Slashdot Mirror
Volvo Engineer Calls Out Tesla For Dangerous 'Wannabe' Autopilot System (jalopnik.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on Jalopnik: Tesla's semi-autonomous Autopilot system has been impressing everyone from consumers to journalists, and even other industry experts and executives. But now a Volvo engineer has called Tesla's system out, claiming it's a dangerous "wannabe" autonomous technology. Trent Victor, senior technical leader of crash avoidance for Volvo, had quite a few choice words to say about Tesla's Autopilot system in a recent interview with The Verge, claiming the electric automaker was touting what is essentially a rudimentary semi-autonomous technology as being far more capable than it actually is. Victor fears that Autopilot "gives you the impression that it's doing more than it is." He went on to call Tesla's system an "unsupervised wannabe."
I'm so sick of hearing this shit repeated ad nauseam. Usually, the "entrenched players" have good reason to be skeptical. In 2007, per your example, a Blackberry was orders of magnitude more functional than an iPhone and multiple times more useful to their core business market. iPhone didn't start to be a serious contender until around the 4-series and some would argue that it never actually caught up from a messaging standpoint to the Blackberry. I won't argue that the iPhone didn't revolutionize smartphones and that there were tons of other benefits once the product became mature.
The same goes for Uber and all the other "disruptive" services and products. When you don't have to play by any rules it's easy to make things better. I still won't take Uber because I don't trust "some guy" to come pick me up. I want a service that follows all the standards and regulations we've established for a reason. I have no doubts that Tesla's "autopilot" is probably hype. Look where it's coming from. When you have a niche product, it doesn't matter how well it works or doesn't work. Volvo, on the other hand, is legendary for the safety of their products. If a Volvo engineer says it's dangerous, it probably is.
I'm just so sick of hearing how since something is coming out of some VC hype machine or technological "upstart" or internet company that it must somehow going to change my life. The cell phone changed how we live, the rest has all been incremental. I'm not living any better since the iPhone came around, or Uber, nor will I because of a self-driving car. It's all smoke and mirrors. Really disruptive technologies, like electricity, the internet, refrigeration, splitting the atom, are few and far between and don't need some huckster shouting about how great they are.
We cut cable over a year ago. Instead of cable TV, we get our video content from a combination of Netflix, Amazon VOD/Prime, Hulu, Google Play, OTA, DVD purchases, and DVD rentals from our local library. It's just as good as cable TV and we're saving about $700 a year. Netflix might not be a cable TV replacement by itself for most, but combined with other streaming services as well as other video options, cable TV can easily be replaced.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Given that the news two days ago was about the new alliance of Tesla competitors, which includes both Ford and Volvo, I can't imagine why a Volvo engineer might be biased..
The Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup so clearly Tesla is doing something customers appreciate more than Volvo. Makes it sound a lot like sour grapes on Volvo's part even if it really isn't.
Uhh... ok. So I get you're a Tesla fan, but a comment like "the Model S outsells every model in Volvo's lineup" is not an opinion, it's fact that can be checked and in this case is a lie; Volvo had 3 models that outsold the Model S and their total car sales was 10 times Tesla's sales.
Model S sales, 2015 - 50,580
Volvo sales, 2015:
XC60 - 159,617
V40 - 83,357
V60 - 51,333
Total Volvo Sales of all models for 2015: 503,127
It's fine if you're a Tesla fan-boy, but please get your facts right and stop spreading FUD. It makes you sound like you're sour-grapes about a real car brand providing a real critique of your fab-boyishness and doesn't help your argument.
Just some basic information about what they mean when they talk about level of vehicular autonomy:
NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:
No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls â" brake, steering, throttle, and motive power â" at all times.
Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.
Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.
Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.
I realize that is effectively what they are implying, but the fact that they don't actually say this in as many words suggests that they don't genuinely mean that, or at the very least, are hoping that people don't actually realize that is what they are implying, because the possible costs to the company could be incalculable otherwise after the first accident occurs, especially if there is a fatality.
Do you read? Because the CEO of Volvo Hakan Samuelsson said it himself.
http://jalopnik.com/mercedes-google-volvo-to-accept-liability-when-their-1735170893
Actually, the video in question doesn't show that collision avoidance systems can fail, because the car shown in the video doesn't have one (and its driver is a moron):
http://fusion.net/story/139703...
No they are still designed and built in Sweden. The financial owners are Chinese though.
Yeah, that didn't last long before manufacturing began moving to China as well. Are you surprised? It's been publically in the works for years.
From Jan 2015:
After years of promises by the industry followed by manufacturing delays, a major automaker is finally on the verge of starting sustained exports from China to the United States.
The Volvo Car Corporation announced at the Detroit auto show on Monday that it planned to begin shipping a midsize sedan from Chengdu in the next several months.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.