4 ms·

Hold on the writer was testing “Autosteer”, described autosteer as a function that keeps the car within the travel lane markings and then proceeded to fault the

Hold on the writer was testing “Autosteer”, described autosteer as a function that keeps the car within the travel lane markings and then proceeded to fault the system for not slowing and stopping? Then he literally talked about Full Self Driving which does exactly what he described? This is a bad article. I rented a current model year Audi A4 on my last trip which had the Audi equivalent of Autosteer. I could drive for minutes at a time without touching the steering wheel. And I literally just touched the steering wheel, and that was enough for the car to continue in its way. Where is Geoffrey’s outrage there? Methinks this journalist has no idea what Autosteer is supposed to do. Maybe this highlights the larger problem of “smart cars”. Most owners have their own notion of what a feature should do which ultimately makes them oblivious to what’s actually happening.

refulgentis 3y ago
I didn't know and I've been following Telsa closely for years. I wonder if their point that this stuff is rather opaque is reinforced by this, rather than obviated by the specifics of "it didn't stop at 2 stop signs but did stop at others on auto-steer but auto-steer should stop at none" I'm curious what you and others make of the sticker thing -- why is it well-known that specifically a smiley face sticker will disable it? Is the idea that the recognition software just outputs "FACE 100%" because enough is visible on the back?
dventimi 3y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2023/02/security-principles-addressing-underlying-causes-risk-complex-systems https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/202... One of those lessons is that systems must be designed to be operated by real humans. It's remarkably common for organizations to look at an incident and declare the root cause to be "human error." ...They don't end their inquiry with blaming individuals.
- leereeves 3y ago
  That's discussing security. In the context of driving, blame is almost always placed on individuals.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    >That's discussing security. No, that's discussing complex systems and important principles to adopt when creating and maintaining them. >In the context of driving, blame is almost always placed on individuals. In the context of driving accidents, almost always no autonomous vehicle function is involved, and yet this topic is about an autonomous vehicle function. Moreover, if we're going to assign blame, there's plenty of blame to go around. Blame individuals if you want, but that doesn't prevent policymakers from analyzing the system in aggregate and mandating changes which, irrespective of which individuals get blamed, saves lives. That's what we want to happen, isn't it? To save lives?
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Except for Waymo, none of the "self driving cars" are legally autonomous vehicles. They're just driver assistance systems, like advanced cruise control, and drivers are still responsible for maintaining control of the car at all times. Tesla should probably be in a lot more trouble for falsely advertising these systems as "autopilot" or "full self driving", but even they make it clear after purchase that these are actually just driver assistance systems.
      - dventimi 3y ago
        I see that my hopes that readers would understand that I wrote "autonomous vehicle function" and not "autonomous vehicle" deliberately to avoid confusing the two, that I wasn't using a legal definition, and that I was doing this to distinguish the majority of accidents that don't involve self driving cars or plain old cruise control from the minority of accidents that do, has not been fulfilled. Oh well, there's always next year. In any case, drivers are not totally responsible. After all, what if there's a defect in let's say an "advanced cruise control" system and it's a factor in accidents? Can you rule out the possibility that a jury in a class action suit would assign some blame to the manufacturer?
        leereeves 3y ago
        Sorry, I can't read your mind. Why don't you just use the standard term "advanced driver assistance system"? I don't want to speculate on what juries might do, but the first such lawsuit was decided recently. The driver's family "blamed a malfunction by the car’s driver-assistance software for the crash", nonetheless Tesla was assigned zero responsibility. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/business/tesla-autopilot-jury-decision.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/business/tesla-autopilot-...
cchance 3y ago
Its another case of journalists knowing 0 about the product they're actaully talking about, FSD = Autosteer for them
- acdha 3y ago
  If you read the article, they very clearly understand the difference: the entire point of this series is that Tesla doesn’t restrict usage to the places it’s designed for, which they could easily do, and doesn’t have effective safety measures for the attention that drivers are supposed to be maintaining. Social media provides plenty of examples showing that this isn’t some niche concern but rather something real people are misusing. > In fine print and user manuals most drivers probably haven’t pored over, Tesla says that Autosteer “is designed for use on highways that have a center divider, clear lane markings, and no cross-traffic.” It adds: “Please use it only if you will pay attention to the road, keep your hands on the steering wheel, and be prepared to take over at any time.” > As the crashes spotlighted by The Post investigation indicate, it isn’t clear to some drivers where you’re supposed to use Autosteer and what, exactly, it will do for you. It’s not nearly as advanced as Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” capability, which requires a $200 per month subscription to access and is designed to be used on city streets.
gamblor956 3y ago
Then he literally talked about Full Self Driving which does exactly what he described On every other car, the smart cruise control feature that keeps a car within the lane markings...can also handle slowing down and stopping (though stopping for signage is limited to self-driving systems like FSD). Where is Geoffrey’s outrage there Audi wasn't required by the government to issue a massive recall. Tesla was. The outrage is that Tesla is deliberately violating the requirement of the recall.
- grepfru_it 3y ago
  On the Audi a4 I rented, I did not need to engage cruise control for lane centering to engage. My point was that Audi is doing exactly what Tesla is supposedly not doing. Everything Geoffrey complained of was exactly what Audi does. Why should Tesla get scrutiny for safety but other car manufacturers don’t? Cold water, your story. Yikes
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    On the Audi a4 I rented, I did not need to engage cruise control for lane centering to engage. Looking at Audi a4 right now, can confirm that this is false...lane centering must be deliberately engaged and is part of Audi's cruise control functionality (but is a separate function from speed management).
  - acdha 3y ago
    Does the Audi driver monitoring system let you take your hands off of the wheel or look away for extended periods of time? Can it be fooled by a smiley-face sticker?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

