5 ms·

Cool. Now do Volvo Pilot Assist. Comma.ai is trying to do big things and I hope they succeed. No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car an

by bko 6y ago

Cool. Now do Volvo Pilot Assist. Comma.ai is trying to do big things and I hope they succeed. No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car and I have little faith in auto manufacturers to deliver. Lane assist technology exists. Look at consumer reports for a comprehensive review [0] (comma.ai was #1 in lane assist, above even tesla). They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head. https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-ranks-this-aftermarket-driver-assistance-kit-above-tesla-autopilot-cadillac-super-cruise https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-ranks-t...

gkop 6y ago
The difference is that Volvo does not disclaim liability.
- bko 6y ago
  Oh I didn't know that. Can you point me to their liability policy? [EDIT] this was the best I could find > You are always ultimately responsible for driving in a safe manner, even when using Pilot Assist. https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/topics/use-your-car/car-functions/tips-for-using-pilot-assist https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/topics/use-your-car/car... I don't think comma.ai should be faulted for being open. I have trouble finding any statements on liability on any other lane assist technology. Would love to be proven wrong with an actual policy.
  - gkop 6y ago
    Volvo sells a car with an optional feature that has hardware and software components. If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo. Comma sells only some hardware (with some limited software?). Comma suggests, but is careful not to encourage for street use, that customers modify the hardware with open source software that makes the hardware dramatically more useful. If the hardware functions perfectly but this software proves unreasonably dangerous, you do not likely have standing to sue Comma. I think it’s really cool that late model cars are adequately unencumbered to make experimentation like Comma possible. Aside from the sketchy commercialization, Comma seems impressive and valuable. I have seen no evidence Comma is any less safe than the auto manufacturers’ LKA products. My beef is that Comma-the-product imposes an externality on our roads by bringing experimental driver assistance software to the mass market that is not backed by the software product’s developers (or any other entity).
    - bko 6y ago
      > If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo I imagine this is true for comma as well. I don't think their little waiver and notice that it should only be used in a research setting would hold up in court. Much like "incense" were banned despite being marked "not for human consumption". > My beef is that Comma-the-product imposes an externality on our roads by bringing experimental driver assistance software to the mass market that is not backed by the software product’s developers (or any other entity). I think their product is safe and I'm glad it exists out there. They claim 35 million miles driven and I am yet to see one serious accident. So I think the risk is overstated. People like Thiel often complain about the lack of innovation. This is real innovation and could transform society. I think we should applaud the people that have the audacity to tackle hard problems that can change people's lives. The only way you'll get there is real miles driven on real roads. As a society, we should not have a zero risk attitude, otherwise nothing would ever get built.
      - Piskvorrr 6y ago
        In the technical aspect you are correct. In the legal aspect, nope. Even if (for the sake of the example) this were identical technology under the hood w/ Volvo and Comma, there's a world of difference between "I bought a stock car that is certified to be street-legal" and "I installed some aftermarket thing into my car, despite being warned that it might void the car's street-legality." It's not just what you think, not least because your driver's license is a permit, not a right. (On the other hand, I agree that the bar requested for computer driving safety is at least an order of magnitude higher than for human driving safety, and that the elephant in the room is the risky road environment that we pretend doesn't exist for humans.)
Miraste 6y ago
> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car It seems to me that there are many reasons it should be bundled, and I'll bet that in the long run all self-driving cars will be integrated systems. It's not a good place for inconsistent installations or a modding mentality--imagine multiplying Uber and Tesla's programs a thousandfold with fewer resources and less accountability.
- chii 6y ago
  or, imagine if there's standard interfaces between the motors/control system and the "brains" of self driving. Like how CDs and peripherals don't all need to come from the same manufacturer ('cept apple's!), because there's an industry standard for interoperability.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    Apple music peripherals are a great example of what I'm talking about. They don't use bluetooth because W1 chips (their integrated solution) blow bluetooth out of the water. Bluetooth can still exist in other devices because people don't need low latency and high bitrates, but they definitely need their cars not to crash because a standard causes hardware and software from different vendors to run into interoperability quirks. There's no agreement on the best hardware or even the type of hardware for self-driving, so there will be a lot of those quirks.
  - Piskvorrr 6y ago
    The mistake seems to be "there's a standard [and it Works more than 80/20]." There are multiple to choose from, and in versions, and each has revisions, and now Foo v2.1 doesn't want to work with Foo 2.0, except on even Mondays, and don't get me started on Foo 3.x with Bar 1.5.x! You're handwaving away all the inherent complexity, but shoveling it off into a box labeled "standardization" doesn't make it go away. In other words, the interoperability is very much "try to swap these components, if they work, yay, if not, try swapping them for something else until you get a combination that works." And that's for non-critical components.
- bko 6y ago
coddle-hark 6y ago
> They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head. This openness gives us consumers an opportunity to look under the hood and evaluate the tech for what it is, which is a good thing and should be applauded. However. I’ve used that freedom to look at their code and processes and I’ve decided that this is not software that I want my life to depend on. There are serious outstanding bugs that Comma doesn’t have the manpower to investigate fully, their default assumption seems to be that the hardware is faulty, their test suite is regularly failing, pair programming / code review is sometimes used and sometimes not, PRs are created and merged without a description or comment. That’s just scraping the surface, without going into things like whether or not Python is a good choice for this sort of thing or if there’s a bug in my car’s CAN implantation that will get triggered by this and end up killing me. All in all, I trust Volvo more than I trust Comma.ai. Maybe that trust is misplaced? For what it’s worth I don’t really trust any level 2 self driving tech.
- bko 6y ago
  I'm honestly curious why you trust Volvo more. They're completely opaque. There's no issue board, can't even find a terms of service online. No over the air updates. Can't even find a technical manual or version number of the software you're running. I assume you just have some car salesman point you to the button to press. Independent reviews put open pilot much higher than Volvo despite volvo having much more reach and influence in the industry Like I've said elsewhere, they have a very loyal user base, probably driven more miles than the others combined, lots of discussion online and are more open by a mile. They even store the raw video to train, not just feature vectors. To me this is all signs that their product is relatively strong. And I'd be willing to bet their processes and standards are much better than big auto.
  - wikibob 6y ago
    Liability. Volvo has something to lose. Comma.ai does not.
  - iancarroll 6y ago
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car Aftermarket self-driving is inherently a compromise. OEMs can design the car for their self-driving system. They can place sensors in the right places, size the actuators appropriately, and integrate vehicle dynamics data into the system. OEMs can also properly safely test the entire system, operating as a unit, as it would operate on the road. OEMs also leverage economies of scale to make the best technologies available at reasonable prices. Automaker net profit is on the order of 10%, and their scale is massive. You're getting a lot of bang for your buck. Aftermarket systems are inherently a compromise. They're limited to whatever sensors can be easily mounted in the aftermarket device. The device is only mounted where convenient. The device can't take advantage of vehicle-specific sensors or actuators or vehicle dynamics data because they need to keep it generic. And most importantly, aftermarket self-driving device manufacturers obviously aren't safety testing the device in combination with every single car on the road. They expect their users to just sort of wing it and see how it goes. I think it's cool that Comma is working on this, but it's not going to replace OEM solutions any time soon. > Look at consumer reports for a comprehensive review [0] (comma.ai was #1 in lane assist, above even tesla). The report shows Tesla's system was more capable and performed better. Comma tied with 3 other manufacturers for performance. The advantage of the Comma system was supposedly in the fact that it keeps drivers the most engaged. Kudos to Comma for that, but it's not exactly accurate to say that Comma's lane assist performance beats Tesla.

