9 ms·

If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops, I don't care what concern it stems from. Anything to

If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops, I don't care what concern it stems from. Anything to stop bad companies from sending out half-baked patches is a net good. I don't care if you have to roll back an update on your SaaS site. Sucks, but we'll move on. But continuous integration should stay far away from what amount to missiles that weigh tons and go in excess of 60 miles.

josephcsible 5y ago
> If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops It doesn't do that. Tesla would still be able to push out whatever updates it wants. Drivers would just have to either go to a service center or leave the state to install them.
- whoknew1122 5y ago
  The more structural obstacles there are to pushing out patches, the fewer patches will be pushed out. The company would have an incentive to rigorously test the patches before sending them out. Currently, with OTA patches, you can throw out any patch you want because it's self-serve. But if customers were inconvenienced by having to go to a service center for an update, Tesla would have a larger incentive to get things right the first time. It would damage their brand reputation if a customer had to go to a service center for a patch and then turn around and schedule two more appointments to download bugfix patches.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Ah, the old "make it harder for customers to install safety updates" argument. > The company would have an incentive to rigorously test the patches before sending them out. This doesn't stop traditional automotive companies from releasing buggy software (they have far more recalls per unit time than Tesla), and anyway the issue you noted above wasn't a bug, it was a perfectly safe _optional_ feature that NHTSA didn't like.
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  > Drivers would just have to either go to a service center or leave the state to install them. Tesla service centers are not a "new motor vehicle dealer", you would need to leave the state to install updates > Except for experimental low-volume not-for-retail sale vehicles, cause warranty and recall repair work to be performed by any entity other than a new motor vehicle dealer
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
The part about OTA update being a benefit to all - yes I agree. But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch. Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different. Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way. Computers are different from humans. They drive differently. Insisting they behave the same way, is like insisting drivers have a person on foot proceeding ahead honking a horn and waving a flag (as early localities insisted drivers of the new automobile should have to do) because they might scare the horses.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Your argument may be valid in 30 years when the automated cars have improved, and more importantly, on roads where human driving has been outlawed. Until then, when a semi-automated car comes to a stop sign, they should stop.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    Even if no one is there? I'll send you a horn and flag in the post, for the next drive.
    - cout 5y ago
      Yes, in states where stopping at a stop sign is the norm, come to a stop even when no one is there. This ensures predictability, which is important for both driver and pedestrian safety. If you are in a state like Massachusetts where a rolling stop is the norm, then for the same reason it's best if the car does not come to a complete stop, regardless of whether someone is there, because it makes your vehicle's motion more predictable. Ideally laws in those states should also be adjusted to reflect what people actually do.
      - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
I agree with you. Do we actually own our cars? With my phone I can choose to ignore updates. Anyone who has ever owned a computer knows that an update can make something worse. In fact today I was in a discussion about rolling back a BIOS patch. There should be an easy way to opt out of you're not interested.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The person you're replying to isn't advocating for a way to opt out of updates. He doesn't want you to be allowed to get them even if you do want them. That's just as much not owning your cars as being forced to take updates you don't want is.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
You’re more concerned with Autopilot versus your average human driver? That seems like a terribly uneducated position to take, statistically speaking. Tens of thousands of people are killed annually in auto accidents where 94-96% are caused by human error. Twelve deaths, total (as of this comment), are directly attributable to Autopilot being active. I would suggest you reconsider your approach to risk management, as it seems to be emotion vs data driven. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
- pinephoneguy 5y ago
- bluGill 5y ago
  Autopilot only works in the easiest of driving situations. Human drivers include those on drugs. While I think autopilot type things can be much better than humans, so far the data I've seen doesn't make it possible for me to make a fair judgement on how good/bad it is. In any case the point remains: you cannot just roll out updates to something safety critical like that. You need a lot of careful work to ensure the update is better than the old in all ways, and that nothing can go wrong.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Human drivers include those on drugs. I'm guessing that high drivers account for at most a sliver of incidents, but moreover, I don't see the purpose in comparing autopilot to only the best drivers. If someone who would otherwise drive high uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who would otherwise text while driving uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who is just a worse driver than autopilot uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement?
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Depends on the goals. If you want people to use autopilot then you need to convince them that it is better than good humans. If you only want the high, then compare to them. I already know humans are bad drivers, but autopilot is a big unknown.
throwaway894345 5y ago
> Anything to stop bad companies from sending out half-baked patches is a net good. I know, right? What gives Tesla the right to sell cars that don't pump poison into the atmosphere, or which improve road safety? *shakes fist*
quantified 5y ago
They come out of the factory half-baked, and will get half-baked updates at the dealership. Nothing about the delivery mechanism changes that.

