4 ms·

Not something I'd consider roadworthy due to lack of rigorous testing.

akersten 8y ago
Seriously. The thought of this thing being on the road scares the heck out of me. All it takes is for there to be one assumption the autopilot software makes about the hardware that didn't get retrofitted, and you've got an accident on your hands.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  People are always so paranoid about autonomous cars, as if we expect cars and drivers to otherwise be infallible, contrary to all available evidence. People have been modifying their cars since there have been cars. Sometimes the modifications are problematic. Sometimes problems result in accidents. Those cases are rare. Moreover, since the modifications are all bespoke, the odd erroneous one affects only that single vehicle. On the other hand, the modifications let people learn. It's how we get new ideas. That improve safety. For more than just one car.
  - lwhi 8y ago
    If the modifications a person makes have the potential to kill members of the public, I think you're wrong. This is new technology; laws and regulations need to reach a stage where they're able to protect against the worst from happening. People have to take driving tests. Is there an equivalent safeguard for an autonomous vehicle?
    - postmeta 8y ago
      Or guns? /jk
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > If the modifications a person makes have the potential to kill members of the public, I think you're wrong. Literally everything has the potential to kill members of the public. A bug in your mobile device app could interact with a bug in the hardware and cause the battery to catch fire in the middle of the night and burn down an apartment building. If you install casters on the office copy machine, it may slide down an incline, through a 10th story window and kill someone in the street. > This is new technology; laws and regulations need to reach a stage where they're able to protect against the worst from happening. There are two classic methods of discouraging harm. The original, which works fine for low volume modifications, is that if you do something reckless you get held liable after the fact. The method you're proposing is to do safety testing ahead of time. But that is only reasonable for products that are mass produced. If you're going to make a million of something, it makes sense to analyze it ahead of time because the high fixed cost of doing that can be amortized over a million units whereas the amount of harm prevented is multiplied by a million units. That method is highly inefficient for one off modifications where the opposite is true.
      - lwhi 8y ago
        I think you're greatly underestimating the danger involved.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    The complexity of "cars" has gone up exponentially over the years, so modifying them while still being reasonably sure that they're safe is getting harder. Today cars are at least as much software as hardware and it's completely unclear which assumptions are hardcoded into them that you could invalidate by modifications.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Today cars are at least as much software as hardware and it's completely unclear which assumptions are hardcoded into them that you could invalidate by modifications. This rings hollow as a novelty. If you replace the transmission with one that has higher gear ratios, it may raise the top speed past the maximum rating of other components. Any modification that makes the vehicle heavier may cause the brakes to be insufficient. Any modification that changes the weight distribution may have a number of difficult to predict consequences for steering and stopping. Tires that are better on a track may be worse in the rain. Tires with a different diameter may cause the speedometer to mislead the driver. Tuning the engine to reach higher RPMs may cause excessive hydraulic pressure and damages the brakes or steering. Anyone making any modification or repair may use non-OEM parts with arbitrarily different specifications. These are all complicated engineering decisions that depend on the assumptions made by the OEM. Maybe the brakes are sufficient with an extra 700 pounds, maybe not. Hardware isn't simpler than software, the assumptions are just less explicit. And encoding the complexity in software rather than hardware can make them less error-prone because software is more adaptable. It can read sensors and make realtime calculations. The assumptions encoded in hardware are static.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        Hardware is a lot simpler than software, because there are far fewer parts that can interact. Cars run millions of lines of code, they have far fewer mechanical components. There is a reason why software is eating the world, it's because you can have a lot more complexity for a lot less money.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
- nightski 8y ago
  While I agree with you, I feel the same way about production Tesla's with autopilot also.
  - vntok 8y ago
    How about production cars from consciencious companies like Waymo?
    - slivym 8y ago
      Right now there are no production cars in existence from Waymo.
      - vntok 8y ago
        https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17762326/waymo-self-driving-ride-hail-fleet-management https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17762326/waymo-self-drivi... > For over a year, Waymo has been offering trips to the 400-plus members of its Early Rider program who use Waymo’s ride-hailing app to summon the minivans for free trips to school, the mall, the gym, or elsewhere within its suburban Phoenix service area. Soon, Waymo will make that service available to the general public and it will start charging money for it, too.
tempestn 8y ago
People drive highly modified cars all the time, and we're not too concerned about it. Certainly I wouldn't trust this autopilot to be foolproof, but that's true of the factory version as well!
- alexanderwept 8y ago
  Yeah but most people modify their cars in a way that demands more attention while driving and reap the rewards of modification when they're paying attention to the car. There are some people who modify their cars so driving demands less attention, but hereunto that was never technology that gave software the authority to control how a car cooperates with other cars. The broomstick on the throttle "cruise control" isn't meaningfully comparable to hacked autopilot at the helm. Sure, if the driver is paying attention there's nothing to worry about. But this system is dangerous because it may lull a driver into a dangerous complacency.
- sschueller 8y ago
  It's also illegal in most states and especially in Europe. Don't expect your insurance to pay if your car causes an accident and/or kills someone.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    I think you are getting downvoted because you are just wrong - it's not illegal, but you have to tell your insurer about it, as long as they approve it it's absolutely fine to drive. Some modifications(engine swaps for example) require the car to be re-certified by the official authority, but it's not an impossible process, just takes a few weeks and some money.
    - sschueller 8y ago
      Since when is installing a straight pipe legal? This is an extremely common modification. By doing so you are putting out toxic chemicals because you removed the muffler, this is not legal in states where an emissions test is done.

