5 ms·

Watch This Giant Teddy Bear “Drive” a Tesla (Into Child Mannequins)

3 points by Veserv 3y ago

Veserv 3y ago
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMoLmQgxTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMoLmQgxTw Similar test in 4K: https://vimeo.com/851340215/cb9acd120b?share=copy https://vimeo.com/851340215/cb9acd120b?share=copy Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are only safe while operated by an attentive driver. Unfortunately, research shows that ADAS can not be used without inducing driver complacency. To combat this, driver monitoring systems (DMS) are used to detect inattention and loudly return control back to the user to prevent unsafe operation. The tests show that in the presence of constant wheel torque used to simulate hands on the wheel (via a weight attached to the wheel), Tesla’s facial DMS is unable to determine that a giant teddy bear is not an attentive driver. In the other video linked, it similarly shows that it can not detect an individual texting while wearing sunglasses amongst other similarly common scenarios. The inability to handle the case of “hands on wheel, teddy bear” which is a softball test compared to “hands on wheel, inattentive driver” proves a gross systemic deficiency in Tesla’s approach to safety-critical system design. The inability to handle or even consider trivial cases, common cases such as sunglasses, and their policy of default-allow for unsafe practices are a staggering example of safety engineering incompetence and malfeasance.
- daly 3y ago
  Incompetence and Malfeasance... You clearly believe you know of more effective safety engineering methods. Please enlighten us. I've only used cruise control on my non-electric car. The first thing I noticed is that I no longer needed to check my speed, leaving me more free time to look out the window. As I understand it the ADAS systems not only provide cruise control, they provide lane-keeping and distance-keeping. That will likely reduce the number of drunk driving, text driving, and sleepy driver accidents. Any system can be fooled. I could continue to use my cruise control, set at 70, to take a 15mph exit ramp.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    A giant teddy bear is not some sort of 5D trick. It is a trivial case that every DMS designed with even the minimum of care should handle. This is a safety-critical system. Avoidable deaths occur when it is designed inappropriately. There have already been 38 deaths using the Tesla ADAS; the majority of which occurred because drivers are lulled into complacency and become chronically inattentive doing actions such as watching a video. A proper DMS could have avoided these deaths caused by ADAS induced complacency. It is completely unacceptable that 5 years after killing a driver watching a video in the drivers seat that it still fails to detect such misuse that is documented to occur and which is easily solved. A proper DMS should only allow ADAS operation with a positively identified attentive driver. It must fail-safe. Such a system would trivially reject a teddy bear in the seat regardless of constant torque on the wheel meant to minimally simulate a driver holding the wheel. An inattentive driver holding the wheel is a strictly harder problem in both facial and wheel detection. This is not a “trick” or a “bypass”, this is a T-ball and Tesla struck out. Any properly designed solution must demonstrate the ability to solve all trivial problems to support the conclusion that all harder problems have been solved robustly. You would not trust a person to do calculus if they can not add. You should not trust a DMS if it can not reject a absent driver even if it sometimes works in harder cases. The lack of awareness needed to fail or not even attempt to solve trivial cases demonstrates systemic incompetence. [1] https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
    - daly 3y ago
      Your claim is that Tesla's failures are due to incompetence and malfeasance. To judge incompetence you need to be able to show what competent behavior is. Please be specific and clearly show what will, and HOW to, achieve competent behavior in an ADAS system. Tesla's approach to that problem is that the human is always responsible. It says so "right on the can". Write your "competent" code as open source and post it for all to use. As for malfeasance, you need to show mens rea, the intention of wrongdoing, aka a "guilty mind". Please provide specific information you have that anyone at Tesla intended to cause harm. Name names. Be aware that falsely claiming malfeasance by an individual might be legally actionable defamation. Safety critical systems fail. Nuke plants melt down, commercial and military aircraft crash, ... ADAS saves lives, more lives statistically than average but not all lives. You want perfection. You can't have it. It seems wrong to cast aspersions on people at Tesla without showing how "you would do it right". Be sure to include a github link in your next reply so I can download and test your coded solution.

