5 ms·

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely

by emn13 6y ago

I think the parent poster is trying to make the point that it's unreasonable to ask people to pay attention. In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. You cannot expect people to maintain constant attention when that attention almost never leads to anything; people simply aren't capable of that. That's also why similarly "boring" tasks are so failure prone (e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa...) and why all kinds of creative measures are needed if you really need people to stare at stuff looking for black swans until their eyes glaze over. Better marketing is not a solution to that problem. That's merely a solution to the fraudulent advertising (also worth solving - sure!)

buran77 6y ago
> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell more. New roads are built to be more wavy to keep the drivers more engaged, some traffic light systems that are synchronized as a "green wave" are sometimes stunted to not create this automation of running through lights (especially true of public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle, except when an emergency vehicle is coming), etc. Tesla should have installed an advanced driver attention monitoring system even before turning on the AP and they should have set very, very clear expectations from the system. In reality they did the opposite with people ending up believing that the AP can handle driving by itself so they can "disconnect", but the attention monitoring being completely unfit for the purpose of making sure the human is "connected".
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  > public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?
  - iggldiggl 6y ago
    Yes. (And I can also confirm the effect that at intersections where full public transport priority usually guarantees a green some drivers do react a bit... surprised on the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons)
    - buran77 6y ago
      > the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons That's actually intentional (or at least I know for a fact that in some places it's by design). It keeps drivers alert and break the habit of just going ahead. Sometime for whatever reason the light has to be red and in some cases the public transport drivers were so used to just going through the intersection that they completely miss the lights. Also many of them get in their personal cars at the end of the day to the same effect. It's a known, studied effect and the solution is to "mix it up" a bit.
  - buran77 6y ago
    Where I live yes. On some lines especially in the city center and more crowded intersections public transport gets priority. When they have stops before an intersection no matter how long they have to wait there for passengers to get on or off, the moment they are ready to move the light turns red for everyone else. There are also places where a special light turns red (there's no green) when they pass in order to guarantee the priority while the rest of the time traffic uses the right of way for example. This makes sense, the light sync system is already in place and they carry dozens or more passengers at once. This kind of advantage over a car carrying one person gives people more incentive to use public transport.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_priority
  - emn13 6y ago
    Where I live, they're even rain-sensitive, giving bikers priority in rainy conditions.
- emn13 6y ago
  > > In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. > I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. I meant the parent post you were replying to, i.e. what I think MereInterest meant when he said "If there is a human in the control loop, then it needs to take into account human limitations", to which you replied "I am honestly not sure how to interpret your comment but I'll try to respond. The fault is not with the AP." I did not mean to imply you thought it was a fundamental design flaw - sorry!
natch 6y ago
I find it easier to pay attention when autopilot is on, for a few reasons. The first reason will fade eventually: it's fascinating to see it in action, and to observe how it reacts to situations. Another reason is I am a bit more free to vary my attention safely, checking mirrors more often, seeing more of the scenery (don't worry, with fleeting glances, not long stares that would lead me to miss a truck crossing the road). Finally it eases the cognitive load of keeping safe follow distance and makes bumper to bumper traffic dreamy easy to the point where I no longer dread it, which is amazing! So I would not call it a design flaw. Checking the mirrors more often is good for safety too btw. >the fraudulent advertising purported / alleged. The claims of this have been debunked.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  > purported / alleged. The claims of this have been debunked. Isn't this entire article about how the courts in Germany determined that it is, in fact, false advertising?
  - natch 6y ago
    That’s your interpretation of the article’s interpretation of the court’s interpretation I guess. Making all the foregoing my interpretation of your interpretation. Having read the Tesla website myself and understood its claims, they are not false. I believe the court was concerned that it was theoretically possible that some people might get confused. Or to put it in a harsh (to Tesla) way, the court feared some consumers could be misled (I would add, misled only due to the consumer’s own failure to read and listen to the information offered by Tesla with several different opportunities in varied and timely settings). So with this in mind, the court took action based on those fears. Conclusions beyond that are not warranted.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      > Having read the Tesla website myself and understood its claims, they are not false. "The driver is only present for legal reasons". Really? That's a direct quote from Tesla, a claim. I don't think it at all stands on itself.
bumby 6y ago
You are correct. There is a concept in more traditional engineering called “human factors”, meaning you have to include humans (and their limitations) in the design. Expecting a human to remain attentive all the time is like using a sensor outside it’s linearity range to detect and mitigate a hazard. Good initiative but bad implementation and possibly a gap in the design culture https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/human-factors https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/human-factors

