this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22087 readers
67 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's my problem, it is approximating LIDAR but it isn't the same. I would say multiple sensor types is necessary for exactly the reason you suggested it isn't - to get multiple forms of input and get consensus, or failing consensus fail-safe.
I don't doubt Tesla autopilot works well and it certainly seems to be an impressive feat of engineering, but can it be better?
In our town we had a Tesla shoot through red traffic lights near our local school barely missing a child crossing the road. The driver was looking at their lap (presumably their phone). I looked online and apparently autopilot doesn't work with traffic lights, but FSD does?
It's not specific to Tesla but people unaware of the limitations level 2, particularly when brands like Tesla give people the impression the car "drives itself" is unethical.
My opinion is if that Tesla had extra sensors, even if the car is only in level 2 mode, it should be able to pick up that something is there and slow/stop. I want the extra sensors to cover the edge cases and give more confidence in the system.
Would you still feel the same about Tesla if your car injured/killed someone or if someone you care about was injured/killed by a Tesla?
IMHO these are not systems that we should be compromising to cut costs or because the CEO is too stubborn. If we can put extra sensors in and it objectively makes it safer why don't we? Self driving cars are a luxury.
Crazy hypothetical: I wonder how Tesla would cope with someone/something covered in Vantablack?
There's a few versions of this and several generations with different capability. The early Tesla Autopilot had no recognition of stop signs, it was literally just 'cruise control that keeps you in your lane'. FSD for sure does recognize stop signs, traffic lights, etc and reacts correctly to them. I BELIEVE that the current iteration of Traffic Aware Cruise Control (what you get if you don't pay extra for FSD or Enhanced Autopilot) will stop for traffic lights but I could be wrong on that. I know it detects pedestrians but its detection isn't nearly as advanced as FSD.
I will give you that in theory, the time-of-flight data from a LiDAR pulse will give you a more reliable point cloud than anything you'd get from cameras. But I also know Tesla is doing things with cameras that border on black magic. They gave up on getting images out of the cameras and are now just using the raw photon count data from the sensor, and with the AI trained it can apparently detect edges with only a few photons of difference between pixels (below the noise floor). And I can say from experience that a few times I've been in blackout rainstorms where even with full wipers I can barely see anything, and the FSD visualization doesn't skip a beat and it sees other cars before I do.
As a Level 2 system, the Tesla is not capable of injuring or killing someone. The driver is responsible for that.
But I'd ask- if a Tesla saw YOUR loved one in the road, and it would have reacted but it wasn't in FSD mode and the human driver reacted too slowly, how would you feel about that? I say this not to be contrarian, but because we really are approaching the point where the car has better situational awareness than the human.
For the reason above with the loved one. If you can use cameras and make a system that costs the manufacturer $3000/car, and it's 50 times safer than a human, or use LiDAR and cost the manufacturer $10,000/car, and it's 100 times safer than a human, which is safer?
The answer is the cameras, because it will be on more cars, thus deliver more overall safety.
I understand the thinking that 'Elon cheaped out, Tesla FSD is a hack system on shitty hardware that uses clever programming to work around a cut-rate sensor suite'. But I'd also argue- if they can get similar performance out of a camera, and put it on more cars, doesn't that do more to overall improve safety?
In the example above, if the car didn't have the self driving package because the guy couldn't afford it, wouldn't you prefer that a decent but better than human self driving system was on the car?
This raises its own issues but is the nature of the "move fast and break things" ethos of tech today. While it has its benefits; is it suitable for vehicles, particularly their safety systems? It isn't clear to me, as it is a double-edged sword.
I would be angry that such a modern car with any form of self driving doesn't have emergency braking. Though, that would require additional sensors...
I'd also be angry that L2 systems were allowed in that environment in the first place, but as you say it is ultimately the drivers fault.
Like cruise control having minimum speeds that generally prevent it being used in town; I would hope that the manufacturer would make it difficult to use L2 outside of motorway driving. This doesn't prevent people bypassing it but means someone doing so was trying to do something they shouldn't.
With a connected vehicle, being able to limit L2 use outside of motorway should be straightforward.
Then it becomes akin to disabling traction control or adaptive cruise control and having an accident that could be prevented. The tools are there, the default is on, a driver deliberately disabled it. The manufacturer did as much as they reasonably could.
I would prefer they had no self driving rather than be under the mistaken impression the car could drive for them in the current configuration. The limitations of self driving (in any car) are often not clear to a lot of people and can vary greatly. I feel this is where accidents are most likely - in the stage between fully manual and fully autonomous.
If Tesla offer a half-way for less money would you not expect the consumer to take the cheapest option? If they have an accident it is more likely someone else is injured, so why pay more to improve the self driving when it doesn't affect them?
I agree an improvement is better than none, but I'm not sure your conclusion can be made so easily? Tesla is the only company I know steadfastly refusing to use any other sensor types and the only reason I see is price.
