5 ms·

No, that’s typical software development. Find a bug in circulation, fix and deploy a fix. There are probably hundreds of internal issues that get fixed per norm

No, that’s typical software development. Find a bug in circulation, fix and deploy a fix. There are probably hundreds of internal issues that get fixed per normal protocol, as with any piece of software. Putting out a “recall” or alert for every modification to the code is pointless. What regulators need to do is keep up with the times. They need to have their own safety test suite which manufacturers can test against, and be independently audited

rtlfe 4y ago
> No, that’s typical software development. Software that controls multi-thousand pound machines at 70+mph isn't typical, and typical practices don't necessarily apply.
- codebolt 4y ago
  Yes, those practices absolutely shouldn't apply for self driving cars. Good luck regression testing how a system change impacts the AI handling of every edge case of traffic.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    Waymo does this. Their infrastructure costs would be astronomical though if not attached to a company with its own cloud
    - idealmedtech 4y ago
      It seems like the test suites for these deep learning based models are themselves almost comprehensive knowledge bases from which you could build a more traditional control software.
cool_dude85 4y ago
Sorry, typical software development is for a national regulator to find some illegal feature in your website, and then you disable the feature for specific IP ranges or geofenced areas where the regulator's office is? No, I don't think it is.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Typical software development as practiced by Uber, perhaps
  - lstodd 4y ago
    Yeah, well, just like half of US sites just flatly block Hetzner IPs (where I happen to have a VPN) because GDPR.
Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
> No, that’s typical software development. Cars will never be software, much like pacemakers and ICDs won't ever be software
bdavis__ 4y ago
No, it is not. You sure don't do it in aerospace. Each change is verified, the entire system is validated prior to a release.
- lstodd 4y ago
hedora 4y ago
They've been accused of silently pushing updates to fix specific scenarios in order to gaslight the regulators. Imagine an airbag incorrectly deployed sometimes, and the fix was to use a GPS geofence disable the airbag entirely on the test track, but only on days when the regulator was trying to reproduce spurious airbag deployments, not on crash test days.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  - lupire 4y ago
    Imagine a scenario almost identical to simple mixture of one that was ally proven to have happened and confessed by the CEOs of two corporations (VW and Uber).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Imagine a person that is totally ignorant of the fact that major corporations regularly engage in fraud and is willing to give them all a pass
- cdash 4y ago
  Evidence they are doing anything like this? Or are they fixing the "actual" issue.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Per the article, the regulators are sufficiently concerned that they're blocking all updates to their test vehicles.
- zaptrem 4y ago
  That sounds like a cartoon villain. Here's an actual example: Regulators were concerned after a car on non-FSD Autopilot (AKA Auto-Steer + Traffic Aware Cruise Control) hit an emergency vehicle parked half way in the right lane of a highway due to driver inattention. Tesla quickly pushed an update that uses ML to detect emergency lights and slow to a stop until the driver pushes on the accelerator to indicate it is clear to go. That's not cheating, that's life-saving technology. No other steer assist technology gets (or sometimes is even capable of getting) updates that fast.
pyrale 4y ago
> They need to have their own safety test suite which manufacturers can test against Coaxing regulators into producing a test that can be optimized for is exactly how we got the WW scandal. > What regulators need to do is keep up with the times. Keeping up with the times sounds awfully like allowing insane things because some whiz kid believes there's no difference between a car and a website.
vkou 4y ago
> No, that’s typical software development. It's not typical software development in life-critical systems. If you think it is, you should not be working on life-critical systems.
- kmonsen 4y ago
  Narrator: (s)he doesn’t
- cdash 4y ago
  Releasing software updates in normal is life-critical systems. Can't believe you are arguing differently.
anonymousiam 4y ago
It's typical software development when there's nothing at stake (such as human life). When human life is at stake, the controls on software reviews/changes/updates SHOULD be much tighter, but as there's no governing body to require this, it's on the developers themselves to do it right. Tesla is an example of a company that does not employ those controls in mission/life critical software.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> typical software development. So if a pharmacy swindles you out of your money or gives you fake drugs, I should reply 'that's just typical drug dealer'
deelowe 4y ago
It’s not typical for safety critical systems. A car isn’t a Web 3.0 app and shouldn’t be updated in the same way.

