4 ms·

I agree that Volvo has a better approach and from what I can tell the necessary hardware to have a much more robust system. What I'm arguing is that there are

I agree that Volvo has a better approach and from what I can tell the necessary hardware to have a much more robust system. What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. I used to work on self-driving cars, specifically this one - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/driverless-vehicles-even-in-dc-streets-an-autonomous-car-takes-a-capitol-test-run/2014/08/25/6d26baa8-06a4-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/dri... - and while that was a few years ago I know just how many things the technology is fundamentally not ready for, such as adverse weather. I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else.

ModernMech 10y ago
> What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. Oh, I would agree with you there as well. > I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else. I think that's where we were differing. I think Volvo is many years ahead of Tesla only because Volvo is using the state of the art in driverless tech. Other rivals like Google, BMW, and VW are doing the same. On the other hand, Tesla is choosing to use technology the robotics field had proven to be ineffective over 10 years ago.
- jayjay71 10y ago
  Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them. That's an order of magnitude more expensive than the car. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, just pointing out that it's a fiendishly difficult problem. I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR. Likewise I like what Volvo is doing, and I'm curious how they're going to price it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Actually selling cars to the public is an exceptionally poor excuse for -- as it has been described upthread -- using technology that is known to be inadequate to safe implementation of the feature set. If a feature cannot be safely implemented at a price point suitable for the target market of the vehicle, then it shouldn't be in the vehicle. Deliberately choosing otherwise goes beyond mere negligence into actual recklessness, IMO. (Note, I'm not saying that Tesla is doing this, I'm saying that the use of the excuse "they're actually selling cars" as a response to the claim of proven inadequacy of the sensor choice made upthread is an inadequate excuse, since if that was the reason and if the sensor choice was proven to be as inadequate as described, then that would be reckless.)
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus. Lots of manufacturers have had cruise control and lane following with automatic braking for some time, but they didn't hype it the same way Tesla did. I don't think Tesla built a bad system, they just made it out to be more than it was, and given the circumstances I agree it was arguably reckless (it's hard to say how much they directly marketed it and how much was just hype from the public in general, as they obviously can't control users uploading videos of hands free driving on YouTube). I do think the way they've handled the crashes lately though has been pretty poor - especially spinning bad statistics to justify what happened rather than admitting fault.
      - ModernMech 10y ago
        > The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus. Yes, I think that this is part of the real issue, but there is also a real engineering issue. Other vehicles with cruise-control-plus require hands on wheel at all time. Tesla seems to alert you when your hands are off, but the autopilot will continue on merrily. The Tesla that drove under the semi had its roof torn off, the driver decapitated, and it continued driving only until it was stopped by a pole. Also the crash happened in the first place because the AP was essentially blind (it couldn't even see the semi). You and I both know there are ways to tell when you're blind (usually involving orthogonal sensors suites, something the Tesla lacks).

ModernMech 10y ago

> What I'm arguing is that there are too many problems that still need to be solved for them to have a stage 4 autonomous vehicle. Oh, I would agree with you there as well. > I agree that Tesla took the wrong approach, I was just commenting that I would be amazed if Volvo was that many years ahead of everybody else. I think that's where we were differing. I think Volvo is many years ahead of Tesla only because Volvo is using the state of the art in driverless tech. Other rivals like Google, BMW, and VW are doing the same. On the other hand, Tesla is choosing to use technology the robotics field had proven to be ineffective over 10 years ago.

jayjay71 10y ago
Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Most people don't realize a single sensor can cost $20,000 - now imagine you have 10 of them. That's an order of magnitude more expensive than the car. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, just pointing out that it's a fiendishly difficult problem. I like what Tesla did, I just dislike how they handled the PR. Likewise I like what Volvo is doing, and I'm curious how they're going to price it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Agreed, but that's because they're actually selling cars. Actually selling cars to the public is an exceptionally poor excuse for -- as it has been described upthread -- using technology that is known to be inadequate to safe implementation of the feature set. If a feature cannot be safely implemented at a price point suitable for the target market of the vehicle, then it shouldn't be in the vehicle. Deliberately choosing otherwise goes beyond mere negligence into actual recklessness, IMO. (Note, I'm not saying that Tesla is doing this, I'm saying that the use of the excuse "they're actually selling cars" as a response to the claim of proven inadequacy of the sensor choice made upthread is an inadequate excuse, since if that was the reason and if the sensor choice was proven to be as inadequate as described, then that would be reckless.)
  - jayjay71 10y ago
    The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus. Lots of manufacturers have had cruise control and lane following with automatic braking for some time, but they didn't hype it the same way Tesla did. I don't think Tesla built a bad system, they just made it out to be more than it was, and given the circumstances I agree it was arguably reckless (it's hard to say how much they directly marketed it and how much was just hype from the public in general, as they obviously can't control users uploading videos of hands free driving on YouTube). I do think the way they've handled the crashes lately though has been pretty poor - especially spinning bad statistics to justify what happened rather than admitting fault.
    - ModernMech 10y ago
      > The real issue with Tesla is that they marketed it as a self-driving feature when really they had developed cruise control plus. Yes, I think that this is part of the real issue, but there is also a real engineering issue. Other vehicles with cruise-control-plus require hands on wheel at all time. Tesla seems to alert you when your hands are off, but the autopilot will continue on merrily. The Tesla that drove under the semi had its roof torn off, the driver decapitated, and it continued driving only until it was stopped by a pole. Also the crash happened in the first place because the AP was essentially blind (it couldn't even see the semi). You and I both know there are ways to tell when you're blind (usually involving orthogonal sensors suites, something the Tesla lacks).