5 ms·

I've had the impression it's pure chaos over at Tesla's autopilot division for quite a long time. They have so much to gain if they get the pieces right, but I'

by Aron 9y ago

I've had the impression it's pure chaos over at Tesla's autopilot division for quite a long time. They have so much to gain if they get the pieces right, but I'm not sure it's guaranteed to happen.

emodendroket 9y ago
So does everyone else working on the same problem.
gumby 9y ago
> I've had the impression it's pure chaos over at Tesla's autopilot division for quite a long time. That's interesting. I've heard this too from people at three different self-driving car companies ("Tesla's autonomy group is melting down; we get a ton of resumes...blah blah"). But...it's from their competitors, and you're probably always getting resumes from folks at your competitors all the time (and your colleagues' resumes are heading in the other direction, perhaps yours too). So, though I'm no fan of Tesla, I have discounted such comments. Though perhaps I shouldn't have been?
- virgilp 9y ago
  This seems apt: http://assets.amuniversal.com/f1ec72f02c380135c907005056a9545d http://assets.amuniversal.com/f1ec72f02c380135c907005056a954...
1024core 9y ago
It's not like Lattner was in ML or Autonomous Driving.
haberman 9y ago
I just saw their latest marketing literature on their website. They promise: > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot It seems somewhat irresponsible to promise that you have enough hardware to achieve something that nobody has ever achieved before, with any hardware. Tesla has plenty of impressive-looking videos on their website of autopilot working well, but if you Google for "Tesla autopilot fail" you can also find plenty of stuff like this, which is just surprisingly bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1XLqc5IUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1XLqc5IUg Tesla strikes me as over-promising and under-delivering here. I wouldn't want to work in a division like that.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  But what about the software?
- nostrademons 9y ago
  They say "at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver". This is a low bar to meet - some human drivers are really bad. I know I would much rather trust my life to one of the Google self-driving cars than some of the people I got in a car with in college, for example. It's also the wrong bar to meet, because lawmakers are going to be much tougher on AIs than on human constituents. It's not enough to be better than a human, you have to be so much better than a human that it'd be irresponsible not to mandate self-driving cars.
  - resf 9y ago
    The bar to meet will be precisely "as good as Waymo", because if Tesla's technology kills substantially more people, neither regulators nor consumers will allow it to exist.
  - tedsanders 9y ago
    Human drivers die at a rate of about 1 per 100 million miles driven. Waymo cars have only driven about 2 million miles, as I recall. Therefore, as it stands today, there is nowhere near enough public evidence to confidently believe that Waymo cars are less deadly than human drivers. Especially considering that much of that driving has taken place in meticulously mapped areas with good roads in daylight hours. Personally, I would trust a human driver over a Waymo car until strong statistical evidence shows that Waymo cars are safe in a wide range of conditions.
  - skrause 9y ago
    I also don't think the bar should be "safer than a human driver", but "safer than than an experiended, sober, well-rested, defensive driver who doesn't use this phone while driving".
    - zamalek 9y ago

by Aron 9y ago

I've had the impression it's pure chaos over at Tesla's autopilot division for quite a long time. They have so much to gain if they get the pieces right, but I'm not sure it's guaranteed to happen.

emodendroket 9y ago

So does everyone else working on the same problem.

gumby 9y ago

> I've had the impression it's pure chaos over at Tesla's autopilot division for quite a long time. That's interesting. I've heard this too from people at three different self-driving car companies ("Tesla's autonomy group is melting down; we get a ton of resumes...blah blah"). But...it's from their competitors, and you're probably always getting resumes from folks at your competitors all the time (and your colleagues' resumes are heading in the other direction, perhaps yours too). So, though I'm no fan of Tesla, I have discounted such comments. Though perhaps I shouldn't have been?

virgilp 9y ago
This seems apt: http://assets.amuniversal.com/f1ec72f02c380135c907005056a9545d http://assets.amuniversal.com/f1ec72f02c380135c907005056a954...

1024core 9y ago

It's not like Lattner was in ML or Autonomous Driving.

haberman 9y ago

I just saw their latest marketing literature on their website. They promise: > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot It seems somewhat irresponsible to promise that you have enough hardware to achieve something that nobody has ever achieved before, with any hardware. Tesla has plenty of impressive-looking videos on their website of autopilot working well, but if you Google for "Tesla autopilot fail" you can also find plenty of stuff like this, which is just surprisingly bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1XLqc5IUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1XLqc5IUg Tesla strikes me as over-promising and under-delivering here. I wouldn't want to work in a division like that.

andrewprock 9y ago
But what about the software?
nostrademons 9y ago
They say "at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver". This is a low bar to meet - some human drivers are really bad. I know I would much rather trust my life to one of the Google self-driving cars than some of the people I got in a car with in college, for example. It's also the wrong bar to meet, because lawmakers are going to be much tougher on AIs than on human constituents. It's not enough to be better than a human, you have to be so much better than a human that it'd be irresponsible not to mandate self-driving cars.
- resf 9y ago
  The bar to meet will be precisely "as good as Waymo", because if Tesla's technology kills substantially more people, neither regulators nor consumers will allow it to exist.
- tedsanders 9y ago
  Human drivers die at a rate of about 1 per 100 million miles driven. Waymo cars have only driven about 2 million miles, as I recall. Therefore, as it stands today, there is nowhere near enough public evidence to confidently believe that Waymo cars are less deadly than human drivers. Especially considering that much of that driving has taken place in meticulously mapped areas with good roads in daylight hours. Personally, I would trust a human driver over a Waymo car until strong statistical evidence shows that Waymo cars are safe in a wide range of conditions.
- skrause 9y ago
  I also don't think the bar should be "safer than a human driver", but "safer than than an experiended, sober, well-rested, defensive driver who doesn't use this phone while driving".
  - zamalek 9y ago