6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Well, no. No system that is unable to detect and map out a 3D maps of obstacles and plot a course through it without hitting stationary, well visible objects, is not suited to being used in a self-driving capacity. Whether it's from Tesla or anyone else. If their approach fundamentally means they decided to work around mapping their surroundings in 3D correctly, as the GP suggested, there is a strong reason to admonish.
simion314 5y ago
There are systems that can detect stationary objects, Tesla does not want to use those more reliable systems, so they use the programming methodology of tweaking tweaking the code when a bug appears and hope that was the last one. Sure some AI gurus will claim that humans can detect this objects only with 2 eyes but they forget to mention that behind those 2 eyes is a brain an actual intelligence that is aware of the world and it's place in the world. So if you can't create an actual intelligence then at least put the effort in feeding correct data into your AI and remove the line of code "if static object ignore because too hard to detect if is a truck or a shadow/paper bag/sign"
- amelius 5y ago
  > tweaking the code when a bug appears and hope that was the last one Tesla should also be prohibited from pushing updates. When the software is updated, the code should be tested for at least X thousand miles and X months before a new version may be pushed. Letting an authority do the pushing avoids the temptation of manufacturers to push updates prematurely. It also solves the problem of unexpected changes for the user at random times. If safety issues are detected, the automobile (or at least the autopilot) should be disabled until the code has been fixed and fully tested.
- SerLava 5y ago
  Yeah they want a low unit cost on the camera system, so they are trying to machine learn their way out of the problem. It's not going to work. A self driving system needs to have a 3d understanding of it's environment. It's not acceptable to crash into paintings by Wile E. Coyote.
  - simion314 5y ago
    From what I understand there is also some code that is there to ignore static objects because maybe are signs or bridges and the AI is too stupid. So you have bad sensors with bad code combo.
    - SerLava 5y ago
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
If that's the case, the correct solution is to shut Autopilot and all systems like it down, and charge their developers with reckless endangerment. A autonomous driving system which can't detect stationary obstacles is not an autonomous driving system: It's a murder machine. If they can't do this, they shouldn't operate, full stop.
- madamelic 5y ago
  The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur much like they do now with humans in sole control. There's no reason to kill autonomous driving just because gen 1 - 50 isn't perfect but is an improvement on current driving methodology. Giving a one-line sentence of what happened disregards other variables such as, lighting conditions, where the stationary object was (Over a hill, round a sharp bend, etc.), how much stopping distance was there. A lot of Tesla hate is purposefully done from EV haters & Musk haters. No one can argue that there isn't an establishment who wants to tear down and prevent Tesla & Musk from succeeding. Teslas will catch on fire (like other cars do), Teslas will crash (like other cars do), Auto-pilot will fail (while also being overall an improvement on driving safety). We can't assume the stationary object was 300 feet away on a straightaway in a perfect visibility conditions, we have to judge whether a human would've performed worse and whether the same cases are occurring over and over. 12 crashes over a few months is a pretty tiny fraction when there are probably more than 12 humans crashing into stationary objects every hour.
  - rutthenut 5y ago
    I do not agree with this argument >> The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur >> As that '1 life' saved may be countered by a number of lives lost due to the system that might otherwise have survived.
  - a_square_peg 5y ago
    “The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now” This is not true at all and we have much higher standards than this. This is like saying if a vaccine cures Covid but manages to kill people at a rate slightly less than Covid, we should embrace it.
cptskippy 5y ago
The systems you're referring to are radar based systems. Tesla stopped putting radar in the Model 3/Y in favor of it's vision system. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the 12 incidents and the Tesla Models involved. Were the incidents involving radar/vision blended, or vision only vehicles or both? If the incidents only involved older vehicles that were radar equipped, that would be good PR for the vision only system. If the incidents were in vision only systems, it would be bad. I suspect it'll probably be a little of both.