josephcsible 5y ago

> If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops It doesn't do that. Tesla would still be able to push out whatever updates it wants. Drivers would just have to either go to a service center or leave the state to install them.

whoknew1122 5y ago
The more structural obstacles there are to pushing out patches, the fewer patches will be pushed out. The company would have an incentive to rigorously test the patches before sending them out. Currently, with OTA patches, you can throw out any patch you want because it's self-serve. But if customers were inconvenienced by having to go to a service center for an update, Tesla would have a larger incentive to get things right the first time. It would damage their brand reputation if a customer had to go to a service center for a patch and then turn around and schedule two more appointments to download bugfix patches.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Ah, the old "make it harder for customers to install safety updates" argument. > The company would have an incentive to rigorously test the patches before sending them out. This doesn't stop traditional automotive companies from releasing buggy software (they have far more recalls per unit time than Tesla), and anyway the issue you noted above wasn't a bug, it was a perfectly safe _optional_ feature that NHTSA didn't like.
wlesieutre 5y ago
> Drivers would just have to either go to a service center or leave the state to install them. Tesla service centers are not a "new motor vehicle dealer", you would need to leave the state to install updates > Except for experimental low-volume not-for-retail sale vehicles, cause warranty and recall repair work to be performed by any entity other than a new motor vehicle dealer

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

The part about OTA update being a benefit to all - yes I agree. But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch. Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different. Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way. Computers are different from humans. They drive differently. Insisting they behave the same way, is like insisting drivers have a person on foot proceeding ahead honking a horn and waving a flag (as early localities insisted drivers of the new automobile should have to do) because they might scare the horses.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Your argument may be valid in 30 years when the automated cars have improved, and more importantly, on roads where human driving has been outlawed. Until then, when a semi-automated car comes to a stop sign, they should stop.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Even if no one is there? I'll send you a horn and flag in the post, for the next drive.
  - cout 5y ago
    Yes, in states where stopping at a stop sign is the norm, come to a stop even when no one is there. This ensures predictability, which is important for both driver and pedestrian safety. If you are in a state like Massachusetts where a rolling stop is the norm, then for the same reason it's best if the car does not come to a complete stop, regardless of whether someone is there, because it makes your vehicle's motion more predictable. Ideally laws in those states should also be adjusted to reflect what people actually do.
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

I agree with you. Do we actually own our cars? With my phone I can choose to ignore updates. Anyone who has ever owned a computer knows that an update can make something worse. In fact today I was in a discussion about rolling back a BIOS patch. There should be an easy way to opt out of you're not interested.

josephcsible 5y ago
The person you're replying to isn't advocating for a way to opt out of updates. He doesn't want you to be allowed to get them even if you do want them. That's just as much not owning your cars as being forced to take updates you don't want is.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

You’re more concerned with Autopilot versus your average human driver? That seems like a terribly uneducated position to take, statistically speaking. Tens of thousands of people are killed annually in auto accidents where 94-96% are caused by human error. Twelve deaths, total (as of this comment), are directly attributable to Autopilot being active. I would suggest you reconsider your approach to risk management, as it seems to be emotion vs data driven. https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/

pinephoneguy 5y ago
bluGill 5y ago
Autopilot only works in the easiest of driving situations. Human drivers include those on drugs. While I think autopilot type things can be much better than humans, so far the data I've seen doesn't make it possible for me to make a fair judgement on how good/bad it is. In any case the point remains: you cannot just roll out updates to something safety critical like that. You need a lot of careful work to ensure the update is better than the old in all ways, and that nothing can go wrong.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Human drivers include those on drugs. I'm guessing that high drivers account for at most a sliver of incidents, but moreover, I don't see the purpose in comparing autopilot to only the best drivers. If someone who would otherwise drive high uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who would otherwise text while driving uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement? If someone who is just a worse driver than autopilot uses autopilot, isn't that an improvement?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Depends on the goals. If you want people to use autopilot then you need to convince them that it is better than good humans. If you only want the high, then compare to them. I already know humans are bad drivers, but autopilot is a big unknown.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Anything to stop bad companies from sending out half-baked patches is a net good. I know, right? What gives Tesla the right to sell cars that don't pump poison into the atmosphere, or which improve road safety? *shakes fist*

quantified 5y ago

They come out of the factory half-baked, and will get half-baked updates at the dealership. Nothing about the delivery mechanism changes that.