3 points by Veserv 3y ago

Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMoLmQgxTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMoLmQgxTw Similar test in 4K: https://vimeo.com/851340215/cb9acd120b?share=copy https://vimeo.com/851340215/cb9acd120b?share=copy Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are only safe while operated by an attentive driver. Unfortunately, research shows that ADAS can not be used without inducing driver complacency. To combat this, driver monitoring systems (DMS) are used to detect inattention and loudly return control back to the user to prevent unsafe operation. The tests show that in the presence of constant wheel torque used to simulate hands on the wheel (via a weight attached to the wheel), Tesla’s facial DMS is unable to determine that a giant teddy bear is not an attentive driver. In the other video linked, it similarly shows that it can not detect an individual texting while wearing sunglasses amongst other similarly common scenarios. The inability to handle the case of “hands on wheel, teddy bear” which is a softball test compared to “hands on wheel, inattentive driver” proves a gross systemic deficiency in Tesla’s approach to safety-critical system design. The inability to handle or even consider trivial cases, common cases such as sunglasses, and their policy of default-allow for unsafe practices are a staggering example of safety engineering incompetence and malfeasance.

daly 3y ago
Incompetence and Malfeasance... You clearly believe you know of more effective safety engineering methods. Please enlighten us. I've only used cruise control on my non-electric car. The first thing I noticed is that I no longer needed to check my speed, leaving me more free time to look out the window. As I understand it the ADAS systems not only provide cruise control, they provide lane-keeping and distance-keeping. That will likely reduce the number of drunk driving, text driving, and sleepy driver accidents. Any system can be fooled. I could continue to use my cruise control, set at 70, to take a 15mph exit ramp.
- Veserv 3y ago
  A giant teddy bear is not some sort of 5D trick. It is a trivial case that every DMS designed with even the minimum of care should handle. This is a safety-critical system. Avoidable deaths occur when it is designed inappropriately. There have already been 38 deaths using the Tesla ADAS; the majority of which occurred because drivers are lulled into complacency and become chronically inattentive doing actions such as watching a video. A proper DMS could have avoided these deaths caused by ADAS induced complacency. It is completely unacceptable that 5 years after killing a driver watching a video in the drivers seat that it still fails to detect such misuse that is documented to occur and which is easily solved. A proper DMS should only allow ADAS operation with a positively identified attentive driver. It must fail-safe. Such a system would trivially reject a teddy bear in the seat regardless of constant torque on the wheel meant to minimally simulate a driver holding the wheel. An inattentive driver holding the wheel is a strictly harder problem in both facial and wheel detection. This is not a “trick” or a “bypass”, this is a T-ball and Tesla struck out. Any properly designed solution must demonstrate the ability to solve all trivial problems to support the conclusion that all harder problems have been solved robustly. You would not trust a person to do calculus if they can not add. You should not trust a DMS if it can not reject a absent driver even if it sometimes works in harder cases. The lack of awareness needed to fail or not even attempt to solve trivial cases demonstrates systemic incompetence. [1] https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/
  - daly 3y ago
    Your claim is that Tesla's failures are due to incompetence and malfeasance. To judge incompetence you need to be able to show what competent behavior is. Please be specific and clearly show what will, and HOW to, achieve competent behavior in an ADAS system. Tesla's approach to that problem is that the human is always responsible. It says so "right on the can". Write your "competent" code as open source and post it for all to use. As for malfeasance, you need to show mens rea, the intention of wrongdoing, aka a "guilty mind". Please provide specific information you have that anyone at Tesla intended to cause harm. Name names. Be aware that falsely claiming malfeasance by an individual might be legally actionable defamation. Safety critical systems fail. Nuke plants melt down, commercial and military aircraft crash, ... ADAS saves lives, more lives statistically than average but not all lives. You want perfection. You can't have it. It seems wrong to cast aspersions on people at Tesla without showing how "you would do it right". Be sure to include a github link in your next reply so I can download and test your coded solution.