3 ms·

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

by 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.

by PKop 4y ago

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.