by emn13 6y ago

buran77 6y ago

> In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. For the rest of your comment I agree and I implied something along the same lines. Tesla should have built a system that works to compensate for human failings, not take advantage of them to sell more. New roads are built to be more wavy to keep the drivers more engaged, some traffic light systems that are synchronized as a "green wave" are sometimes stunted to not create this automation of running through lights (especially true of public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle, except when an emergency vehicle is coming), etc. Tesla should have installed an advanced driver attention monitoring system even before turning on the AP and they should have set very, very clear expectations from the system. In reality they did the opposite with people ending up believing that the AP can handle driving by itself so they can "disconnect", but the attention monitoring being completely unfit for the purpose of making sure the human is "connected".

richardwhiuk 6y ago
> public transport vehicles where lights sync to the vehicle This is a common rumour, but is there anywhere which actually implements this?
- iggldiggl 6y ago
  Yes. (And I can also confirm the effect that at intersections where full public transport priority usually guarantees a green some drivers do react a bit... surprised on the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons)
  - buran77 6y ago
    > the rare occasion when it doesn't work for whatever reasons That's actually intentional (or at least I know for a fact that in some places it's by design). It keeps drivers alert and break the habit of just going ahead. Sometime for whatever reason the light has to be red and in some cases the public transport drivers were so used to just going through the intersection that they completely miss the lights. Also many of them get in their personal cars at the end of the day to the same effect. It's a known, studied effect and the solution is to "mix it up" a bit.
- buran77 6y ago
  Where I live yes. On some lines especially in the city center and more crowded intersections public transport gets priority. When they have stops before an intersection no matter how long they have to wait there for passengers to get on or off, the moment they are ready to move the light turns red for everyone else. There are also places where a special light turns red (there's no green) when they pass in order to guarantee the priority while the rest of the time traffic uses the right of way for example. This makes sense, the light sync system is already in place and they carry dozens or more passengers at once. This kind of advantage over a car carrying one person gives people more incentive to use public transport.
- catalogia 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_priority
- emn13 6y ago
  Where I live, they're even rain-sensitive, giving bikers priority in rainy conditions.
emn13 6y ago
> > In any case the fault is most certainly not merely marketing, it's a fundamental design flaw. > I was actually referring to the ruling. The court did not take issue with the autopilot system, just with the way it's marketed. I meant the parent post you were replying to, i.e. what I think MereInterest meant when he said "If there is a human in the control loop, then it needs to take into account human limitations", to which you replied "I am honestly not sure how to interpret your comment but I'll try to respond. The fault is not with the AP." I did not mean to imply you thought it was a fundamental design flaw - sorry!

natch 6y ago

I find it easier to pay attention when autopilot is on, for a few reasons. The first reason will fade eventually: it's fascinating to see it in action, and to observe how it reacts to situations. Another reason is I am a bit more free to vary my attention safely, checking mirrors more often, seeing more of the scenery (don't worry, with fleeting glances, not long stares that would lead me to miss a truck crossing the road). Finally it eases the cognitive load of keeping safe follow distance and makes bumper to bumper traffic dreamy easy to the point where I no longer dread it, which is amazing! So I would not call it a design flaw. Checking the mirrors more often is good for safety too btw. >the fraudulent advertising purported / alleged. The claims of this have been debunked.

MereInterest 6y ago
> purported / alleged. The claims of this have been debunked. Isn't this entire article about how the courts in Germany determined that it is, in fact, false advertising?
- natch 6y ago
  That’s your interpretation of the article’s interpretation of the court’s interpretation I guess. Making all the foregoing my interpretation of your interpretation. Having read the Tesla website myself and understood its claims, they are not false. I believe the court was concerned that it was theoretically possible that some people might get confused. Or to put it in a harsh (to Tesla) way, the court feared some consumers could be misled (I would add, misled only due to the consumer’s own failure to read and listen to the information offered by Tesla with several different opportunities in varied and timely settings). So with this in mind, the court took action based on those fears. Conclusions beyond that are not warranted.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > Having read the Tesla website myself and understood its claims, they are not false. "The driver is only present for legal reasons". Really? That's a direct quote from Tesla, a claim. I don't think it at all stands on itself.

bumby 6y ago

You are correct. There is a concept in more traditional engineering called “human factors”, meaning you have to include humans (and their limitations) in the design. Expecting a human to remain attentive all the time is like using a sensor outside it’s linearity range to detect and mitigate a hazard. Good initiative but bad implementation and possibly a gap in the design culture https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/human-factors https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/human-factors