3 ms·

For all those who are clamoring for autopilot to go back into the lab consider this: I have autopilot, and I use it the way people are instructed to. I consider

by gfodor 9y ago

For all those who are clamoring for autopilot to go back into the lab consider this: I have autopilot, and I use it the way people are instructed to. I consider it a companion to my driving, a backup co-driver that has better reflexes. I am in control, and mentally steer the vehicle with my hands on the wheel with the machine. We are driving the car together and I overrule the machine when we disagree. Often the machine catches things before I am able to react. I am 100% convinced that my family is safer with "us" driving them then just me driving them solo. What do you say to people like me, who, if you took the feature away, would be forced to reduce their safety? It's easy to call for its removal when you only focus on the subset of people who will have their safety increased by removing it (ie, the people, often through no fault of their own, who come to rely upon it more than it is designed for.) What about everyone else that currently benefits from it? Will you force them to go back to driving "solo" to protect those people? It's not so simple as "Tesla is reckless by releasing this" -- this is providing real safety to people who are using it the way it is intended. Also, the release of autopilot as-is also makes it possible to accelerate the development of full autonomy, which will save lives that otherwise would be lost to accidents if it were to be created later in time. Any analysis which does not account for this dynamic is missing an important piece of the ethics of removing it. The main question that is worth asking is if there is more Tesla could do to ensure autopilot is used as a co-driver. The name is a poor choice to start.

jakobegger 9y ago
Why not the other way around? You do the driving, and the computer is the backup in case you mess up? Humans are extremely bad at monitoring monotonic things, even if we are trained to do them. That‘s why trains have elaborate dead man switches to ensure the operator is paying attention. From these accidents it‘s clear that Teslas aren‘t good enough at making sure the driver is paying attention. And it‘s also pretty clear that these autopilot victims weren‘t aware how distracted they really were. I‘m pretty sure they thought they had everything under control, right up to the point when their car did something stupid.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Why not the other way around? You do the driving, and the computer is the backup in case you mess up? Unfortunately having the computer takeover has the same issues. If it thinks you're following the wrong lane it could choose to steer you into a barrier, for example. Chris Urmson's team at Google ran user tests at the start of their autonomous vehicle program and found that users misbehave [1] when behind the wheel of semi-autonomous vehicles, despite having been given instruction to pay attention. We're seeing that scenario play out in slow motion in Teslas and perhaps other driver-assistance programs that get less press. [1] https://youtu.be/Uj-rK8V-rik?t=14m7s https://youtu.be/Uj-rK8V-rik?t=14m7s
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> What do you say to people like me, who, if you took the feature away, would be forced to reduce their safety? I would say we should go by the numbers. How many accidents and deaths are there per mile, on similar roads (divided), from vehicles of similar class (new, luxury), in similar weather conditions (fair)? Compare that to miles where autopilot is enabled and we have something. As yet, I don't believe Tesla is required to report this, and they probably won't voluntarily do it. At best, we would get results from certain states. We would never get national or world level data. So, we'll have to wait for the NTSB and NHTSA reports and look to their recommendations.
- gfodor 9y ago
  I agree that the data will be helpful, but it's also important to remember that "Autopilot" itself is a moving target. Tesla has already made changes that are designed to increase the degree to which drivers are forced to pay attention when the system is engaged. In my view, the ultimate goal should be to ensure that Autopilot is used in the way I described, and is disabled for drivers who are unable to use it that way. That, in theory, would provide the most benefit for the most people. Perhaps that is a fool's errand, either because its technically impossible, very few people use it that way, or literally nobody is able to and anyone who thinks they are is being fooled by their own bias (as I'm sure many readers of this thread assume I am.) But it seems a goal worth pursuing before giving up and throwing it out because the net result of say, reducing accident fatality likelihood by 50% 5 years ahead of full autonomy results in something like 75k saved lives (in the US.)
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    Moving target, sure, but Tesla has been making statements claiming using AP is safer than not since AP's inception. You can't have it both ways. Even Tesla couldn't be certain whether certain changes lowered the accident rate or raised it. We should look at total accidents, not miles driven since the latest version. Perhaps the best comparison is right within Tesla's data. Compare miles driven in the same model with AP activated and with it turned off on the same roads. > In my view, the ultimate goal should be to ensure that Autopilot is used in the way I described, and is disabled for drivers who are unable to use it that way Actually there has been some work in determining when drivers are distracted [1]. This seems to be what you suggest, something that can be used to disable AP under certain conditions. Would you support Tesla installing such a system? [1] https://www.kaggle.com/c/state-farm-distracted-driver-detection https://www.kaggle.com/c/state-farm-distracted-driver-detect...

