4 ms·

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get kille

by PKop 4y ago

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get killed on the roads due to this stupidity.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Manuel_D 4y ago
There's only so much a company can do to protect against user error. People stick their fingers down a running drain garbage disposal. People will look down the barrel of a loaded gun and pull the trigger. The question is not "has anyone hurt themselves?", the question is "does the product have reasonable safety precautions?"
- kaba0 4y ago
  For a start, call it what it is: fancy lane assist. That will remove any blame on the company side, but as it stands now it is a deliberate malicious marketing on tesla’s part.
- PKop 4y ago
  Themselves? This is about their cars being a threat to everyone around them. >so much a company can do Yes, therefore the product should not be legal if these error's can't be minimized or the magnitude of the consequences are disastrous (random unpredictable crashing etc). "Errors" are not all created equal. Some are catastrophic and occur at random.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    If I turned on cruise control in my previous car and took a nap it'd happily drive me into the rear end of the car in front of me, or off the road. Where's the outrage over cruise control? And again, I'm highly confident that plenty of people do get in collisions while they're neglectfully driving on cruise control, but those incidents don't catch headlines. Tesla does have safeguards to prevent people from dozing off on autopilot: there's sensors on the steering wheel, and apparently some models have front facing cameras. Some people put weights on the steering wheels, but at that point people are taking deliberate efforts to bypass safeguards. If someone jams a shim in their microwave latch, they can turn it on while the door is open and fry themselves. That's comparable to putting weights on Tesla's steering wheel.
    - PKop 4y ago
      Does cruise control require the same, more, or less focused attention from the driver than whatever it is these new features require (or will require)? What are these features for, if they require 100% attention from the driver to monitor? At that point, why not just drive the car? Is there a goal for these features to take incrementally more and more proportion of the responsibility away from the driver, such that the driver can incrementally devote less attention to monitoring? We all know the answers to these questions. We know what the goal is here. But the problem is, human's cannot sort of, kind of, partially pay attention to the road and the car. And any feature that propagandizes them that it will take care of incrementally more of the driving responsibility will result in less (rounded to none) attention devoted to by the driver. It's a binary proposition beyond some threshold as mutli-tasking is a myth. Do you see the problem? As the features appear to be working better and better, the more people will devote less attention to the road even in some bounded range of their drive but this is all it takes for catastrophic errors (that will and are happening because of the nature of failure modes of AI) to occur. And these errors are qualitatively different than the ones humans make. At any given point in time the care can and will just do something completely stupid and dangerous. Swerve into a median, crash into an emergency vehicle, turn sharply into a car in another lane. There's documented occurrences of all of this. When these random catastrophic errors occur, the human will be on the margin paying less attention to the situation than if it was simple cruise control or normal driving.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Adaptive cruise control definitely requires less attention than traditional cruise control. Where's the alarm when a car equipped with adaptive cruise control gets in a collision? Same deal with lane assist. And autopilot is basically just adaptive cruise control with lane assist. Over the last 6 years, there's been 16 collisions, one of them fatal. How many of those accidents would have still happened if people were using adaptive cruise control instead of Autopilot? How many were averted because autopilot is more sophisticated than traditional cruise control. Jumping straight to the conclusion that all of these collisions were due to autopilot, and not considering the fact that it might have been the same or even better than the status quo is naive.
ActorNightly 4y ago
Regulated by whom..... the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works, and are only interested in getting reelected? Its funny how people rightfully criticize the government and laugh at videos of senator grilling the CEOs of Facebook or Google with stupid questions, but then as soon as a company does something that they don't like, they somehow expect those people to get their shit together and sensibly regulate something as nuanced as autopilot? For technology to get better, it needs to be stress tested - in this case that means accidents and people dying. Which is pretty much on par with development of car technology since its origin. The warnings on autopilot are there. If you don't want to take the risk, don't use it.
- salawat 4y ago
  Stress testing is done in lab conditions damnit. You don't buckle people in and yeet them against the wall that is your optimism! Half the bloody challenge of testing is setting up the conditions for actually getting meaningful data!
- PKop 4y ago
  >the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works This won't be a problem when the regulation equates to: "get these death traps off the road, now". Or, "disable your not-intelligent pseudo-self driving now". I'm not talking about working on the technology, I'm saying if it doesn't work get it off the market.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > in this case that means accidents and people dying. It is an absolutely ridiculous view. I really don’t want a shitty company be able to freely test on the streets their shitty technology that can cause the death of innocents. Are you seriously saying that they are free to increase their profits over the lives of people? On what basis is that ethical or moral? Especially when we talk about a company that jumped into an arguably technically inferior solution by having an incentive to develop their “self-driving” based on visual input only. Their competitors at least take it seriously enough and realize that just because humans can manage with a vision-only system (though a goddamn moving one, not static), lidar and other sensors are required on cars, because ML is nowhere near the capacity of even a worm’s brain, let alone what a human has.