by lftl 5y ago

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.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Well, no. No system that is unable to detect and map out a 3D maps of obstacles and plot a course through it without hitting stationary, well visible objects, is not suited to being used in a self-driving capacity. Whether it's from Tesla or anyone else. If their approach fundamentally means they decided to work around mapping their surroundings in 3D correctly, as the GP suggested, there is a strong reason to admonish.

simion314 5y ago

There are systems that can detect stationary objects, Tesla does not want to use those more reliable systems, so they use the programming methodology of tweaking tweaking the code when a bug appears and hope that was the last one. Sure some AI gurus will claim that humans can detect this objects only with 2 eyes but they forget to mention that behind those 2 eyes is a brain an actual intelligence that is aware of the world and it's place in the world. So if you can't create an actual intelligence then at least put the effort in feeding correct data into your AI and remove the line of code "if static object ignore because too hard to detect if is a truck or a shadow/paper bag/sign"

amelius 5y ago
> tweaking the code when a bug appears and hope that was the last one Tesla should also be prohibited from pushing updates. When the software is updated, the code should be tested for at least X thousand miles and X months before a new version may be pushed. Letting an authority do the pushing avoids the temptation of manufacturers to push updates prematurely. It also solves the problem of unexpected changes for the user at random times. If safety issues are detected, the automobile (or at least the autopilot) should be disabled until the code has been fixed and fully tested.
SerLava 5y ago
Yeah they want a low unit cost on the camera system, so they are trying to machine learn their way out of the problem. It's not going to work. A self driving system needs to have a 3d understanding of it's environment. It's not acceptable to crash into paintings by Wile E. Coyote.
- simion314 5y ago
  From what I understand there is also some code that is there to ignore static objects because maybe are signs or bridges and the AI is too stupid. So you have bad sensors with bad code combo.
  - SerLava 5y ago

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

If that's the case, the correct solution is to shut Autopilot and all systems like it down, and charge their developers with reckless endangerment. A autonomous driving system which can't detect stationary obstacles is not an autonomous driving system: It's a murder machine. If they can't do this, they shouldn't operate, full stop.

madamelic 5y ago
The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur much like they do now with humans in sole control. There's no reason to kill autonomous driving just because gen 1 - 50 isn't perfect but is an improvement on current driving methodology. Giving a one-line sentence of what happened disregards other variables such as, lighting conditions, where the stationary object was (Over a hill, round a sharp bend, etc.), how much stopping distance was there. A lot of Tesla hate is purposefully done from EV haters & Musk haters. No one can argue that there isn't an establishment who wants to tear down and prevent Tesla & Musk from succeeding. Teslas will catch on fire (like other cars do), Teslas will crash (like other cars do), Auto-pilot will fail (while also being overall an improvement on driving safety). We can't assume the stationary object was 300 feet away on a straightaway in a perfect visibility conditions, we have to judge whether a human would've performed worse and whether the same cases are occurring over and over. 12 crashes over a few months is a pretty tiny fraction when there are probably more than 12 humans crashing into stationary objects every hour.
- rutthenut 5y ago
  I do not agree with this argument >> The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now so we should keep it and accept that crashes will occur >> As that '1 life' saved may be countered by a number of lives lost due to the system that might otherwise have survived.
- a_square_peg 5y ago
  “The horrible truth is that if autonomous driving can save 1+ life, it's better than what we have now” This is not true at all and we have much higher standards than this. This is like saying if a vaccine cures Covid but manages to kill people at a rate slightly less than Covid, we should embrace it.

cptskippy 5y ago

The systems you're referring to are radar based systems. Tesla stopped putting radar in the Model 3/Y in favor of it's vision system. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the 12 incidents and the Tesla Models involved. Were the incidents involving radar/vision blended, or vision only vehicles or both? If the incidents only involved older vehicles that were radar equipped, that would be good PR for the vision only system. If the incidents were in vision only systems, it would be bad. I suspect it'll probably be a little of both.