6 ms·

"I'm sorry, but how can you form an opinion so quickly?" It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for t

"I'm sorry, but how can you form an opinion so quickly?" It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for the algorithm to determine that the correct trajectory change is into the stationary object. Humans crash into stationary objects because they're lacking attention almost 100% of the time, whether it's because they're half asleep, drunk, texting, or distracted by just about anything else. Autopilot shouldn't have this issue, so there's no reason for it to fail to recognize the obstacles unless it's been poorly trained, and there's absolutely no reason for it to recognize an obstacle as a valid path or destination.

fallingknife 5y ago
There is absolutely a good reason for adaptove cruise control systems to ignore stationary objects: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-systems-sometimes-hit-parked-cars-and-lane-dividers/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...
- Filligree 5y ago
  Is the “good reason” here that they have insufficient sensors?
- Piskvorrr 5y ago
  Which is...linking a Wikipedia article? Doesn't quite compute.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Was a copy / paste failure. Meant to grab this link: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-systems-sometimes-hit-parked-cars-and-lane-dividers/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...
    - Piskvorrr 5y ago
      If you mean "the software is too stupid to be useful here, so let's ignore a whole class of issues, potentially with lethal consequences; abracadabra, it's SEP now", I agree. OTOH, this stretches the meaning of "good" a little bit. (thanks for the link correction)
- simion314 5y ago
  The reason is "our code is too stupid, because is not an actual intelligence and better sensors are expensive"? This is a bad reason from my point of view. You claim that you have some super duper AI but it can't detect a truck or a wall from a shadow or bag , then your AI is stupid and buy some better sensors and improve your AI.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    > our code is too stupid, because is not an actual intelligence Well you don't ask for much
- fouc 5y ago
  My takeaway from that article was that there's not enough trust in the raw inputs and possibly a missing continuous weighting system of the sensory interpretations. (humans do this naturally, weighing their various sensory interpretations in real-time simultaneously)
lftl 5y ago
I can't find the specific comment now, but on previous autonomous driving discussions here, it's been asserted that Tesla (and many other systems) simply can't reliably detect stationary objects at speed. If the systems actually did a naive, "that looks like a stationary object, I'm going to avoid it" they'd barely be able to move in a highway setting.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  That seems like an enormous caveat to the system overall. Do you know if there is any public justification for going along that route, omitting radar, other sensors, etc.?
- Someone 5y ago
  AFAIK, it can detect them just fine, but it is bad at discriminating those its collision avoidance part should pay attention to from those it shouldn’t pay attention to (e.g. the road surface, traffic signs on the side of or over the road), so they (¿mostly?) chose to ignore all of them.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That just means it lacks the ability to place objects in 3D space and plot a course, which is... sad.
    - cptskippy 5y ago
      Most collision avoidance systems aren't that sophisticated. Radar based systems like those used in Volvo's Pilot Assist suffer from the same inability to discern stationary objects. Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and actually produce a 3D space. The fact that they're still suffering from the same problem as other manufacturers shouldn't be an admonishment of their technology or attempts unless or until it's proven that their approach is fundamentally worse.
abstractbarista 5y ago
Does this happen more often per mile driven than human drivers?
capableweb 5y ago
> It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for the algorithm to determine that the correct trajectory change is into the stationary object. Are you saying it doesn't matter how often it happens? I'd be a lot more worried about things if something happens always compared to it happening in some cases. Sure, stationary objects should be driven into, I agree. But if this only happens 1 time over the course of 10 years, I'd be a lot more lenient than if it happens once per week, no matter if the reason is "good or bad" (not sure what that means?)

fallingknife 5y ago

There is absolutely a good reason for adaptove cruise control systems to ignore stationary objects: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-systems-sometimes-hit-parked-cars-and-lane-dividers/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...

Filligree 5y ago
Is the “good reason” here that they have insufficient sensors?
Piskvorrr 5y ago
Which is...linking a Wikipedia article? Doesn't quite compute.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Was a copy / paste failure. Meant to grab this link: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-systems-sometimes-hit-parked-cars-and-lane-dividers/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/why-emergency-braking-s...
  - Piskvorrr 5y ago
    If you mean "the software is too stupid to be useful here, so let's ignore a whole class of issues, potentially with lethal consequences; abracadabra, it's SEP now", I agree. OTOH, this stretches the meaning of "good" a little bit. (thanks for the link correction)
simion314 5y ago
The reason is "our code is too stupid, because is not an actual intelligence and better sensors are expensive"? This is a bad reason from my point of view. You claim that you have some super duper AI but it can't detect a truck or a wall from a shadow or bag , then your AI is stupid and buy some better sensors and improve your AI.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > our code is too stupid, because is not an actual intelligence Well you don't ask for much
fouc 5y ago
My takeaway from that article was that there's not enough trust in the raw inputs and possibly a missing continuous weighting system of the sensory interpretations. (humans do this naturally, weighing their various sensory interpretations in real-time simultaneously)

lftl 5y ago

I can't find the specific comment now, but on previous autonomous driving discussions here, it's been asserted that Tesla (and many other systems) simply can't reliably detect stationary objects at speed. If the systems actually did a naive, "that looks like a stationary object, I'm going to avoid it" they'd barely be able to move in a highway setting.

MichaelZuo 5y ago
That seems like an enormous caveat to the system overall. Do you know if there is any public justification for going along that route, omitting radar, other sensors, etc.?
Someone 5y ago
AFAIK, it can detect them just fine, but it is bad at discriminating those its collision avoidance part should pay attention to from those it shouldn’t pay attention to (e.g. the road surface, traffic signs on the side of or over the road), so they (¿mostly?) chose to ignore all of them.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That just means it lacks the ability to place objects in 3D space and plot a course, which is... sad.
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    Most collision avoidance systems aren't that sophisticated. Radar based systems like those used in Volvo's Pilot Assist suffer from the same inability to discern stationary objects. Most systems are self contained modules with low power micro-controllers that can emit basic warning and alert data onto the CAN BUS. Tesla's is actually taking the input from it's sensors and attempting to do more in-depth analysis and actually produce a 3D space. The fact that they're still suffering from the same problem as other manufacturers shouldn't be an admonishment of their technology or attempts unless or until it's proven that their approach is fundamentally worse.

abstractbarista 5y ago

Does this happen more often per mile driven than human drivers?

capableweb 5y ago

> It doesn't really matter. They're stationary objects; there's absolutely no reason, good or bad, for the algorithm to determine that the correct trajectory change is into the stationary object. Are you saying it doesn't matter how often it happens? I'd be a lot more worried about things if something happens always compared to it happening in some cases. Sure, stationary objects should be driven into, I agree. But if this only happens 1 time over the course of 10 years, I'd be a lot more lenient than if it happens once per week, no matter if the reason is "good or bad" (not sure what that means?)