by PKop 4y ago

It's both, and unless you have a solution to eliminating stupid people, then the tech needs to be regulated out of the market so innocent people don't get killed on the roads due to this stupidity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Manuel_D 4y ago

There's only so much a company can do to protect against user error. People stick their fingers down a running drain garbage disposal. People will look down the barrel of a loaded gun and pull the trigger. The question is not "has anyone hurt themselves?", the question is "does the product have reasonable safety precautions?"

kaba0 4y ago
For a start, call it what it is: fancy lane assist. That will remove any blame on the company side, but as it stands now it is a deliberate malicious marketing on tesla’s part.
PKop 4y ago
Themselves? This is about their cars being a threat to everyone around them. >so much a company can do Yes, therefore the product should not be legal if these error's can't be minimized or the magnitude of the consequences are disastrous (random unpredictable crashing etc). "Errors" are not all created equal. Some are catastrophic and occur at random.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  If I turned on cruise control in my previous car and took a nap it'd happily drive me into the rear end of the car in front of me, or off the road. Where's the outrage over cruise control? And again, I'm highly confident that plenty of people do get in collisions while they're neglectfully driving on cruise control, but those incidents don't catch headlines. Tesla does have safeguards to prevent people from dozing off on autopilot: there's sensors on the steering wheel, and apparently some models have front facing cameras. Some people put weights on the steering wheels, but at that point people are taking deliberate efforts to bypass safeguards. If someone jams a shim in their microwave latch, they can turn it on while the door is open and fry themselves. That's comparable to putting weights on Tesla's steering wheel.
  - PKop 4y ago
    Does cruise control require the same, more, or less focused attention from the driver than whatever it is these new features require (or will require)? What are these features for, if they require 100% attention from the driver to monitor? At that point, why not just drive the car? Is there a goal for these features to take incrementally more and more proportion of the responsibility away from the driver, such that the driver can incrementally devote less attention to monitoring? We all know the answers to these questions. We know what the goal is here. But the problem is, human's cannot sort of, kind of, partially pay attention to the road and the car. And any feature that propagandizes them that it will take care of incrementally more of the driving responsibility will result in less (rounded to none) attention devoted to by the driver. It's a binary proposition beyond some threshold as mutli-tasking is a myth. Do you see the problem? As the features appear to be working better and better, the more people will devote less attention to the road even in some bounded range of their drive but this is all it takes for catastrophic errors (that will and are happening because of the nature of failure modes of AI) to occur. And these errors are qualitatively different than the ones humans make. At any given point in time the care can and will just do something completely stupid and dangerous. Swerve into a median, crash into an emergency vehicle, turn sharply into a car in another lane. There's documented occurrences of all of this. When these random catastrophic errors occur, the human will be on the margin paying less attention to the situation than if it was simple cruise control or normal driving.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Adaptive cruise control definitely requires less attention than traditional cruise control. Where's the alarm when a car equipped with adaptive cruise control gets in a collision? Same deal with lane assist. And autopilot is basically just adaptive cruise control with lane assist. Over the last 6 years, there's been 16 collisions, one of them fatal. How many of those accidents would have still happened if people were using adaptive cruise control instead of Autopilot? How many were averted because autopilot is more sophisticated than traditional cruise control. Jumping straight to the conclusion that all of these collisions were due to autopilot, and not considering the fact that it might have been the same or even better than the status quo is naive.

ActorNightly 4y ago

Regulated by whom..... the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works, and are only interested in getting reelected? Its funny how people rightfully criticize the government and laugh at videos of senator grilling the CEOs of Facebook or Google with stupid questions, but then as soon as a company does something that they don't like, they somehow expect those people to get their shit together and sensibly regulate something as nuanced as autopilot? For technology to get better, it needs to be stress tested - in this case that means accidents and people dying. Which is pretty much on par with development of car technology since its origin. The warnings on autopilot are there. If you don't want to take the risk, don't use it.

salawat 4y ago
Stress testing is done in lab conditions damnit. You don't buckle people in and yeet them against the wall that is your optimism! Half the bloody challenge of testing is setting up the conditions for actually getting meaningful data!
PKop 4y ago
>the people who have absolutely zero clue about how even the basic technology works This won't be a problem when the regulation equates to: "get these death traps off the road, now". Or, "disable your not-intelligent pseudo-self driving now". I'm not talking about working on the technology, I'm saying if it doesn't work get it off the market.
kaba0 4y ago
> in this case that means accidents and people dying. It is an absolutely ridiculous view. I really don’t want a shitty company be able to freely test on the streets their shitty technology that can cause the death of innocents. Are you seriously saying that they are free to increase their profits over the lives of people? On what basis is that ethical or moral? Especially when we talk about a company that jumped into an arguably technically inferior solution by having an incentive to develop their “self-driving” based on visual input only. Their competitors at least take it seriously enough and realize that just because humans can manage with a vision-only system (though a goddamn moving one, not static), lidar and other sensors are required on cars, because ML is nowhere near the capacity of even a worm’s brain, let alone what a human has.