refulgentis 3y ago

I didn't know and I've been following Telsa closely for years. I wonder if their point that this stuff is rather opaque is reinforced by this, rather than obviated by the specifics of "it didn't stop at 2 stop signs but did stop at others on auto-steer but auto-steer should stop at none" I'm curious what you and others make of the sticker thing -- why is it well-known that specifically a smiley face sticker will disable it? Is the idea that the recognition software just outputs "FACE 100%" because enough is visible on the back?

dventimi 3y ago

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2023/02/security-principles-addressing-underlying-causes-risk-complex-systems https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/202... One of those lessons is that systems must be designed to be operated by real humans. It's remarkably common for organizations to look at an incident and declare the root cause to be "human error." ...They don't end their inquiry with blaming individuals.

leereeves 3y ago
That's discussing security. In the context of driving, blame is almost always placed on individuals.
- dventimi 3y ago
  >That's discussing security. No, that's discussing complex systems and important principles to adopt when creating and maintaining them. >In the context of driving, blame is almost always placed on individuals. In the context of driving accidents, almost always no autonomous vehicle function is involved, and yet this topic is about an autonomous vehicle function. Moreover, if we're going to assign blame, there's plenty of blame to go around. Blame individuals if you want, but that doesn't prevent policymakers from analyzing the system in aggregate and mandating changes which, irrespective of which individuals get blamed, saves lives. That's what we want to happen, isn't it? To save lives?
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Except for Waymo, none of the "self driving cars" are legally autonomous vehicles. They're just driver assistance systems, like advanced cruise control, and drivers are still responsible for maintaining control of the car at all times. Tesla should probably be in a lot more trouble for falsely advertising these systems as "autopilot" or "full self driving", but even they make it clear after purchase that these are actually just driver assistance systems.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      I see that my hopes that readers would understand that I wrote "autonomous vehicle function" and not "autonomous vehicle" deliberately to avoid confusing the two, that I wasn't using a legal definition, and that I was doing this to distinguish the majority of accidents that don't involve self driving cars or plain old cruise control from the minority of accidents that do, has not been fulfilled. Oh well, there's always next year. In any case, drivers are not totally responsible. After all, what if there's a defect in let's say an "advanced cruise control" system and it's a factor in accidents? Can you rule out the possibility that a jury in a class action suit would assign some blame to the manufacturer?
      - leereeves 3y ago
        Sorry, I can't read your mind. Why don't you just use the standard term "advanced driver assistance system"? I don't want to speculate on what juries might do, but the first such lawsuit was decided recently. The driver's family "blamed a malfunction by the car’s driver-assistance software for the crash", nonetheless Tesla was assigned zero responsibility. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/business/tesla-autopilot-jury-decision.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/business/tesla-autopilot-...

cchance 3y ago

Its another case of journalists knowing 0 about the product they're actaully talking about, FSD = Autosteer for them

acdha 3y ago
If you read the article, they very clearly understand the difference: the entire point of this series is that Tesla doesn’t restrict usage to the places it’s designed for, which they could easily do, and doesn’t have effective safety measures for the attention that drivers are supposed to be maintaining. Social media provides plenty of examples showing that this isn’t some niche concern but rather something real people are misusing. > In fine print and user manuals most drivers probably haven’t pored over, Tesla says that Autosteer “is designed for use on highways that have a center divider, clear lane markings, and no cross-traffic.” It adds: “Please use it only if you will pay attention to the road, keep your hands on the steering wheel, and be prepared to take over at any time.” > As the crashes spotlighted by The Post investigation indicate, it isn’t clear to some drivers where you’re supposed to use Autosteer and what, exactly, it will do for you. It’s not nearly as advanced as Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” capability, which requires a $200 per month subscription to access and is designed to be used on city streets.

gamblor956 3y ago

Then he literally talked about Full Self Driving which does exactly what he described On every other car, the smart cruise control feature that keeps a car within the lane markings...can also handle slowing down and stopping (though stopping for signage is limited to self-driving systems like FSD). Where is Geoffrey’s outrage there Audi wasn't required by the government to issue a massive recall. Tesla was. The outrage is that Tesla is deliberately violating the requirement of the recall.

grepfru_it 3y ago
On the Audi a4 I rented, I did not need to engage cruise control for lane centering to engage. My point was that Audi is doing exactly what Tesla is supposedly not doing. Everything Geoffrey complained of was exactly what Audi does. Why should Tesla get scrutiny for safety but other car manufacturers don’t? Cold water, your story. Yikes
- gamblor956 3y ago
  On the Audi a4 I rented, I did not need to engage cruise control for lane centering to engage. Looking at Audi a4 right now, can confirm that this is false...lane centering must be deliberately engaged and is part of Audi's cruise control functionality (but is a separate function from speed management).
- acdha 3y ago
  Does the Audi driver monitoring system let you take your hands off of the wheel or look away for extended periods of time? Can it be fooled by a smiley-face sticker?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]