6 ms·

This comment is kind of all over the place but I'll try to follow... > You're assuming the human always makes the right decision, which is wrong by constructio

This comment is kind of all over the place but I'll try to follow... > You're assuming the human always makes the right decision, which is wrong by construction in this particular situation as the problem being solved is the fact that drivers mess up. I don't really get what you mean here. "which is wrong by construction in this particular situation as the problem being solved is the fact that drivers mess up." I read that like 5 times now and it doesn't parse. I'm not assuming the human is right. I'm saying if the human would do the wrong thing, the passive systems take over and do the right thing. If the passive systems can't figure out what the right thing is, FSD can't either. They're all using the same source of truth, Tesla isn't shipping an AEB implementation that performs worse than FSD... - > I mean, you're right that if you take a putative autonomy solution and add another redudant sensor system (not even a human) that you'll catch situations the first wouldn't. But if that system is then allowed to demand control, then you open the possibility of mistakes in the "supervisor layer". So you're still limited by the best available quality of one system. But you seem to have gotten the point and just not applied the right direction. Imagine the supervisor layer is FSD. You're still limited by the best available quality of the system... the human. - > Specific example: go watch highway crash videos on youtube for a while. A very common situation is a "late stop" situation on the highway where a car fails to see the one its following stop in time. Most drivers just slam on the brake and hit the car ahead, but a significant fraction swerve instead. And those swerves cause rollovers and jacknifes and all sorts of worse accidents. This is a pretty dense example... you're talking about several different scenarios that each deserve their own points. But to go with just the part you focused on at the end: > And those swerves cause rollovers and jacknifes and all sorts of worse accidents. >So... how does your hypothetical "human driver + passive aids" prevent the driver from incorrectly swerving at high speeds? Passive systems already exist in almost every car on the road to make those swerves safer and rollovers less likely. That's Electronic Stability Control. Thousands of times a second your car is monitoring for the conditions that would cause a rollover. The best cars will actively straighten the car after the swerve to allow the driver full control. It's smart enough to sacrifice responsiveness to give the driver a predictable result. Watch how the car ends up sliding thus "failing", but does so perfectly facing the original direction of travel, almost as if the car was capable of driving sideways. Done with incredibly millisecond precision in the application of the brakes, something no human could ever replicate: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/porsche-has-issued-a-response-about-the-macan-moose-test-failure/ https://www.carthrottle.com/post/porsche-has-issued-a-respon... ESC systems are already designed to work in harmony with AEB: https://www.zf.com/products/en/cars/products_31616.html https://www.zf.com/products/en/cars/products_31616.html So now the ESC system can be designed to operate in a manner that does even better when short stops occur (the "ESC high dynamic" mode is designed for the AEB's sudden application and the resulting driver inputs that will happen after) - Seriously, 99% of the hype about FSD seems to be people who don't realize what how active "passive" systems are when they are activated. That is the key difference, only working when the human is already in full control, so that if the passive system is wrong, the human is already providing the correct input. It's like trying to correct FSD running towards a pole, vs just ignoring an incorrect LKA system that tries to guide you towards the pole. With one you're already headed for a pole. With the other, you were never headed for the pole, the only way you hit it is deciding "yes I would like to hit a pole". Worst case for both is the same, but average case is better when you're ignoring something, vs correcting for a mistake already made.

ajross 5y ago
> I'm saying if the human would do the wrong thing, the passive systems take over and do the right thing. Now you've lost me. I thought you were constructing your argument as "human+machine > machine_only". Which is wrong, but I thought I understood it. Now you seem to have gone in circles. How is a passive system deciding when to "take over" and do the "right thing" any different than a full autonomy solution? What if the passive system has bugs too and does the "wrong thing" instead of the "right thing" (or fails to do the "right thing", etc...) You don't get to assert that your magic system will always be better than "FSD" by taking its perfection as an axiom!
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Your first paragraph makes it clear you don't understand the basic tenets of the matter. You should have stopped replying and learned how the systems in question work, they are not "magic". - FSD is not "machine_only" FSD is a system that supposedly will give way to a "machine_only" solution, but currently is a human+machine system. You literally just watched it in action if you watched the video above. Maybe not realizing this is the crux of your confusion.
  - ajross 5y ago
    I don't understand. I was responding to your point above: > But if the sensor suite would miss a hazard, it's not an issue unless the human does too when it comes to passive aids. That certainly sounds like you're saying that FSD is "machine only", since you're ignoring the ability of the human driver to correct it. If that's not what you meant, maybe you can start over from scratch and explain your point?
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      I'll start by saying the point has been explained across hundreds of words in multiple forms, at some point you might have to accept you need to gain some more background here independently. - Nothing about what you quoted implies FSD is machine only. And I mean it's not even for me to define if FSD is machine only, FSD has never been machine only, that's why it's even allowed to operate as it does on public roads. - Now, my final attempt to break this down in yet another way... A driver using LKA needs to actively be applying the correct input since it only works when the car is already approaching a lane marker. A driver using FSD must be doing the exact opposite. While they must be paying attention and ready to provide input they cannot be actively applying the correct input without causing FSD to disengage. So most they can do is give the systems indications that they are ready for after things are off the happy path. - Both LKA and FSD can fail for inattentive drivers and both can save them, but because of the difference in input, only FSD can harm a driver who was otherwise aware and capable of providing the correct input but not allowed to until things started going wrong lest the feature disable itself.

ajross 5y ago

> I'm saying if the human would do the wrong thing, the passive systems take over and do the right thing. Now you've lost me. I thought you were constructing your argument as "human+machine > machine_only". Which is wrong, but I thought I understood it. Now you seem to have gone in circles. How is a passive system deciding when to "take over" and do the "right thing" any different than a full autonomy solution? What if the passive system has bugs too and does the "wrong thing" instead of the "right thing" (or fails to do the "right thing", etc...) You don't get to assert that your magic system will always be better than "FSD" by taking its perfection as an axiom!

BoorishBears 5y ago
Your first paragraph makes it clear you don't understand the basic tenets of the matter. You should have stopped replying and learned how the systems in question work, they are not "magic". - FSD is not "machine_only" FSD is a system that supposedly will give way to a "machine_only" solution, but currently is a human+machine system. You literally just watched it in action if you watched the video above. Maybe not realizing this is the crux of your confusion.
- ajross 5y ago
  I don't understand. I was responding to your point above: > But if the sensor suite would miss a hazard, it's not an issue unless the human does too when it comes to passive aids. That certainly sounds like you're saying that FSD is "machine only", since you're ignoring the ability of the human driver to correct it. If that's not what you meant, maybe you can start over from scratch and explain your point?
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    I'll start by saying the point has been explained across hundreds of words in multiple forms, at some point you might have to accept you need to gain some more background here independently. - Nothing about what you quoted implies FSD is machine only. And I mean it's not even for me to define if FSD is machine only, FSD has never been machine only, that's why it's even allowed to operate as it does on public roads. - Now, my final attempt to break this down in yet another way... A driver using LKA needs to actively be applying the correct input since it only works when the car is already approaching a lane marker. A driver using FSD must be doing the exact opposite. While they must be paying attention and ready to provide input they cannot be actively applying the correct input without causing FSD to disengage. So most they can do is give the systems indications that they are ready for after things are off the happy path. - Both LKA and FSD can fail for inattentive drivers and both can save them, but because of the difference in input, only FSD can harm a driver who was otherwise aware and capable of providing the correct input but not allowed to until things started going wrong lest the feature disable itself.