by bko 6y ago

gkop 6y ago

The difference is that Volvo does not disclaim liability.

bko 6y ago
Oh I didn't know that. Can you point me to their liability policy? [EDIT] this was the best I could find > You are always ultimately responsible for driving in a safe manner, even when using Pilot Assist. https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/topics/use-your-car/car-functions/tips-for-using-pilot-assist https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/topics/use-your-car/car... I don't think comma.ai should be faulted for being open. I have trouble finding any statements on liability on any other lane assist technology. Would love to be proven wrong with an actual policy.
- gkop 6y ago
  Volvo sells a car with an optional feature that has hardware and software components. If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo. Comma sells only some hardware (with some limited software?). Comma suggests, but is careful not to encourage for street use, that customers modify the hardware with open source software that makes the hardware dramatically more useful. If the hardware functions perfectly but this software proves unreasonably dangerous, you do not likely have standing to sue Comma. I think it’s really cool that late model cars are adequately unencumbered to make experimentation like Comma possible. Aside from the sketchy commercialization, Comma seems impressive and valuable. I have seen no evidence Comma is any less safe than the auto manufacturers’ LKA products. My beef is that Comma-the-product imposes an externality on our roads by bringing experimental driver assistance software to the mass market that is not backed by the software product’s developers (or any other entity).
  - bko 6y ago
    > If you can prove that the hardware or software is “unreasonably dangerous” in design or implementation, you may have standing to sue Volvo I imagine this is true for comma as well. I don't think their little waiver and notice that it should only be used in a research setting would hold up in court. Much like "incense" were banned despite being marked "not for human consumption". > My beef is that Comma-the-product imposes an externality on our roads by bringing experimental driver assistance software to the mass market that is not backed by the software product’s developers (or any other entity). I think their product is safe and I'm glad it exists out there. They claim 35 million miles driven and I am yet to see one serious accident. So I think the risk is overstated. People like Thiel often complain about the lack of innovation. This is real innovation and could transform society. I think we should applaud the people that have the audacity to tackle hard problems that can change people's lives. The only way you'll get there is real miles driven on real roads. As a society, we should not have a zero risk attitude, otherwise nothing would ever get built.
    - Piskvorrr 6y ago
      In the technical aspect you are correct. In the legal aspect, nope. Even if (for the sake of the example) this were identical technology under the hood w/ Volvo and Comma, there's a world of difference between "I bought a stock car that is certified to be street-legal" and "I installed some aftermarket thing into my car, despite being warned that it might void the car's street-legality." It's not just what you think, not least because your driver's license is a permit, not a right. (On the other hand, I agree that the bar requested for computer driving safety is at least an order of magnitude higher than for human driving safety, and that the elephant in the room is the risky road environment that we pretend doesn't exist for humans.)

