7 ms·

This is a pretty good explanation of the shortcomings of today's assisted driving capabilities. The marketing towards 'self driving' or 'auto pilot' should rea

This is a pretty good explanation of the shortcomings of today's assisted driving capabilities. The marketing towards 'self driving' or 'auto pilot' should really emphasize on these. My guess here is that the lane assist and adaptive cruise systems somehow thought the car it was following switched one lane to the right, and so the Tesla assumed it was on the most left lane, without any moving car in front (hence accelerating back to 75mph). But what it thought was the most left lane was actually the space between an hov exit and the real most left lane. What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on.

joe_the_user 8y ago
The key thing seems to be that the automatic breaking system has a group of systems each designed to satisfy multiple constraints and these systems aren't particularly well integrated. This seems like how I would imagine a "dumb" system would be designed. One would imagine a "artificial intelligence" (of any sort at all) would find a way to smoothly integrate all these system. The problem is end-to-end neural nets or similar devices intended for such integration don't seem ready for prime time.
- Phrodo_00 8y ago
  I would generally prefer smarter (more error prone) systems to be surrounded by dumber systems. So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff. It's weird that it isn't designed that way, since that's the way automated systems in factories and the like are setup.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff The problem the article points out is that there's no safe, dumb response to radar seeing something stopped right in front of a car going 70 mpg. If anything, the systems the article describes are a lot like what you describe - a bunch of semi-separate systems each of which can do something if it can be sure that something is safe and which do nothing otherwise. The problem seems to be that given enough no-easy-answer situations, you wind-up with a false sense of security.
    - jstarfish 8y ago
      Why does "in case of anomaly or ambiguity, slow the fuck down, gather more data and reassess" never seem to be part of the functional logic with these things?
      - other_herbert 8y ago
        I think it's because at this point they would not be able to move forward at all...
secabeen 8y ago
> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on. Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?
- Merad 8y ago
  My parents bought a new 2018 Camry a few weeks ago that came with a manual roughly an inch thick. Expecting anyone to read it is bordering on delusional. I say this as someone who often does read manuals (because I’m a nerd).
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    Not even bothering to flip through a meager 1" thick manual for a newly acquired automobile strikes me as negligent. At least review the sections covering features you've never had in a vehicle before, geez.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      And when people rent a vehicle? Or borrow a friend's vehicle? Etc Ad infinitum.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        Just because it's common for people to get in and go with unfamiliar cars doesn't make it any less negligent. If you don't know how to e.g. turn on the hazard lights in the vehicle you're driving without searching extensively or digging out the user's manual, you've failed to be a responsible driver. If I got in a loaner car with semi-autonomous features there's no way I'd drive away without first paging through a user's manual or online guide understanding those features first. especially given how many crashes have occurred due to apparent misuse of these vehicles.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
Shivetya 8y ago
While the author implied that other system would act the same as Tesla they then go on to explain that most other systems are no where as integrated as the Tesla system implies that it is. In other words, Tesla cannot use the excuse that AEB is separate from cruise. They still have not taking down the picture on their Autopilot page which shows a driver with his hands in his lap [1]. So if current systems cannot or will not acknowledge objects not in motion even if they are in the path of travel why is the NTSB allowing them on the road? Why not force the issue and require it. It really seems that far too many bought into images of what marketers promised by interpreting them to be akin to what is seen in movies and TV shows (enhance!). [1] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

joe_the_user 8y ago

The key thing seems to be that the automatic breaking system has a group of systems each designed to satisfy multiple constraints and these systems aren't particularly well integrated. This seems like how I would imagine a "dumb" system would be designed. One would imagine a "artificial intelligence" (of any sort at all) would find a way to smoothly integrate all these system. The problem is end-to-end neural nets or similar devices intended for such integration don't seem ready for prime time.

Phrodo_00 8y ago
I would generally prefer smarter (more error prone) systems to be surrounded by dumber systems. So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff. It's weird that it isn't designed that way, since that's the way automated systems in factories and the like are setup.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  So the break pedal overrides everything, then you'd have a run of the mill radar breaking system, regular lane following system, and only after that (and maybe even further back) the more advanced self driving-ish stuff The problem the article points out is that there's no safe, dumb response to radar seeing something stopped right in front of a car going 70 mpg. If anything, the systems the article describes are a lot like what you describe - a bunch of semi-separate systems each of which can do something if it can be sure that something is safe and which do nothing otherwise. The problem seems to be that given enough no-easy-answer situations, you wind-up with a false sense of security.
  - jstarfish 8y ago
    Why does "in case of anomaly or ambiguity, slow the fuck down, gather more data and reassess" never seem to be part of the functional logic with these things?
    - other_herbert 8y ago
      I think it's because at this point they would not be able to move forward at all...

secabeen 8y ago

> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on. Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?

Merad 8y ago
My parents bought a new 2018 Camry a few weeks ago that came with a manual roughly an inch thick. Expecting anyone to read it is bordering on delusional. I say this as someone who often does read manuals (because I’m a nerd).
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  Not even bothering to flip through a meager 1" thick manual for a newly acquired automobile strikes me as negligent. At least review the sections covering features you've never had in a vehicle before, geez.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    And when people rent a vehicle? Or borrow a friend's vehicle? Etc Ad infinitum.
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      Just because it's common for people to get in and go with unfamiliar cars doesn't make it any less negligent. If you don't know how to e.g. turn on the hazard lights in the vehicle you're driving without searching extensively or digging out the user's manual, you've failed to be a responsible driver. If I got in a loaner car with semi-autonomous features there's no way I'd drive away without first paging through a user's manual or online guide understanding those features first. especially given how many crashes have occurred due to apparent misuse of these vehicles.
  - forapurpose 8y ago

Shivetya 8y ago

While the author implied that other system would act the same as Tesla they then go on to explain that most other systems are no where as integrated as the Tesla system implies that it is. In other words, Tesla cannot use the excuse that AEB is separate from cruise. They still have not taking down the picture on their Autopilot page which shows a driver with his hands in his lap [1]. So if current systems cannot or will not acknowledge objects not in motion even if they are in the path of travel why is the NTSB allowing them on the road? Why not force the issue and require it. It really seems that far too many bought into images of what marketers promised by interpreting them to be akin to what is seen in movies and TV shows (enhance!). [1] https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot