3 ms·

I think what they did was the same as Waze. It warns against playing while driving and asks you to confirm that you’re the passenger. In other words, the softwa

by leobg 5y ago

I think what they did was the same as Waze. It warns against playing while driving and asks you to confirm that you’re the passenger. In other words, the software treats you as an adult. Someone who lease correct me if that is not how it was implemented. I’ve never tried to play a game while driving, for obvious reasons. If we need software to kindergarten us against endangering ourselves and others, we have much bigger problems as a society. Out of the same philosophy, Tesla allows you to set Autopilot speed slightly above the applicable speed limit. You can cry out that that’s illegal. But then again, try to drive exactly the speed limit in real world situations. You might actually be creating more dangerous situations than you avoid. Hence Tesla treats you as the driver. It’s your ship, and you are the captain. The tech is just there to assist you.

happytoexplain 5y ago
>If we need X to kindergarten us against endangering ourselves and others This sentence is confusing to me - at the risk of sounding curt, we obviously do need to protect people from idiots. Given a game to play while driving, some people will. The more convenient and present it is, the more people will do it. I'm not sure how one could formulate an argument that these people don't exist. The key here is of course that they endanger others - if it were just themselves, the conversation would be much more subjective.
- leobg 5y ago
  True. But they might as well drink and drive. Or text on their phone. Cars are dangerous weapons. But we trust the public to use them. I have no interest in playing video games while driving. But I do appreciate Tesla for treating owners as adults. That is to say, I think I can see where they’re coming from. They don’t want people to get into accidents because they’re playing a video game while driving. But they also don’t want to be their customers’ nanny. I like that. To me, that’s a very human touch. Especially for a tech company. Perhaps I also resent the implicit attempt at shifting the responsibility. If someone crashes into my car because they’re playing a video game I’m gonna sue them. Not Tesla. It’s the driver who made the choice. To say “But Tesla put the screen in front of him. They enabled it”, to me, is to say that people are just automaton consumers, reacting to cues in their environment like some dog to clicker training.
justapassenger 5y ago
You really don’t see a difference between manufacturer installed and advertised feature, on a main screen in the car, that also contains legally mandated functions like speedometer VS 3rd party app on a 3rd party accessory? Especially if that feature comes from a company that’s known to overhype their self driving abilities? Comparing that to kindergarten from software is like complaining that when you build new house you need to put right electrical cables in the wall. And that just a sticker on the outlet that says “use only for table lamb with 1 led light” should be enough.
- leobg 5y ago
  Sure. I totally get how this looks, given the headlines. But it makes no sense to me. Tesla has no financial reason to allow drivers to trick the car into loading a game by falsely clicking the “Passenger” button. On the contrary. If a customer does this and crashes the car while playing a game, it would cause a lot of bad press for Tesla. Locking games would be the easier path for Tesla. Limiting Autopilot speed to the exact speed limit of the road would also be the easier path for Tesla. Heck, not publicly striving for FSD and getting “egg on their face” when it takes longer than expected would be the easier path for Tesla. Why are they not doing the easier thing?
vanusa 5y ago
The problem isn't that the software is overprotective. But that these companies specifically (fraudulently) market these assisted driving capabilities as providing more safety / autonomy than they actually do. By giving these features names like "Autopilot" when it's just L2 for example. It isn't the drivers, but rather the companies that need to be "kindergartened". Or in my view simply shut down by this point.
- leobg 5y ago
  I don’t see anything fraudulent. Self driving is hard. Nobody has ever done it. It’s akin to the first moon landing. You can’t fault the people trying to get there for missing deadlines. When I build an app, I always underestimate how long it’s going to take. I get to some local maximum and think “one more week and I’ll be there”. Then I discover that, to get from 80% perfect to 90% perfect, I need to backtrack and try a completely different angle. I own a Tesla. I paid for Autopilot. I love what it can do today. And I know that even Elon cannot predict when we can take off that steering wheel. I also know that their Autopilot team is pushing the envelope. Look up Andrej Karpathy on GitHub. Do you really think that guy is driven by money? That he has even the faintest I interest in participating in some marketing scheme? These people are geeks. They know they are right. They are wrestling not public opinion. They got no time for that. They are wrestling Nature. That is to say, physics, AI, and the bandwidth of human-computer-interaction. I also haven’t heard of anyone who bought a Tesla because they believed the car could do more than it actually can. Buyers today are extremely well informed. They watch all the YouTube reviews. That story that Tesla over promises features in order to sell more cars makes for great headlines. But to believe such headlines is to miss the real reasons why people buy Teslas.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Look up Andrej Karpathy on GitHub I'm not worried about Karpathy, but rather Musk, whose public conduct is positively unhinged. And I know that even Elon cannot predict when we can take off that steering wheel. Which must be why he said that autonomous driving was "basically a solved problem" back in 2016. Less than a month after that Model S plowed into an oncoming truck, which Autopilot thought was a stretch of bright sky -- killing its driver. They know they are right. This being the very worst kind of hubris - which has always led to outcomes far more foolish and destructive than the simple lust for money. They are wrestling Nature. And as we have seen, regulations (what you seem to refer to as "public opinion"). And per the article below, with the advice of his own engineers, as well. From: https://archive.fo/psSYR https://archive.fo/psSYR : As the guiding force behind Autopilot, Mr. Musk pushed it in directions other automakers were unwilling to take this kind of technology, interviews with 19 people who worked on the project over the last decade show. Mr. Musk repeatedly misled buyers about the services’ abilities, many of those people say. All spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from Mr. Musk and Tesla. For years, Mr. Musk has said Tesla cars were on the verge of complete autonomy. “The basic news is that all Tesla vehicles leaving the factory have all the hardware necessary for Level 5 autonomy,” he declared in 2016. The statement surprised and concerned some working on the project, since the Society of Automotive Engineers defines Level 5 as full driving automation. More recently, he has said that new software — currently part of a beta test by a limited number of Tesla owners who have bought the F.S.D. package — will allow cars to drive themselves on city streets as well as highways. But as with Autopilot, Tesla documentation says drivers must keep their hands on the wheel, ready to take control of the car at any time. Regulators have warned that Tesla and Mr. Musk have exaggerated the sophistication of Autopilot, encouraging some people to misuse it. “Where I get concerned is the language that’s used to describe the capabilities of the vehicle,” said Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, which has investigated accidents involving Autopilot and criticized the system’s design. “It can be very dangerous.”

by leobg 5y ago

happytoexplain 5y ago

>If we need X to kindergarten us against endangering ourselves and others This sentence is confusing to me - at the risk of sounding curt, we obviously do need to protect people from idiots. Given a game to play while driving, some people will. The more convenient and present it is, the more people will do it. I'm not sure how one could formulate an argument that these people don't exist. The key here is of course that they endanger others - if it were just themselves, the conversation would be much more subjective.

leobg 5y ago
True. But they might as well drink and drive. Or text on their phone. Cars are dangerous weapons. But we trust the public to use them. I have no interest in playing video games while driving. But I do appreciate Tesla for treating owners as adults. That is to say, I think I can see where they’re coming from. They don’t want people to get into accidents because they’re playing a video game while driving. But they also don’t want to be their customers’ nanny. I like that. To me, that’s a very human touch. Especially for a tech company. Perhaps I also resent the implicit attempt at shifting the responsibility. If someone crashes into my car because they’re playing a video game I’m gonna sue them. Not Tesla. It’s the driver who made the choice. To say “But Tesla put the screen in front of him. They enabled it”, to me, is to say that people are just automaton consumers, reacting to cues in their environment like some dog to clicker training.

justapassenger 5y ago

You really don’t see a difference between manufacturer installed and advertised feature, on a main screen in the car, that also contains legally mandated functions like speedometer VS 3rd party app on a 3rd party accessory? Especially if that feature comes from a company that’s known to overhype their self driving abilities? Comparing that to kindergarten from software is like complaining that when you build new house you need to put right electrical cables in the wall. And that just a sticker on the outlet that says “use only for table lamb with 1 led light” should be enough.

leobg 5y ago
Sure. I totally get how this looks, given the headlines. But it makes no sense to me. Tesla has no financial reason to allow drivers to trick the car into loading a game by falsely clicking the “Passenger” button. On the contrary. If a customer does this and crashes the car while playing a game, it would cause a lot of bad press for Tesla. Locking games would be the easier path for Tesla. Limiting Autopilot speed to the exact speed limit of the road would also be the easier path for Tesla. Heck, not publicly striving for FSD and getting “egg on their face” when it takes longer than expected would be the easier path for Tesla. Why are they not doing the easier thing?

vanusa 5y ago

The problem isn't that the software is overprotective. But that these companies specifically (fraudulently) market these assisted driving capabilities as providing more safety / autonomy than they actually do. By giving these features names like "Autopilot" when it's just L2 for example. It isn't the drivers, but rather the companies that need to be "kindergartened". Or in my view simply shut down by this point.

leobg 5y ago
I don’t see anything fraudulent. Self driving is hard. Nobody has ever done it. It’s akin to the first moon landing. You can’t fault the people trying to get there for missing deadlines. When I build an app, I always underestimate how long it’s going to take. I get to some local maximum and think “one more week and I’ll be there”. Then I discover that, to get from 80% perfect to 90% perfect, I need to backtrack and try a completely different angle. I own a Tesla. I paid for Autopilot. I love what it can do today. And I know that even Elon cannot predict when we can take off that steering wheel. I also know that their Autopilot team is pushing the envelope. Look up Andrej Karpathy on GitHub. Do you really think that guy is driven by money? That he has even the faintest I interest in participating in some marketing scheme? These people are geeks. They know they are right. They are wrestling not public opinion. They got no time for that. They are wrestling Nature. That is to say, physics, AI, and the bandwidth of human-computer-interaction. I also haven’t heard of anyone who bought a Tesla because they believed the car could do more than it actually can. Buyers today are extremely well informed. They watch all the YouTube reviews. That story that Tesla over promises features in order to sell more cars makes for great headlines. But to believe such headlines is to miss the real reasons why people buy Teslas.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Look up Andrej Karpathy on GitHub I'm not worried about Karpathy, but rather Musk, whose public conduct is positively unhinged. And I know that even Elon cannot predict when we can take off that steering wheel. Which must be why he said that autonomous driving was "basically a solved problem" back in 2016. Less than a month after that Model S plowed into an oncoming truck, which Autopilot thought was a stretch of bright sky -- killing its driver. They know they are right. This being the very worst kind of hubris - which has always led to outcomes far more foolish and destructive than the simple lust for money. They are wrestling Nature. And as we have seen, regulations (what you seem to refer to as "public opinion"). And per the article below, with the advice of his own engineers, as well. From: https://archive.fo/psSYR https://archive.fo/psSYR : As the guiding force behind Autopilot, Mr. Musk pushed it in directions other automakers were unwilling to take this kind of technology, interviews with 19 people who worked on the project over the last decade show. Mr. Musk repeatedly misled buyers about the services’ abilities, many of those people say. All spoke on the condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from Mr. Musk and Tesla. For years, Mr. Musk has said Tesla cars were on the verge of complete autonomy. “The basic news is that all Tesla vehicles leaving the factory have all the hardware necessary for Level 5 autonomy,” he declared in 2016. The statement surprised and concerned some working on the project, since the Society of Automotive Engineers defines Level 5 as full driving automation. More recently, he has said that new software — currently part of a beta test by a limited number of Tesla owners who have bought the F.S.D. package — will allow cars to drive themselves on city streets as well as highways. But as with Autopilot, Tesla documentation says drivers must keep their hands on the wheel, ready to take control of the car at any time. Regulators have warned that Tesla and Mr. Musk have exaggerated the sophistication of Autopilot, encouraging some people to misuse it. “Where I get concerned is the language that’s used to describe the capabilities of the vehicle,” said Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, which has investigated accidents involving Autopilot and criticized the system’s design. “It can be very dangerous.”