5 ms·

The software did not work as designed, because it is designed, above all else, to not hit stationary objects.

by dimino 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago
That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision, and the autonomous collision avoidance is a supplement to that supervision, not a substitute. You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.
- dimino 10y ago
  > That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision It was not designed to work under human supervision, but even if it was, that design was wrong, and the design was broken from the start.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What is your basis for the statement that it was not designed to work under human supervision? The documentation is quite explicit about needing human supervision, and I see nothing whatsoever indicating anything otherwise.
    - dimino 10y ago
      https://www.teslamotors.com/models https://www.teslamotors.com/models "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road." It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        The use of the word "helps" makes it pretty clear that it's not intended to be the only thing working to avoid collisions.
        dimino 10y ago
        No it doesn't. And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Really, you think that "X helps Y" is compatible with X being intended as the sole thing performing Y? If so, we clearly speak fundamentally different languages, despite the superficial similarities in spelling and such. As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
        dimino 10y ago
        I didn't say "x being intended as the sole thing performing Y", I said, "It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.", which it was.
        mikeash 10y ago
        You said it's designed to work without human supervision. Unless you're proposing some third entity besides the car and the human which would be responsible for collision avoidance, then what you said is that the car is fully responsible for it.
        dimino 10y ago
        > You said it's designed to work without human supervision. When?
        mikeash 10y ago
        "It was not designed to work under human supervision...." I don't know how else to understand that other than that it was designed to work without human supervision. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could elaborate.
freehunter 10y ago
I mean, my laptop is designed to detect a fall and park the hard drive automatically to avoid damage. But if I throw it off a cliff, it's probably still going to get damaged, and the Western Digital is going to laugh at my warranty claim. Because the software worked as designed, I just ignored the limitations and took the hardware outside of the design spec. Yes, the hard drive can protect against falls, up to a certain amount of G forces. Yes the Tesla can move itself around stationary objects, within the limitations of where the sensors can read. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.
- dimino 10y ago
  The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
  - cynix 10y ago
    > The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff? They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
    - dimino 10y ago
      That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
      - cynix 10y ago
        The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it. Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.

The software did not work as designed, because it is designed, above all else, to not hit stationary objects.

by dimino 10y ago

The software did not work as designed, because it is designed, above all else, to not hit stationary objects.

That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision, and the autonomous collision avoidance is a supplement to that supervision, not a substitute. You could certainly argue that the software should be designed to, above all else, not hit stationary objects. But it is not actually designed that way.

dimino 10y ago
> That's not true. The software is designed to work under human supervision It was not designed to work under human supervision, but even if it was, that design was wrong, and the design was broken from the start.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What is your basis for the statement that it was not designed to work under human supervision? The documentation is quite explicit about needing human supervision, and I see nothing whatsoever indicating anything otherwise.
  - dimino 10y ago
    https://www.teslamotors.com/models https://www.teslamotors.com/models "Digital control of motors, brakes, and steering helps avoid collisions from the front and sides, and prevents the car from wandering off the road." It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The use of the word "helps" makes it pretty clear that it's not intended to be the only thing working to avoid collisions.
      - dimino 10y ago
        No it doesn't. And you're still ignoring the part where I said it doesn't matter if it was designed intentionally this way or not, it shouldn't behave this way, regardless.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Really, you think that "X helps Y" is compatible with X being intended as the sole thing performing Y? If so, we clearly speak fundamentally different languages, despite the superficial similarities in spelling and such. As for ignoring the other part, I explicitly acknowledged in my original reply that this would be a valid criticism, and it's not something I feel strongly enough about to argue.
        dimino 10y ago
        I didn't say "x being intended as the sole thing performing Y", I said, "It's designed to avoid collisions from the front and sides.", which it was.
        mikeash 10y ago
        You said it's designed to work without human supervision. Unless you're proposing some third entity besides the car and the human which would be responsible for collision avoidance, then what you said is that the car is fully responsible for it.
        dimino 10y ago
        > You said it's designed to work without human supervision. When?
        mikeash 10y ago
        "It was not designed to work under human supervision...." I don't know how else to understand that other than that it was designed to work without human supervision. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you could elaborate.

freehunter 10y ago

I mean, my laptop is designed to detect a fall and park the hard drive automatically to avoid damage. But if I throw it off a cliff, it's probably still going to get damaged, and the Western Digital is going to laugh at my warranty claim. Because the software worked as designed, I just ignored the limitations and took the hardware outside of the design spec. Yes, the hard drive can protect against falls, up to a certain amount of G forces. Yes the Tesla can move itself around stationary objects, within the limitations of where the sensors can read. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "as designed". Because it's pretty clear that the Tesla was not designed to avoid this collision. It's not a software failure.

dimino 10y ago
The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff?
- cynix 10y ago
  > The Tesla was designed to avoid this collision. Are you trying to say that Tesla would prefer their car hit stuff? They don't prefer their car to hit stuff, but the car is not designed to never hit stuff either. By your logic, any car manufacturer that doesn't have some sort of collision prevention system prefer their cars to hit stuff, which is absurd.
  - dimino 10y ago
    That's not my logic, it's the logic of the comment I replied to. What I'm trying to say is they specifically designed and built a collision detection system with the goal of preventing the car from hitting things parked in front of it. That collision detection system did not detect the collision that took place in this case, and failed in its design goal, it's raison d'etre.
    - cynix 10y ago
      The car is designed to prevent collisions that can be detected by the sensors. This particular collision could not be detected by the sensors, therefore it isn't possible for the car to prevent it. Are you basically saying a bulletproof vest has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't stop armour-piercing rounds? Or a fire extinguisher has failed to achieve its design goal if it can't put out a wild forest fire? There are always limitations to everything.