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."
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.
Table-ized A.I.
Considering several of Tesla's Autopilot project leads resigned in protest after complaining that Autopilot was dangerous and not ready for release, and we knew that several months ago, this isn't really news.
Also see the cable companies' reaction to Netflix and streaming videos in general. "Why would you want to pay $10 a month to stream everything whenever and wherever you want when you have have 10,000 channels of great content like Inane Reality Show Channel #50 and Shopping Network You'll Never Watch #12 for the low, low price of $200 a month? By the way, did you know that Netflix is really super-expensive. Sure, it's only because we imposed caps and overages on your Internet connection to keep you from streaming, but it's true now. So ditch that horrible streaming with it's great user interface and come back to your cable company!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
All 'autopilot' / 'self-driving' systems will be 'wannabes' for at least the next 10 to 20 years or more. It'll take that long to perfect it -- and even then you'll be nuts to let yourself fall asleep at the wheel with it operating -- no matter what they tell you.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Which is the typical Slashdot way, let me summarize for you guys and have a real discussion.
Volvo consider's Tesla's system a Level 3 system, which they consider dangerous. The reason they consider this is not for technical reasons but for liability and user control protocol reasons. What he's saying Tesla's system does is that in the event of an emergency, the system relinquishes control of the car to the driver, meaning the driver is now responsible (and has associated liability) for any accident or damage caused from the emergency. However Tesla's promotional material about their system is not suggesting that; their promotions are all focused on technical ability but it's ignoring the fact that if you're in an emergency the system basically tosses control to you, so his argument is that Tesla's promotion of the technology gives drivers and users the wrong impression of what it's really doing. So what he's saying is that if you're driving down the road and you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the system will not take over and park you safely, and if in this process you hit a pedestrian or another car, you are liable for the damage caused.
Volvo's system coming out this year is what they call a Level 4. What this means is that the car does not require the driver to be in control at any time, even during extreme conditions. If you fall asleep at the wheel and start to drift, the computer takes over, gets you back in your lane first, then finds a way to pull you to the side of the road and park the car safely. They are so confident in their system that Volvo itself is taking on the liability of their system; if it fails to get you to safety or causes damage, Volvo is responsible, not you. Tesla does not make that claim about their system.
So his argument that the Tesla system which will force control to the driver in extreme driving conditions is actually more dangerous, because the driver is under the mistaken impression that the autonomous system has control and will suddenly find himself thrown into a difficult situation with no autonomous supervision; that surprise will invariably find the driver unable to make rational decisions.
All you Tesla Fundamentalists should stop with your Musk-worship and brand loving and realize that one of the most experienced safety engineers in the world is making a technical and design process argument. Argue his technical merits or the arguments he makes about Tesla's system and it's design decisions; don't just drink the Elon-Aid and dismiss because of the Gee-Whiz factor.