Miraste 6y ago

> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car It seems to me that there are many reasons it should be bundled, and I'll bet that in the long run all self-driving cars will be integrated systems. It's not a good place for inconsistent installations or a modding mentality--imagine multiplying Uber and Tesla's programs a thousandfold with fewer resources and less accountability.

chii 6y ago
or, imagine if there's standard interfaces between the motors/control system and the "brains" of self driving. Like how CDs and peripherals don't all need to come from the same manufacturer ('cept apple's!), because there's an industry standard for interoperability.
- Miraste 6y ago
  Apple music peripherals are a great example of what I'm talking about. They don't use bluetooth because W1 chips (their integrated solution) blow bluetooth out of the water. Bluetooth can still exist in other devices because people don't need low latency and high bitrates, but they definitely need their cars not to crash because a standard causes hardware and software from different vendors to run into interoperability quirks. There's no agreement on the best hardware or even the type of hardware for self-driving, so there will be a lot of those quirks.
- Piskvorrr 6y ago
  The mistake seems to be "there's a standard [and it Works more than 80/20]." There are multiple to choose from, and in versions, and each has revisions, and now Foo v2.1 doesn't want to work with Foo 2.0, except on even Mondays, and don't get me started on Foo 3.x with Bar 1.5.x! You're handwaving away all the inherent complexity, but shoveling it off into a box labeled "standardization" doesn't make it go away. In other words, the interoperability is very much "try to swap these components, if they work, yay, if not, try swapping them for something else until you get a combination that works." And that's for non-critical components.
bko 6y ago

coddle-hark 6y ago

> They are open about their mistakes, issues and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat them over the head. This openness gives us consumers an opportunity to look under the hood and evaluate the tech for what it is, which is a good thing and should be applauded. However. I’ve used that freedom to look at their code and processes and I’ve decided that this is not software that I want my life to depend on. There are serious outstanding bugs that Comma doesn’t have the manpower to investigate fully, their default assumption seems to be that the hardware is faulty, their test suite is regularly failing, pair programming / code review is sometimes used and sometimes not, PRs are created and merged without a description or comment. That’s just scraping the surface, without going into things like whether or not Python is a good choice for this sort of thing or if there’s a bug in my car’s CAN implantation that will get triggered by this and end up killing me. All in all, I trust Volvo more than I trust Comma.ai. Maybe that trust is misplaced? For what it’s worth I don’t really trust any level 2 self driving tech.

bko 6y ago
I'm honestly curious why you trust Volvo more. They're completely opaque. There's no issue board, can't even find a terms of service online. No over the air updates. Can't even find a technical manual or version number of the software you're running. I assume you just have some car salesman point you to the button to press. Independent reviews put open pilot much higher than Volvo despite volvo having much more reach and influence in the industry Like I've said elsewhere, they have a very loyal user base, probably driven more miles than the others combined, lots of discussion online and are more open by a mile. They even store the raw video to train, not just feature vectors. To me this is all signs that their product is relatively strong. And I'd be willing to bet their processes and standards are much better than big auto.
- wikibob 6y ago
  Liability. Volvo has something to lose. Comma.ai does not.
- iancarroll 6y ago

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a car Aftermarket self-driving is inherently a compromise. OEMs can design the car for their self-driving system. They can place sensors in the right places, size the actuators appropriately, and integrate vehicle dynamics data into the system. OEMs can also properly safely test the entire system, operating as a unit, as it would operate on the road. OEMs also leverage economies of scale to make the best technologies available at reasonable prices. Automaker net profit is on the order of 10%, and their scale is massive. You're getting a lot of bang for your buck. Aftermarket systems are inherently a compromise. They're limited to whatever sensors can be easily mounted in the aftermarket device. The device is only mounted where convenient. The device can't take advantage of vehicle-specific sensors or actuators or vehicle dynamics data because they need to keep it generic. And most importantly, aftermarket self-driving device manufacturers obviously aren't safety testing the device in combination with every single car on the road. They expect their users to just sort of wing it and see how it goes. I think it's cool that Comma is working on this, but it's not going to replace OEM solutions any time soon. > Look at consumer reports for a comprehensive review [0] (comma.ai was #1 in lane assist, above even tesla). The report shows Tesla's system was more capable and performed better. Comma tied with 3 other manufacturers for performance. The advantage of the Comma system was supposedly in the fact that it keeps drivers the most engaged. Kudos to Comma for that, but it's not exactly accurate to say that Comma's lane assist performance beats Tesla.