4 ms·

When will people learn to stop lying about the behavior of a car that keeps logs of everything it does?

canthonytucci 10y ago
So how does this work? Do we trust the car or the man? If the car does not detect any steering input, even though it has been given (due to bad software or hardware), or logs a warning being sounded, even though none manifested in the real world, what do we do? How do we know? Bugs are by definition human assertions of computer failure, the computers can't lie (yet), but they can be wrong. Are inward-facing dash-cams going to be required so that we have evidience of compliance with the terms of service of our vehicles? I think it is rather unlikely that a false steering input detection, a false warning log, and a false door-opening log all happpend at once...perhpas not in thic case, but subtle, cascading bugs can and do happen.
- Alupis 10y ago
  > So how does this work? Do we trust the car or the man? Well, until there is a free tool to dump the logs from all of the Tesla cars, and Tesla the company starts releasing the raw data for the public to verify, the more appropriate question is: Do we trust the man or the company? Telsa has a _lot_ to lose, so the temptation to cherry pick data points that tell their desired narrative is fairly strong.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  I'd say trust the car... It would be easy to correlate one sensor failure and one part of the crash (detected hands on the wheels, kept it going int autopilot - because the sensor failure would lead to the crash) But to say that sensors failed, then warning sounds failed, then failsafes failed, becomes rather unbelievable. Also the high drama content of the customer's letter (there is no 50 foot drop off, i just checked on streetview for that entire section of route 2). There is a railroad, then a river, but not a steep drop. Even then, railroads pretty much stop cars dead trying to cross them (dont ask how i know, lets just say a 1986 ford tempo can go from about 45mph to a dead stop real fast)
  - madmax96 10y ago
    Agreed that the car data is more reliable than the human. But since we don't have the logs themselves, every conclusion we come to is pure conjecture and obscured by cloudy language.
nv-vn 10y ago
1. The driver acknowledged that he should have turned off autopilot, but the focus of the complaint is that the car did not decelerate after hitting the first post. 2. The driver claims that the warning sound never came on. If the indicator was buggy, logs would not necessarily show that if the car thought it had played the sound but the speaker malfunctioned. 3. The logs haven't been released AFAICT and since Tesla motors isn't under any oath not to lie, there's no proof that they're telling the ttuth here either.
- zaroth 10y ago
  #1 is an interesting case. There are two systems, auto-steer, and adaptive cruise control. Adaptive cruise control is not generally built to hard brake after detecting an accident. Tesla will keep on cruising after an accident as long as the system is not deactivated (driver touches the brake). I'm guessing this functionality is because the risk of hard braking at the wrong time outweighs the risk of hard braking at the right time, and so it's better to tell drivers the car will not hard brake, and it's up to them. There must be some trade-off, because certainly the car is capable of hard-braking itself, it's just a matter of ensuring the software only does it at just the right times.
mikeash 10y ago
Human memory is extremely fallible. It's likely that they think they are telling the truth, but their recollection of what happened isn't very accurate. For example, a few months ago someone drove a Tesla into a wall by flooring the accelerator while parked. They said they had their foot on the brake. I saw a ton of people criticizing the driver for lying. But it's almost certain that the driver mixed up the pedals and really did think they were on the brake. They're not lying, they're just wrong.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Human memory is extremely fallible. It's likely that they are telling the truth, but their recollection of what happened isn't very accurate. I think you meant to say they believe they are telling the truth.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes, good point. I edited.

So how does this work? Do we trust the car or the man? If the car does not detect any steering input, even though it has been given (due to bad software or hardware), or logs a warning being sounded, even though none manifested in the real world, what do we do? How do we know? Bugs are by definition human assertions of computer failure, the computers can't lie (yet), but they can be wrong. Are inward-facing dash-cams going to be required so that we have evidience of compliance with the terms of service of our vehicles? I think it is rather unlikely that a false steering input detection, a false warning log, and a false door-opening log all happpend at once...perhpas not in thic case, but subtle, cascading bugs can and do happen.

Alupis 10y ago
> So how does this work? Do we trust the car or the man? Well, until there is a free tool to dump the logs from all of the Tesla cars, and Tesla the company starts releasing the raw data for the public to verify, the more appropriate question is: Do we trust the man or the company? Telsa has a _lot_ to lose, so the temptation to cherry pick data points that tell their desired narrative is fairly strong.
jmcdiesel 10y ago
I'd say trust the car... It would be easy to correlate one sensor failure and one part of the crash (detected hands on the wheels, kept it going int autopilot - because the sensor failure would lead to the crash) But to say that sensors failed, then warning sounds failed, then failsafes failed, becomes rather unbelievable. Also the high drama content of the customer's letter (there is no 50 foot drop off, i just checked on streetview for that entire section of route 2). There is a railroad, then a river, but not a steep drop. Even then, railroads pretty much stop cars dead trying to cross them (dont ask how i know, lets just say a 1986 ford tempo can go from about 45mph to a dead stop real fast)
- madmax96 10y ago
  Agreed that the car data is more reliable than the human. But since we don't have the logs themselves, every conclusion we come to is pure conjecture and obscured by cloudy language.

nv-vn 10y ago

1. The driver acknowledged that he should have turned off autopilot, but the focus of the complaint is that the car did not decelerate after hitting the first post. 2. The driver claims that the warning sound never came on. If the indicator was buggy, logs would not necessarily show that if the car thought it had played the sound but the speaker malfunctioned. 3. The logs haven't been released AFAICT and since Tesla motors isn't under any oath not to lie, there's no proof that they're telling the ttuth here either.

zaroth 10y ago
#1 is an interesting case. There are two systems, auto-steer, and adaptive cruise control. Adaptive cruise control is not generally built to hard brake after detecting an accident. Tesla will keep on cruising after an accident as long as the system is not deactivated (driver touches the brake). I'm guessing this functionality is because the risk of hard braking at the wrong time outweighs the risk of hard braking at the right time, and so it's better to tell drivers the car will not hard brake, and it's up to them. There must be some trade-off, because certainly the car is capable of hard-braking itself, it's just a matter of ensuring the software only does it at just the right times.

mikeash 10y ago

Human memory is extremely fallible. It's likely that they think they are telling the truth, but their recollection of what happened isn't very accurate. For example, a few months ago someone drove a Tesla into a wall by flooring the accelerator while parked. They said they had their foot on the brake. I saw a ton of people criticizing the driver for lying. But it's almost certain that the driver mixed up the pedals and really did think they were on the brake. They're not lying, they're just wrong.

antisthenes 10y ago
> Human memory is extremely fallible. It's likely that they are telling the truth, but their recollection of what happened isn't very accurate. I think you meant to say they believe they are telling the truth.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Yes, good point. I edited.