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."
Just like ULA hating on SpaceX's rocket landing plans or Blackberry hating on the original iPhone, whenever a newcomer comes to market with a disruptive technology, the entrenched players do all they can to trash the newcomer in the media to cast doubt on the viability of the disruptive ideas, rather than pivoting to actually address the market shift that the disruption heralds.
The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd. Human reaction time and situational awareness cannot cope with this, and in reality the purpose of this "level 3" concept is to quickly shift the blame back to the human driver rather than the car maker.
Right, that's all this could possibly be.
I mean, it's not as if Volvo has a reputation for making durable, safe vehicles.
What the fuck could one of their engineers possibly know about it automobile safety?
Even if the Volvo people are entirely right (and they might be) it doesn't really carry much credibility since they have a clear conflict of interest.
Yes Tesla engages in some puffery. On the other hand they are really doing the most innovative things in the auto industry so it's not entirely without substance. (of course the auto industry is pretty stodgy so being innovative is kind of a low bar) 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.
Ah yes. "A Volvo vehicle screwed up once, so that means Tesla's systems are fine - stop crying."
Tremendously compelling logic.
"If something goes wrong, the (Volvo) can safely stop itself at the side of the road." 'Cept if the wrong thing is the brakes fail, and I've got a few stretches of high country road I could introduce you to where you would definitely want human judgement involved concerning what you would generously term "the side of the road".
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Tesla Autopilot is working in tens of thousands of vehicles, and has driven many millions of miles of public roads. That actual real-world track record should count for a lot more than a competitor's biased opinion.
So because Tesla doesn't have a fully autonomous car Volvo guy's argument is more compelling than a clear FAILURE of the autonomous crash avoidance?
That was a car without the "pedestrian detection" option... The owner, a bit of a moron, for some reason thought it was a standard feature and decided to test it on a group of volunteer fellow morons...
Regardless of that Volvo spokeperson's intentions, they are right, hinting that you are using an "autopilot" will make idiots do stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't see a problem equipping cars with the current automatic collision avoidance systems and leaving it at that, but autopilots for cars should be "black and white", either completely self-driving or completely manual, no automatic steering input at all. Period. Tesla's system will make people like that Volvo guy in the previous post do very stupid things, like the Tesla driver in this post.
In fact replying with this video would strengthen Volvo's argument. Because beyond the branding, what it shows is that collision avoidance systems can fail and therefore, driver's attention is crucial. Tesla's autopilot is clearly sold as something that allows the driver not to pay attention, while the system demonstrated in the video is just a driving aid.
Tesla: "Thank You Volvo for the free publicity!"
Many will see this as market insecurity on the part of traditional car makers, and Tesla's stock will probably go up.
You sound like a Christian fundamentalist laughing off real science and arguing Intelligent Design because of "reasons"; you are a Tesla Fundamentalist.
Volvo has the longest track record of safety features for cars, they've been doing this for decades. They were focused on safety before safety become regulated. They invented three point seat belts, side impact protection systems, roll over protection systems, and consistently their cars have been rated the safest cars on the road. When a guy from Volvo makes a comment about safety features, you probably should take note.
Do you have a source for that AC? I follow Tesla news closely and that's the first I've heard.
The debate about "autopilot" versus "fully autonomous" is a very real concern, validated by Tesla drivers themselves. You have drivers that stop paying attention to the speed limit, abuse autodrive to violate traffic laws, take their hands off the steering wheel, or just climb into the back seat and let the car drive itself creates not just a danger for the Tesla driver but for every car on the road. This despite Tesla's insistence that people must still stay at the wheel and drive; the technology has advanced enough that people get a false sense of confidence to push the limits even if the technology is not truly ready for it. That's the point that the Volvo engineer is making.
Musk says autopilot controlled vehicles have half the rate of crashes (where a crash is defined as an event that triggers the airbag) versus those under human control.
That sounds like a BS statistic. You wouldn't use Autopilot for all driving, only for certain highway driving. So a proper comparison would only be between Autopilot-driven miles versus human-driven miles in comparable conditions. And auto crashes on the highway are *already* much less frequent than on surface streets, for obvious reasons I hope.
So "half the rate of crashes" could actually be much worse than human piloting on the highway.