7 ms·
I Just Drove Eight Hours on Tesla Autopilot
- jfoster 10y agoI wonder to what extent the Tesla not seeing the SUV was due to it being gold colored. There must also be colors of cars that humans are less likely to see, too. I wonder if certain vehicle colors might be phased out to aid road safety in the near future.
- ams6110 10y agoInteresting that this story made the front page and the story today of the Tesla autopilot crash in China that was posted several times did not.
- steven777400 10y agoPut aside the silly title and the inconsistency between the subtitle and content ("the only real problem was the driver behind the wheel" vs "The sensors failed to register a rapidly accelerating gold-colored SUV beside me and would have driven directly into its path had I not quickly taken over") and this article has a really good point to make: As we get closer but not entirely to autonomous vehicles, figuring out how to communicate to users (at what point do we stop calling them drivers?) the necessary level of engagement (and notifying them when that level changes) is going to be increasingly critical.
- protomyth 10y ago> the necessary level of engagement (and notifying them when that level changes) is going to be increasingly critical. Is there an "uncanny valley" style term for this?
- Animats 10y agoI've been calling this the "deadly valley". The automation is good enough that the driver will tune out, but not good enough for it to be safe that way.
- arjunnarayan 10y agoThere should be, and the best candidate term is "Children of the Magenta", a term describing pilots who are too dependent on the Magenta lines on their instrumentation. 99% Invisible did a good podcast episode on this a year ago: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-automation-paradox-pt-1/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magent... Their follow-up podcast episode talks explicitly about this problem (first seriously discussed in the context of airplane automation) becoming important in the context of self-driving cars, and how Google is very aware of this (hence Google's push for 100% automated cars, since the middle valley is so dangerous).
- tbihl 10y agoThere are a couple of ways you can do this on the water (radar, AIS), but the names for doing so escapes me. In ocean navigation there is the notion of a tripwire: if X happens, do Y to get your shit together. Ocean traffic also sometimes has the issue of many-thousand-ton vehicles on autopilot while the crew are elsewhere or asleep (not all the time, but enough to be unsettling). Then things get fantastically complicated as you near the destination.
- hammock 10y agoThere's no inconsistency between those two statements. And "figuring out how to communicate to users the necessary level of engagement" doesn't solve very much either. For example, if the car's sensors can't detect a rapidly accelerating gold-colored SUV, how will the car ever be able to tell you "ok, now it's time to watch out for gold-colored SUVs"? Ultimately it comes down to what a different commenter pointed out, that drivers need to have adequate understanding and expectations around this car and its capabilities.
- slowmovintarget 10y agoThe term "driver" will still fit. We apply it to someone guiding a camel to a destination. I think the point is we're trying to make cars into high-energy horses or camels. I'm thinking of the ponies in Iceland that get their farmers back home after a night heavy imbibing. So long as you got on the right horse, it'd take you home. Yah Tesla!
- digi_owl 10y agoI find myself thinking about the opening scene of a spaghetti western, where a guy is sleeping on a frame being dragged across an arid landscape by a horse.
- protomyth 10y agoA car that only requires the effort displayed in "They Call Me Trinity" would be fine by me.
- enraged_camel 10y ago>>The term "driver" will still fit. We apply it to someone guiding a camel to a destination. No we don't. People ride camels, not drive them. In fact, that's a perfect illustration of the point the parent is making. The reason one doesn't drive a camel is because a camel has a mind of its own. You guide the camel to a specific destination, just like you guide a semi-autonomous car to its destination. In both situations, you may need to take direct control, either by yanking on the reins or grabbing the steering wheel, but for the most part, the vehicle/animal does its thing. You may be thinking, "wait a minute... we ride bikes too! Does that mean they have a mind of their own?" I would posit that bikes and motorcycles are are exceptions - the reason we ride them is because doing so resembles riding a four-legged animal.
