5 ms·

The first time I saw it detect pedestrians and cyclists that the human driver hadn't even noticed yet, I realised it is also going to save lives.

by Andys 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago
And the need is there. Tesla's previous CTO, JB Straubel, recently lost his wife to a driver who hit her while she was cycling [1]. Everyone on HN shits on Autopilot (and I'll be the first to admit it has flaws and isn't perfect), but humans are just terrible (tens of thousands of deaths per year, hundreds of thousands to millions of injuries). You don't have to be perfect, just better than humans. The software will improve faster than humans will, as arguably, we've already hit our limit. Software doesn't get tired and it doesn't drive impaired. It makes mistakes, but so do we, and it's mistakes can be improved upon at scale. This is not blind faith in technology or software, but an acceptance of the limited capabilities of your median human (as well as the disadvantaged outliers). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/business/boryana-straubel-dead.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/business/boryana-straubel...
- mym1990 5y ago
  Humans are no where near the limit to being attentive on the road. When you consider how many people are either distracted or tuned out to their surroundings, there is a ton of room for improvement, and not theoretical improvement, there are clearly some drivers that are consistently able to make correct decisions, whether there is risk or not. This is not to say that software and hardware will not quickly overtake us, but while humans are on the road and in control, improvement will be possible.
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    I really don't think he referring to some physiological limit of individuals. It is the aggregate of society, which includes the prevalence of distracted driving.
- quenix 5y ago
  That story is heart-wrenching. So young!
- croes 5y ago
  And if me make mistakes we face the consequences, who will be trialed for software errors?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    We don't face the consequences, at least in my experience seeing the justice system play out. Drunken driver? Affluenza? Old person turning in front of a motorcycle killing the rider? You're getting off relatively easy for taking a life or maiming someone. I've followed the cases for each example given, the last being a close friend. The retiree who pulled out, in their 80s, still has their license and lives comfortably in their retirement community and my friend is dead. You are right, the software should absolutely be held to a high standard (otherwise we're socializing losses and privatizing profits, also bad!), but please don't perpetuate a lie that existing drivers are held responsible to the degree they should for their mistakes (or even intentional acts) that cost lives. You'll find examples where someone is made an example of, but that is rare. So disagree, please (checks and balances are important, as is the dialog we're having), but having seen what humans have to offer in this context, I will be the first, on my own time and resources, in front of regulators to argue for aggressive driver assist system development and implementation. Because the alternative is hot garbage we get by with because there are limited alternatives (ie no public transportation most everywhere and the inability to deploy it cost effectively), and we do a disservice to those who die or suffer because we could do better.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  This is maybe the best reason to allow autodrive. We need to let it learn because it will get better. Whatever we pay now in terms of lives lost is made back in the future, in lives saved. All depends on our faith in the system getting better of course. There's always going to be dissatisfying things surrounding it. Gotta be up front about the state of the art though, can't let people sell a thing like it's the finished item.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I absolutely agree with your entire comment. The system must be taught, but everyone must participate to the best of their ability. Can't mess it up, there are people we haven't even met yet who are counting on us, collectively, to do better.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
Considering the resources spent on Tesla's “self-driving” systems… if you used that money on public transport, how many lives could you (improve and) save by reducing the number of cars on the road? (My guess: you could build a massive amount of public transport on a local scale, but not much on a global scale, so you'd probably only save a several dozen lives and significantly improve a few tens of thousands.) Factoring in that bad drivers start being really negligent when there cars are “self-driving”, I'm not certain this will save more lives than the opportunity cost. But if it's mostly used by good drivers, and bad drivers get off the road, it could be huge.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Public transportation in the US will never replace the automobile. There is simply too much infrastructure to replace and not enough GDP. It's a fine solution for SF, Chicago, and NYC, but not the rest of the country.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    Illinois used to have electric rail connecting every podunk town for a nickel. It was called the "interurban" and was scrapped for the war effort in the 1940s. The reason half the towns (that now require cars) even exist is because the train had to stop for fuel and water. Not enough GDP is a pretty sad state of affairs for the richest nation on earth.
    - ac29 5y ago
      The last routes actually closed in 1956 and 1958 - none closed in the 1940s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Terminal_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Terminal_Railroad
      - jazzyjackson 5y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I must be misremembering a second hand story. I found lots of photos from the 50s trying to find more info https://www.cera-chicago.org/Blog/3315468 https://www.cera-chicago.org/Blog/3315468
spicybright 5y ago
Not with vision based autonomous sensors.
stefan_ 5y ago
Did you watch the video? Clearly the car doesn't care too much for what the vision detects.

