3 ms·

Tesla seriously jumped the gun in marketing their partial autonomy as "Autopilot" when it's still level 3 autonomy at best (requires a human driver to intervene

Tesla seriously jumped the gun in marketing their partial autonomy as "Autopilot" when it's still level 3 autonomy at best (requires a human driver to intervene when necessary). Until we leap over the 'uncanny valley' of partial automation and have level 4 autonomy available it would be disingenuous to call such a feature "autopilot".

icc97 8y ago
The frustrating part I find is that autopilot for pilots is actually a reasonably good description. Pilots are paid and trained to be alert all the time that autopilot is on. It's also well known that an autopilot in a plane is no AI, it's simply following a course. But I definitely agree it's a disingenuous name. It primarily gives the impression that you can take your hands off. So people will definitely get distracted for up to 6s which from the Uber crash is all it took. Plus beyond that you can have one hand on the steering wheel and be doing anything you want. It's quite damming that even Uber were humble enough to realise how badly their system had failed with the fatal crash but Tesla is doubling down releasing PR statements that try to spin the statistics. I've seen interviews with Musk discussing the crash where he really seems not to be particularly bothered. I can see Tesla putting back self driving by years if a legal clamp down comes. They are the company with by far the most miles driven with a level 3 system, but there's nothing at the moment to suggest that there won't be other crashes in Tesla autopilot cars that won't skew the statistics. I've heard it said that self-driving cars will have to prove they're 10x safer. That takes 1B miles per death to prove. If self-driving is deemed illegal on open roads because of Tesla's recklessness it'll take much longer to prove that it is safer.
- stordoff 8y ago
  For me, it comes down to the fact that replicating the functionality does not replicate the experience. Tesla's Autopilot may well replicate the functionality of an aviation autopilot, but a plane will have less factors to consider (such as proximity of other traffic) and if something does go wrong/there is something the autopilot can't handle there, in most cases, is time for a human pilot to take over. Getting the same level of functionality that works in the air _will_ cause a crash on the ground, but calling it by the same name is going to make people think the _experience_ is the same (i.e. that the vehicle is fine left to its own devices for at least some period of time -- which would require a significantly more complex system on the ground).
  - icc97 8y ago
    Yeah pilots don't use autopilot when taxiing in an airport. The equivalent environment of a plane's autopilot for a car is being on an empty race track. I'm sure Autopilot works well there.
    - w0utert 8y ago
      An empty racetrack that is perfectly mapped out in advance, at that. Plane autopilot just automates the control inputs/outputs that are needed to follow a predefined flight plan. For anything beyond cruising or following pre-programmed flight patterns like holding loops, it needs guidance from systems on the ground that have no other purpose than telling the plane exactly where the runway is and how to descend to it. There’s not a single system involved that uses vision-based methods and/or any form of object detection. Even the most advanced plane autopilot will not be able to land the plane if the airport systems are down. So in a way, the level of autonomy that Tesla’s autopilot provides is not that far from plane autopilot. That’s clearly not how Tesla PR sells it though.
masklinn 8y ago
> when it's still level 3 autonomy at best It's most definitely an SAE2 system, not remotely SAE3. An SAE3 requires that the human driver will respond to a request to intervene in all cases where the automation system figures it's going to fail. Tesla's is not close to guaranteeing the driver will be forewarned of an issue (at all let alone in time to intervene), the driver must be aware of their surrounding and ready to override the automation system for safe operations, the system will not guarantee safety.

icc97 8y ago

The frustrating part I find is that autopilot for pilots is actually a reasonably good description. Pilots are paid and trained to be alert all the time that autopilot is on. It's also well known that an autopilot in a plane is no AI, it's simply following a course. But I definitely agree it's a disingenuous name. It primarily gives the impression that you can take your hands off. So people will definitely get distracted for up to 6s which from the Uber crash is all it took. Plus beyond that you can have one hand on the steering wheel and be doing anything you want. It's quite damming that even Uber were humble enough to realise how badly their system had failed with the fatal crash but Tesla is doubling down releasing PR statements that try to spin the statistics. I've seen interviews with Musk discussing the crash where he really seems not to be particularly bothered. I can see Tesla putting back self driving by years if a legal clamp down comes. They are the company with by far the most miles driven with a level 3 system, but there's nothing at the moment to suggest that there won't be other crashes in Tesla autopilot cars that won't skew the statistics. I've heard it said that self-driving cars will have to prove they're 10x safer. That takes 1B miles per death to prove. If self-driving is deemed illegal on open roads because of Tesla's recklessness it'll take much longer to prove that it is safer.

stordoff 8y ago
For me, it comes down to the fact that replicating the functionality does not replicate the experience. Tesla's Autopilot may well replicate the functionality of an aviation autopilot, but a plane will have less factors to consider (such as proximity of other traffic) and if something does go wrong/there is something the autopilot can't handle there, in most cases, is time for a human pilot to take over. Getting the same level of functionality that works in the air _will_ cause a crash on the ground, but calling it by the same name is going to make people think the _experience_ is the same (i.e. that the vehicle is fine left to its own devices for at least some period of time -- which would require a significantly more complex system on the ground).
- icc97 8y ago
  Yeah pilots don't use autopilot when taxiing in an airport. The equivalent environment of a plane's autopilot for a car is being on an empty race track. I'm sure Autopilot works well there.
  - w0utert 8y ago
    An empty racetrack that is perfectly mapped out in advance, at that. Plane autopilot just automates the control inputs/outputs that are needed to follow a predefined flight plan. For anything beyond cruising or following pre-programmed flight patterns like holding loops, it needs guidance from systems on the ground that have no other purpose than telling the plane exactly where the runway is and how to descend to it. There’s not a single system involved that uses vision-based methods and/or any form of object detection. Even the most advanced plane autopilot will not be able to land the plane if the airport systems are down. So in a way, the level of autonomy that Tesla’s autopilot provides is not that far from plane autopilot. That’s clearly not how Tesla PR sells it though.

masklinn 8y ago

> when it's still level 3 autonomy at best It's most definitely an SAE2 system, not remotely SAE3. An SAE3 requires that the human driver will respond to a request to intervene in all cases where the automation system figures it's going to fail. Tesla's is not close to guaranteeing the driver will be forewarned of an issue (at all let alone in time to intervene), the driver must be aware of their surrounding and ready to override the automation system for safe operations, the system will not guarantee safety.