- hardmath123 10y agoI think OP meant the person who stands by the camel guiding it (for example, if the camel is being used to carry a load, rather than a human). For example, see this image: http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/40/4000/MQHWF00Z/posters/julian-love-camel-driver-stands-in-front-of-the-pyramids-at-giza-egypt.jpg http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/40/4000... Or this image: http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/64/6424/EWT9100Z/posters/doug-pearson-camel-driver-sahara-desert-merzouga-morocco-mr.jpg http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/64/6424... EDIT: I like how your username fits your comment so well. :-)
- jfoster 10y agoIn some ways, it could be useful to have people still driving even when a car is fully autonomous. The human input could function like a copilot, and the autonomous system might be able to learn from the actions of human drivers. It also helps people feel like they're in control.
- vanattab 10y ago>>> As we get closer but not entirely to autonomous vehicles, figuring out how to communicate to users (at what point do we stop calling them drivers?) the necessary level of engagement (and notifying them when that level changes) is going to be increasingly critical. For starters we could not call advanced lane assist software "autopilot" and we also should require hands on the wheel sensors until the automakers assume liability.
- ux-app 10y agoI agree that Autopilot was the wrong choice of name, I'd say it's reckless bordering on seriously negligent. The name was chosen on its marketing merits not based on its relation to the actual function it performs. That might be ok if you're designing a feature for the car stereo, not so for "Cruise Control v2.0"
- jgamman 10y agowhen you call it Autopilot and not SuperiorCruiseControl you've set expectations. It's no use trying to re-define the term more accurately after the fact. They'll survive but the halo got dented.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- delinka 10y agoThe Professionals® that actually use a real autopilot tell us that Tesla's is aptly named-- it's limited in its functionality and is designed to assist the operator of the machinery and to reduce fatigue. The Problem® is one of public perception/branding. Hollywood has convinced the overwhelming preponderance of the population that airplanes on autopilot can taxi away from the terminal, navigate to the runway, avoid collisions with buildings, vehicles and other planes, line up on the runway, take off, navigate to the destination, line up with the correct runway from the correct direction, land the plane, and taxi to the final terminal. Naming your not-fully-autonomous car driving software "autopilot" is going to have a perception problem. Educating the public after the fact is a hard battle.
- ben_jones 10y agoAuto-pilot => autonomous piloting. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomous http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomous 3. Existing or capable of existing independently. But no its totes a public perception problem.
- DannyBee 10y agoAm I wrong in thinking that the problems complained about here are precisely because it uses sensors and a camera and not lidar? (I did a bit of research, and reading around says "probably", but i trust HN's opinion a bit more :P)
- krasin 10y agoLidar alone is not enough, as it relies on the certain reflective properties of objects around (and there's also solar light noise). But yes, they ought to add a lidar and more cameras so that there's 360 coverage with a good overlap, and a single failed sensor does not disable the ability to auto-drive safely.
- slowmovintarget 10y agoThinking a further bit down-range there probably ought to be Smart Roads that cooperate with the vehicles to a) keep them apart, and b) keep the moving in the proper way.
- kmonsen 10y agoThey exists, they are called tracks and have trains running on them. Joking aside, there probably will not be special roads since the cars need to be safe in case the roads fail anyway. And I don't think anyone will be for these new roads that no cars can use so it is also a chicken and egg problem.
- Animats 10y agoThe situational awareness of this thing is not good. The author points out that it didn't notice a rapidly approaching car prior to a lane change. The only side-looking sensors Tesla has are ultrasonics, which are too short range. The Tesla sensor suite is: - a bumper-level 2D radar, good for not rear-ending cars in front. Not good for obstacles at windshield height. Will detect a car. Might detect a bicycle. Won't detect most pedestrians. - a forward facing camera using MobileEye software. This 1) recognizes lane lines, 2) tries to range the car ahead by putting a rectangle around the recognized rear end, and 3) reads speed limit signs. It may be able to recognize pedestrians. (Unclear. See [1]) - some ultrasonic sensors which detect obstacles to the side and rear at short range. Mostly useful for parking. This just isn't enough. Tesla isn't profiling the road, and will drive off a cliff if the lines lead there, as the parent article points out. We had that figured out in the DARPA Grand Challenge a decade ago, where the vehicles didn't need road lines. Compare Google's system. [1] https://electrek.co/2016/06/26/tesla-autopilot-tests-pedestrians-auto-emergency-braking-video/ https://electrek.co/2016/06/26/tesla-autopilot-tests-pedestr...