by gfodor 9y ago

jakobegger 9y ago

Why not the other way around? You do the driving, and the computer is the backup in case you mess up? Humans are extremely bad at monitoring monotonic things, even if we are trained to do them. That‘s why trains have elaborate dead man switches to ensure the operator is paying attention. From these accidents it‘s clear that Teslas aren‘t good enough at making sure the driver is paying attention. And it‘s also pretty clear that these autopilot victims weren‘t aware how distracted they really were. I‘m pretty sure they thought they had everything under control, right up to the point when their car did something stupid.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Why not the other way around? You do the driving, and the computer is the backup in case you mess up? Unfortunately having the computer takeover has the same issues. If it thinks you're following the wrong lane it could choose to steer you into a barrier, for example. Chris Urmson's team at Google ran user tests at the start of their autonomous vehicle program and found that users misbehave [1] when behind the wheel of semi-autonomous vehicles, despite having been given instruction to pay attention. We're seeing that scenario play out in slow motion in Teslas and perhaps other driver-assistance programs that get less press. [1] https://youtu.be/Uj-rK8V-rik?t=14m7s https://youtu.be/Uj-rK8V-rik?t=14m7s

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> What do you say to people like me, who, if you took the feature away, would be forced to reduce their safety? I would say we should go by the numbers. How many accidents and deaths are there per mile, on similar roads (divided), from vehicles of similar class (new, luxury), in similar weather conditions (fair)? Compare that to miles where autopilot is enabled and we have something. As yet, I don't believe Tesla is required to report this, and they probably won't voluntarily do it. At best, we would get results from certain states. We would never get national or world level data. So, we'll have to wait for the NTSB and NHTSA reports and look to their recommendations.

gfodor 9y ago
I agree that the data will be helpful, but it's also important to remember that "Autopilot" itself is a moving target. Tesla has already made changes that are designed to increase the degree to which drivers are forced to pay attention when the system is engaged. In my view, the ultimate goal should be to ensure that Autopilot is used in the way I described, and is disabled for drivers who are unable to use it that way. That, in theory, would provide the most benefit for the most people. Perhaps that is a fool's errand, either because its technically impossible, very few people use it that way, or literally nobody is able to and anyone who thinks they are is being fooled by their own bias (as I'm sure many readers of this thread assume I am.) But it seems a goal worth pursuing before giving up and throwing it out because the net result of say, reducing accident fatality likelihood by 50% 5 years ahead of full autonomy results in something like 75k saved lives (in the US.)
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Moving target, sure, but Tesla has been making statements claiming using AP is safer than not since AP's inception. You can't have it both ways. Even Tesla couldn't be certain whether certain changes lowered the accident rate or raised it. We should look at total accidents, not miles driven since the latest version. Perhaps the best comparison is right within Tesla's data. Compare miles driven in the same model with AP activated and with it turned off on the same roads. > In my view, the ultimate goal should be to ensure that Autopilot is used in the way I described, and is disabled for drivers who are unable to use it that way Actually there has been some work in determining when drivers are distracted [1]. This seems to be what you suggest, something that can be used to disable AP under certain conditions. Would you support Tesla installing such a system? [1] https://www.kaggle.com/c/state-farm-distracted-driver-detection https://www.kaggle.com/c/state-farm-distracted-driver-detect...