Thinking about it, drum brakes are cheaper than disc brakes... (said with tongue-firmly-in-cheek)
Another concern is that any Tesla incidents, however rare, could do huge damage to people's perception of self driving. People mightn't know there is a difference between Tesla and other manufacturer's autonomous driving ability.
For many people Tesla is self-driving cars, if a Tesla has an accident in L2 even though this is the driver's fault the headlines will be "Tesla autopilot hits school child" not "Driver inappropriately uses limited motorway assistance mode of car in small town hitting school child"
What about the impact on the industry? If Tesla is much cheaper than LIDAR-equipped vehicles will this kill a better/safer product a-la betamax?
IMHO safety shouldn't take a lower priority to price/CEO demands. Consumers often don't know and frankly shouldn't need to know the details of these systems.
Do you pick your airline based on the plane they fly and it's safety record or the price of the ticket, being confident all aviation is held to rigorous safety standards?
As has been seen recently with a certain submarine, safety measures should not be taken lightly.
Perhaps, but if you are developing a tech that can save lives, doesn't it make sense to put that out in more cars faster?
Tesla does this with cameras whether you pay for FSD or not. It can also detect if you're near an object and slam on gas instead of brake, it will cancel that out. These are options you can turn off if you don't want them.
I'm saying- imagine if the car has L2 self driving, and the driver had that feature turned off. The human was driving the car. The human didn't react quickly enough to prevent hitting your loved one, but the computer would have.
Most of the conversation around FSD type tech revolves around what happens when it does something wrong that the human would have done right. But as the tech improves, we will get to the point where the tech makes fewer mistakes than the human. And then this conversation reverses- rather than 'why did the human let the machine do something bad' it becomes 'why did the machine let the human do something bad'.
Why? Tesla's FSD beta L2 is great. It's not perfect, but it does a very good job for most parts of driving on surface streets.
This is valid. I think the name 'full self driving' is problematic somewhat. I think it will get to the point of actually being fully self driving, and I think it will get there soon (next year or two). But they've been using that term for several years now and especially the first few versions of 'FSD' were anything but. And before they started with driver monitoring, there were a bunch of people who bought 'FSD' and trusted it a lot more than they should have.
That's not how their pricing works. The safety features are always there. The hardware is always there. It's just a function of what software you get. And if you don't buy FSD when you buy the car, you can buy it later and it will be unlocked over the air.
What you get is extra functionality. There is no 'my car ran over a little kid on a bike because I didn't pay for the extra safety package'. It's 'my car won't drive itself because I didn't pay for that, I just get a smart cruise control'.
Price yes, and difficulty integrating different data sets. On their higher end cars they've re-introduced a high resolution radar unit. Haven't see much on how that's being used though.
The basic answer is they can get to where we need with cameras alone because our software is better than others. For any other automaker that doesn't have Tesla's AI systems, LiDAR is important.
This already happens whether the computer is driving or not. Lots of people don't understand Teslas and think that if you buy one it'll drive you into a brick wall and then catch on fire while you're locked inside. Bad journalists will always put out bad journalism. That's not a reason to stop tech progress tho.
Right now FSD isn't a main selling point for most drivers. I'd argue that what might kill others is not that Tesla's system is cheaper, but that it works better and more of the time. Ford and GM both have a self driving system, but it only works on certain highways that have been mapped with centimeter-level LiDAR ahead of time. Tesla has a system they're trying to make general purpose, so it can drive on any road. So if the Tesla system takes you driveway-to-driveway and the competition takes you onramp-to-offramp, the Tesla system is more flexible and thus more valuable regardless of the purchase price.
I agree standards should apply, that's why Tesla isn't L3+ certified even though on the highway I really think it's ready for it.
Totally agree, that's why I say it is a double-edged sword. The theory being is that it is more acceptable to ship bugs because they can be rectified much more quickly.
Thanks for clarifying that, not something I was aware of. Sounds very pragmatic.
I misunderstood the original scenario, and while it sounds like it shouldn't be possible at current (given the auto braking you mentioned above), I understand the meaning. I agree with you here, I don't think the human is better and my issue isn't that I think a human would necessarily react better (and certainly in L2 the problem is a human almost never will).
My main concern was about an accident with camera-only that could have been avoided with additional sensors. I had heard additional sensors had been suggested at Tesla, but vetoed. I knew that Musk was confident cameras can do it all and had said as much. My concern was that his bullishness was reason for this policy, however hearing that Tesla are investigating other sensors dispels that theory.
Agreed. I don't follow self-driving cars or Tesla/Musk closely so I'm just as ill-informed. The original concern was if Tesla's policy of using only cameras reduces their self-driving capability compared to non camera-only competition, even performing well above a human, it could affect the perception of self-driving vehicles.
Yes, I agree. Aside from Waymo, which doesn't look to be coming to consumers any time soon, I'm not sure who else is close to Tesla on that problem. I would have expected to hear more from the major manufacturers but it seems while some have been certified L3, it is only in certain conditions and locations.