- ben_jones 10y agoIt's fucking simple. We don't need some massive engineering solution, you take a fat red sticker with a no bull-shit message and you place it on the inner windshield of every tesla. Waaaaaaa Tesla marketing. Go fuck yourself. People's lives are more important then your marketing. Edit: Nvm apparently its ok to market people off a cliff..
- rickycook 10y agolike cigarettes?
- codesterling 10y agoAlcohol? We seem pretty okay with allowing some degree of risk.
- derefr 10y agoWe're not talking about what to do right now, we're talking about how to solve the problem for all time where the technology asymptotically approaches perfection but, obviously, never actually gets there (just like human drivers never get there.) Telling people to just not use Tesla's v0.8 autopilot might make sense; but what should be the policy in 2050 when cars are driving better than people, but still miss something (like human drivers sometimes do) such that it would be good to get a human's attention?
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12265627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12265627 and marked it off-topic.
- cesarb 10y agoI like this video, which shows the Tesla autopilot in action with the driver-side display (which is usually hidden by the wheel) visible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZetTg73Ebyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZetTg73Ebyo Looking at it, it seems that the autopilot mostly adds another layer of indirection. Instead of driving directly, the driver gives the autopilot orders like "maximum speed 60" or "move one lane left/right". The driver still has to pay attention to what's happening around to give it the correct orders. In the example given in the article, the driver still has to check whether the lane is free before giving the car an order to move into that lane.
- flashman 10y agoIt looks bad that the Tesla didn't detect the SUV. But on the flip side, if the SUV had also had Autopilot, maybe it would have been a less dangerous situation. And when more cars have autopilot systems, maybe they'll be better able to communicate their proximity to one another.
- abcampbell 10y ago"Consider this: If a Toyota driver had standard cruise control set for 70 miles per hour on the highway and failed to take over and reduce speed for a 25 mph turn, would we blame the cruise control for the resulting crash? Relinquishing full control to Autopilot is no different." That's why Toyota calls is cruise control and not autopilot
- slg 10y agoBut cruise control only means cruise control because someone decided to call that feature cruise control. I find it harder to blame Tesla for an ambitious phrase rather than drivers that are considering nothing beyond the name of the feature before turning it on.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- abcampbell 10y agoI'd say the bar for writing it off as simply an ambitious phrase is a bit different when you know that particular form of "user error" is literally lethal.
- slg 10y agoSo far one person has faced lethal consequences. As the article states, that person was fully aware of how autopilot worked. Do you honestly think that if that feature was called something else that person would still be alive?
- ux-app 10y ago> So far one person has faced lethal consequences. This is the tip of the iceberg. How many other Tesla owners aren't fully aware of how the feature works and are just relying on the vernacular usage? Even if 100% of Tesla owners are 100% aware of the feature's capability, what happens when a friend/coworker/spouse/child of the owner borrows the car and uses the feature based on their misunderstanding of the technology?
- p1esk 10y agoThe scariest bit from the article: the driver who died was very familiar with the autopilot limitations.
- chc 10y agoMost people who die due to inattentive driving are aware of their car's limitations.
- p1esk 10y agoNow imagine a whole bunch of drivers who are not very familiar with autopilot limitations, especially if the autopilot works great 99.99% of the time.
- clarky07 10y agoif it works 99.99% of the time that will likely be higher than the average human driver
- p1esk 10y agoYou're missing the point. The current Tesla "autopilot" is not ready, and is not intended, for full time driving. Not yet. However, it might appear to work well, and some Tesla drivers will forget that it's not ready. That's the problem with half-finished "autopilots".
