix and match and start buying your own grocery.
I am curious how you justify your position by looking at few members of the team. Trade is a complex issue and Trump single handedly is jeopardizing this sensitive topic by openly declaring trade wars with multiple nations in open platform like Twitter. Where were those members when that was and is still happening?
> I am curious how you justify your position by looking at few members of the team.
If you review my comment carefully, you may notice (especially prior to my edit) that I haven't stated a particularly strong or distinct "position". Rather, I was asking a specific question about the specific literal words of someone else's stated position/belief.
I suspect that what has happened here in both cases is that subconscious heuristics have automatically crunched massive amounts of data and formed an evaluation in the asker's mind of a particular state in the other person's mind - something that is obviously epistemically unsound if you actually stop and think about it.
And I'm not asking these questions to troll - I believe the prevalence of low-consciousness in public participation in democracy is what makes these sorts of problems possible in the first place. I strongly believe that if people, even some people, were more harshly critical of listening to the words/promises/assurances of politicians and corporate leaders, we wouldn't find ourselves in many of these positions in the first place.
> Trade is a complex issue and Trump single handedly is jeopardizing this sensitive topic by openly declaring trade wars with multiple nations in open platform like Twitter.
It is indeed a complex issue, far more complex than most people are able to comprehend.
EDIT: It's a shame that the implementation of post throttling (claimed to be based on rate of posting) seems to have the side effect of not allowing those who've posted substantive but dissenting opinions are prevented from defending what they've posted, while those who post low quality but popular opinions (often stated as facts) seem to suffer no such restriction. I wonder if lowering diversity of opinions might sometimes lead to insular thinking both within individual forums as well as in our overall democracy. I wonder if anyone cares, more than they care about winning an argument.
> You are suggesting Trump is doing this based on recommendation of his team or in depth analysis of the topic.
Technically speaking, no. I am asking for an explanation of the thinking of someone who has claimed (with no stated evidence) that Trump and his team do not understand: "The logical conclusion would be that if you are a global company and want to keep selling to China (or to whoever will get a trade ban or sanction), you should not incorporate any US tech, or have US development teams. This seems to be quite counterproductive from the US point of view, it means that investing in the US expose you to additional risks."
> Your proof being members of his team.
I've made no assertion, or offered proof. I am asking a question.
I believe my comment above on heuristics is worthy of some consideration.
> Even though trade is complex issue, people will understand careful diplomacy.
They often will yes, no disagreement from me.
> What Trump is doing is like carrying a sledge hammer and out in full swing against trading nations.
A sledge hammer. Oh, ok. If that's the case, then is it clearly logical how incorrect my simplistic interpretation is, and downvotes are well deserved.
> There is no pattern or logic to it, other than scare tactics.
Is this a fact or an opinion?
> If you can point out to why you think he is doing this in more convincing manner then I think you might not have been downvoted.
So, the first person who makes a comment is now considered correct until someone can offer a substantive rebuttal? Does popularity of a statement play into this at all? Is this covered in the HN guidelines or somewhere else I'm not aware of?
Consider this possibility: might I be trying, although perhaps not successfully, to forcibly inject a bit of objectiveness into these conversations?
You are suggesting Trump is doing this based on recommendation of his team or in depth analysis of the topic. Your proof being members of his team. Even though trade is complex issue, people will understand careful diplomacy. What Trump is doing is like carrying a sledge hammer and out in full swing against trading nations. There is no pattern or logic to it, other than scare tactics. If you can point out to why you think he is doing this in more convincing manner then I think you might not have been downvoted.
You are only seeing half of Trump's hand by looking at Twitter. Trump has a front channel which is Twitter (et. al.) and a back channel which you nor I am privy to. He uses both of these to achieve results.
Also, assuming that Trump doesn't utilize advisers seems to be willful ignorance. Trump studies a topic in depth before making a decision, and he very much listens to experts in that study.
Sometimes people can be acting passive aggressive in the name of humility. It's hard to understand yourself to find out if you truly are willing to find out or just trying to prove another person wrong. I think I have lived in both spectrum in different phase of my life so I can vaguely relate.
Exactly what author is trying to convince against. Today's world is 'easier to master in multiple discipline' world and future is even brighter with all new education technologies.