The first time I saw it detect pedestrians and cyclists that the human driver hadn't even noticed yet, I realised it is also going to save lives.

by Andys 5y ago

The first time I saw it detect pedestrians and cyclists that the human driver hadn't even noticed yet, I realised it is also going to save lives.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

And the need is there. Tesla's previous CTO, JB Straubel, recently lost his wife to a driver who hit her while she was cycling [1]. Everyone on HN shits on Autopilot (and I'll be the first to admit it has flaws and isn't perfect), but humans are just terrible (tens of thousands of deaths per year, hundreds of thousands to millions of injuries). You don't have to be perfect, just better than humans. The software will improve faster than humans will, as arguably, we've already hit our limit. Software doesn't get tired and it doesn't drive impaired. It makes mistakes, but so do we, and it's mistakes can be improved upon at scale. This is not blind faith in technology or software, but an acceptance of the limited capabilities of your median human (as well as the disadvantaged outliers). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/business/boryana-straubel-dead.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/business/boryana-straubel...

mym1990 5y ago
Humans are no where near the limit to being attentive on the road. When you consider how many people are either distracted or tuned out to their surroundings, there is a ton of room for improvement, and not theoretical improvement, there are clearly some drivers that are consistently able to make correct decisions, whether there is risk or not. This is not to say that software and hardware will not quickly overtake us, but while humans are on the road and in control, improvement will be possible.
- gmadsen 5y ago
  I really don't think he referring to some physiological limit of individuals. It is the aggregate of society, which includes the prevalence of distracted driving.
quenix 5y ago
That story is heart-wrenching. So young!
croes 5y ago
And if me make mistakes we face the consequences, who will be trialed for software errors?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  We don't face the consequences, at least in my experience seeing the justice system play out. Drunken driver? Affluenza? Old person turning in front of a motorcycle killing the rider? You're getting off relatively easy for taking a life or maiming someone. I've followed the cases for each example given, the last being a close friend. The retiree who pulled out, in their 80s, still has their license and lives comfortably in their retirement community and my friend is dead. You are right, the software should absolutely be held to a high standard (otherwise we're socializing losses and privatizing profits, also bad!), but please don't perpetuate a lie that existing drivers are held responsible to the degree they should for their mistakes (or even intentional acts) that cost lives. You'll find examples where someone is made an example of, but that is rare. So disagree, please (checks and balances are important, as is the dialog we're having), but having seen what humans have to offer in this context, I will be the first, on my own time and resources, in front of regulators to argue for aggressive driver assist system development and implementation. Because the alternative is hot garbage we get by with because there are limited alternatives (ie no public transportation most everywhere and the inability to deploy it cost effectively), and we do a disservice to those who die or suffer because we could do better.
lordnacho 5y ago
This is maybe the best reason to allow autodrive. We need to let it learn because it will get better. Whatever we pay now in terms of lives lost is made back in the future, in lives saved. All depends on our faith in the system getting better of course. There's always going to be dissatisfying things surrounding it. Gotta be up front about the state of the art though, can't let people sell a thing like it's the finished item.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I absolutely agree with your entire comment. The system must be taught, but everyone must participate to the best of their ability. Can't mess it up, there are people we haven't even met yet who are counting on us, collectively, to do better.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

Considering the resources spent on Tesla's “self-driving” systems… if you used that money on public transport, how many lives could you (improve and) save by reducing the number of cars on the road? (My guess: you could build a massive amount of public transport on a local scale, but not much on a global scale, so you'd probably only save a several dozen lives and significantly improve a few tens of thousands.) Factoring in that bad drivers start being really negligent when there cars are “self-driving”, I'm not certain this will save more lives than the opportunity cost. But if it's mostly used by good drivers, and bad drivers get off the road, it could be huge.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Public transportation in the US will never replace the automobile. There is simply too much infrastructure to replace and not enough GDP. It's a fine solution for SF, Chicago, and NYC, but not the rest of the country.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Illinois used to have electric rail connecting every podunk town for a nickel. It was called the "interurban" and was scrapped for the war effort in the 1940s. The reason half the towns (that now require cars) even exist is because the train had to stop for fuel and water. Not enough GDP is a pretty sad state of affairs for the richest nation on earth.
  - ac29 5y ago
    The last routes actually closed in 1956 and 1958 - none closed in the 1940s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Terminal_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Terminal_Railroad
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      Thanks for the correction, I must be misremembering a second hand story. I found lots of photos from the 50s trying to find more info https://www.cera-chicago.org/Blog/3315468 https://www.cera-chicago.org/Blog/3315468

spicybright 5y ago

Not with vision based autonomous sensors.

stefan_ 5y ago

Did you watch the video? Clearly the car doesn't care too much for what the vision detects.