- deegles 10y agoI believe there will be another death in a Tesla vehicle with Autopilot enabled within a year. As drivers get more used to using it they will get more complacent. More features and improvements will roll out, requiring almost-but-not-quite complete inattention, which will increase driver's trust in the Autopilot, ironically putting them in more danger from the 1-in-100000 situations that humans handle easily. Full autonomy is the only safe mode long term.
- ux-app 10y agoi agree. it's a dangerous game Tesla is playing at
- nols 10y agoThe problem isn't autopilot, it's overconfidence in autopilot. The driver who was killed was allegedly watching a movie and speeding when he crashed. Tesla's response is that autopilot is still in beta and people shouldn't rely on it too heavily, oh and by the way here's a story of a man who's Tesla drove him to the hospital after he had abdominal pain. There are plenty of Youtube videos of people screwing around while using autopilot, with a few near misses when autopilot screwed up. When building a several ton vehicle you need to design for human flaws, and Tesla hasn't. Every other manufacturer with adaptive steering and autopilot-esque features has created attention checkers to ensure the driver doesn't rely too heavily on autopilot. If one of them released a beta autopilot the NHTSA would be on the phone in record time telling them to knock off the foolishness. Tesla makes very cool cars, and the technologies they and other autonomous car companies are developing will absolutely save lives, but it's stupid to ignore the human factor until you've developed a car that 100% doesn't need a human driver.
- chollida1 10y agoI wrote the following a little while ago just after the auto pilot crash was reported. Since then my feelings on auto pilot haven't' changed. it's the future but right now it actually makes things harder due to the uncanny valley situation its currently in..... If you've never used the Tesla autopilot its a weird feeling. It's not a fully self driving car and its obviously not strictly human controlled. Unfortunately it ends up being more mentally taxing to use this hybrid approach than to just drive yourself. Consider highway driving, with normal human powered mode you are in full control so if you see brake lights a half kilometer up ahead you can disengage the cruise control and react on your own, everyone who has driven is comfortable with this. With this assisted driving the car doesn't slow down right away, and its not clear if the car just can't see the tail lights lighting up yet or if its decided it doesn't need to react yet and as such you start to second guess the car, - should I drive or should I leave it to the car? - what if it turns when I grab the wheel? Will I make things worse by driving? - does the car even see the object up ahead? How can I tell, its impossible to expect the car to tell you of an object that it cant' even see. It becomes just more taxing to use the hybrid approach to driving and as such I don't use it at all. I have no doubt that the Tesla auto pilot is safer than driving, but I also have no doubt that it can royally screw up. I've come to the conclusion that some assisted driving, like auto braking for obstacles that you will imminently hit is good but the kind of assisted driving where it can almost automatically drive for you is not really anywhere near ready, if you follow Tesla's rules on how to use it, it actually makes driving harder:(
- throwaway2016a 10y agoI have a Volvo XC90 which can drive itself to a certain extent (stays in its lane and can come to a complete stop) in traffic under 30 miles an hour and has dynamic cruise control for higher speed and I feel the same way. Especially when breaking. The will it break or won't it (spoiler: it does) is nerve wracking.
- cyberferret 10y ago> Especially when breaking. The will it break or won't it (spoiler: it does) is nerve wracking. I would like to think that you intentionally spelled "braking" as "breaking" in a deliciously punny word play on the robustness of the technology itself, as well as its ability to stop a hurtling vehicle from 'breaking' itself against a stationary object.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tbrock 10y agoThe author states that autopilot made him a better driver but I can't see how. If the car is doing most of the work that requires a person's attention then they will pay attention to something else. This will prove fatal when the sensors fail or there is some unforeseen condition. Hunans are, at this point, able to detect and possibly correct for for more errors. Sure the car would be able to react more quickly but maybe it won't react at all.
- tbihl 10y agoTo me this is analogous to streets that are dangerous because pedestrians and cyclists are seldom seen. Drivers come to expect very simple patterns, and roads are engineered with forgiving design, and so drivers know they can be distracted with no issues. Then something changes.