Seriously. The thought of this thing being on the road scares the heck out of me. All it takes is for there to be one assumption the autopilot software makes about the hardware that didn't get retrofitted, and you've got an accident on your hands.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
People are always so paranoid about autonomous cars, as if we expect cars and drivers to otherwise be infallible, contrary to all available evidence. People have been modifying their cars since there have been cars. Sometimes the modifications are problematic. Sometimes problems result in accidents. Those cases are rare. Moreover, since the modifications are all bespoke, the odd erroneous one affects only that single vehicle. On the other hand, the modifications let people learn. It's how we get new ideas. That improve safety. For more than just one car.
- lwhi 8y ago
  If the modifications a person makes have the potential to kill members of the public, I think you're wrong. This is new technology; laws and regulations need to reach a stage where they're able to protect against the worst from happening. People have to take driving tests. Is there an equivalent safeguard for an autonomous vehicle?
  - postmeta 8y ago
    Or guns? /jk
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > If the modifications a person makes have the potential to kill members of the public, I think you're wrong. Literally everything has the potential to kill members of the public. A bug in your mobile device app could interact with a bug in the hardware and cause the battery to catch fire in the middle of the night and burn down an apartment building. If you install casters on the office copy machine, it may slide down an incline, through a 10th story window and kill someone in the street. > This is new technology; laws and regulations need to reach a stage where they're able to protect against the worst from happening. There are two classic methods of discouraging harm. The original, which works fine for low volume modifications, is that if you do something reckless you get held liable after the fact. The method you're proposing is to do safety testing ahead of time. But that is only reasonable for products that are mass produced. If you're going to make a million of something, it makes sense to analyze it ahead of time because the high fixed cost of doing that can be amortized over a million units whereas the amount of harm prevented is multiplied by a million units. That method is highly inefficient for one off modifications where the opposite is true.
    - lwhi 8y ago
      I think you're greatly underestimating the danger involved.
- adrianN 8y ago
  The complexity of "cars" has gone up exponentially over the years, so modifying them while still being reasonably sure that they're safe is getting harder. Today cars are at least as much software as hardware and it's completely unclear which assumptions are hardcoded into them that you could invalidate by modifications.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Today cars are at least as much software as hardware and it's completely unclear which assumptions are hardcoded into them that you could invalidate by modifications. This rings hollow as a novelty. If you replace the transmission with one that has higher gear ratios, it may raise the top speed past the maximum rating of other components. Any modification that makes the vehicle heavier may cause the brakes to be insufficient. Any modification that changes the weight distribution may have a number of difficult to predict consequences for steering and stopping. Tires that are better on a track may be worse in the rain. Tires with a different diameter may cause the speedometer to mislead the driver. Tuning the engine to reach higher RPMs may cause excessive hydraulic pressure and damages the brakes or steering. Anyone making any modification or repair may use non-OEM parts with arbitrarily different specifications. These are all complicated engineering decisions that depend on the assumptions made by the OEM. Maybe the brakes are sufficient with an extra 700 pounds, maybe not. Hardware isn't simpler than software, the assumptions are just less explicit. And encoding the complexity in software rather than hardware can make them less error-prone because software is more adaptable. It can read sensors and make realtime calculations. The assumptions encoded in hardware are static.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Hardware is a lot simpler than software, because there are far fewer parts that can interact. Cars run millions of lines of code, they have far fewer mechanical components. There is a reason why software is eating the world, it's because you can have a lot more complexity for a lot less money.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
nightski 8y ago
While I agree with you, I feel the same way about production Tesla's with autopilot also.
- vntok 8y ago
  How about production cars from consciencious companies like Waymo?
  - slivym 8y ago
    Right now there are no production cars in existence from Waymo.
    - vntok 8y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17762326/waymo-self-driving-ride-hail-fleet-management https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/21/17762326/waymo-self-drivi... > For over a year, Waymo has been offering trips to the 400-plus members of its Early Rider program who use Waymo’s ride-hailing app to summon the minivans for free trips to school, the mall, the gym, or elsewhere within its suburban Phoenix service area. Soon, Waymo will make that service available to the general public and it will start charging money for it, too.

tempestn 8y ago

People drive highly modified cars all the time, and we're not too concerned about it. Certainly I wouldn't trust this autopilot to be foolproof, but that's true of the factory version as well!

alexanderwept 8y ago
Yeah but most people modify their cars in a way that demands more attention while driving and reap the rewards of modification when they're paying attention to the car. There are some people who modify their cars so driving demands less attention, but hereunto that was never technology that gave software the authority to control how a car cooperates with other cars. The broomstick on the throttle "cruise control" isn't meaningfully comparable to hacked autopilot at the helm. Sure, if the driver is paying attention there's nothing to worry about. But this system is dangerous because it may lull a driver into a dangerous complacency.
sschueller 8y ago
It's also illegal in most states and especially in Europe. Don't expect your insurance to pay if your car causes an accident and/or kills someone.
- gambiting 8y ago
  I think you are getting downvoted because you are just wrong - it's not illegal, but you have to tell your insurer about it, as long as they approve it it's absolutely fine to drive. Some modifications(engine swaps for example) require the car to be re-certified by the official authority, but it's not an impossible process, just takes a few weeks and some money.
  - sschueller 8y ago
    Since when is installing a straight pipe legal? This is an extremely common modification. By doing so you are putting out toxic chemicals because you removed the muffler, this is not legal in states where an emissions test is done.