rtlfe 4y ago

> No, that’s typical software development. Software that controls multi-thousand pound machines at 70+mph isn't typical, and typical practices don't necessarily apply.

codebolt 4y ago
Yes, those practices absolutely shouldn't apply for self driving cars. Good luck regression testing how a system change impacts the AI handling of every edge case of traffic.
- sidibe 4y ago
  Waymo does this. Their infrastructure costs would be astronomical though if not attached to a company with its own cloud
  - idealmedtech 4y ago
    It seems like the test suites for these deep learning based models are themselves almost comprehensive knowledge bases from which you could build a more traditional control software.

cool_dude85 4y ago

Sorry, typical software development is for a national regulator to find some illegal feature in your website, and then you disable the feature for specific IP ranges or geofenced areas where the regulator's office is? No, I don't think it is.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Typical software development as practiced by Uber, perhaps
- lstodd 4y ago
  Yeah, well, just like half of US sites just flatly block Hetzner IPs (where I happen to have a VPN) because GDPR.

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

> No, that’s typical software development. Cars will never be software, much like pacemakers and ICDs won't ever be software

bdavis__ 4y ago

No, it is not. You sure don't do it in aerospace. Each change is verified, the entire system is validated prior to a release.

lstodd 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

They've been accused of silently pushing updates to fix specific scenarios in order to gaslight the regulators. Imagine an airbag incorrectly deployed sometimes, and the fix was to use a GPS geofence disable the airbag entirely on the test track, but only on days when the regulator was trying to reproduce spurious airbag deployments, not on crash test days.

mechanical_bear 4y ago
- lupire 4y ago
  Imagine a scenario almost identical to simple mixture of one that was ally proven to have happened and confessed by the CEOs of two corporations (VW and Uber).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Imagine a person that is totally ignorant of the fact that major corporations regularly engage in fraud and is willing to give them all a pass
cdash 4y ago
Evidence they are doing anything like this? Or are they fixing the "actual" issue.
- hedora 4y ago
  Per the article, the regulators are sufficiently concerned that they're blocking all updates to their test vehicles.
zaptrem 4y ago
That sounds like a cartoon villain. Here's an actual example: Regulators were concerned after a car on non-FSD Autopilot (AKA Auto-Steer + Traffic Aware Cruise Control) hit an emergency vehicle parked half way in the right lane of a highway due to driver inattention. Tesla quickly pushed an update that uses ML to detect emergency lights and slow to a stop until the driver pushes on the accelerator to indicate it is clear to go. That's not cheating, that's life-saving technology. No other steer assist technology gets (or sometimes is even capable of getting) updates that fast.

pyrale 4y ago

> They need to have their own safety test suite which manufacturers can test against Coaxing regulators into producing a test that can be optimized for is exactly how we got the WW scandal. > What regulators need to do is keep up with the times. Keeping up with the times sounds awfully like allowing insane things because some whiz kid believes there's no difference between a car and a website.

vkou 4y ago

> No, that’s typical software development. It's not typical software development in life-critical systems. If you think it is, you should not be working on life-critical systems.

kmonsen 4y ago
Narrator: (s)he doesn’t
cdash 4y ago
Releasing software updates in normal is life-critical systems. Can't believe you are arguing differently.

anonymousiam 4y ago

It's typical software development when there's nothing at stake (such as human life). When human life is at stake, the controls on software reviews/changes/updates SHOULD be much tighter, but as there's no governing body to require this, it's on the developers themselves to do it right. Tesla is an example of a company that does not employ those controls in mission/life critical software.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> typical software development. So if a pharmacy swindles you out of your money or gives you fake drugs, I should reply 'that's just typical drug dealer'

deelowe 4y ago

It’s not typical for safety critical systems. A car isn’t a Web 3.0 app and shouldn’t be updated in the same way.