Mobileye Says Tesla Was Dropped Because of Safety Concerns

They just want tesla share to drop by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:44 · Score: 0

they only want shares to drop so that they can buy parts of elon's hype corp.

Gives new meaning to computer crash by mmiscool · 2016-09-15 02:44 · Score: 1

Gives new meaning to computer crash

Re:Gives new meaning to computer crash by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:54 · Score: 0

And to BSOD.
Re: Gives new meaning to computer crash by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:59 · Score: 0

Har har har... strangely accurate though!
Re:Gives new meaning to computer crash by Rei · 2016-09-15 04:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or not. I love the weasely " In January of this year in China, a Tesla ploughed into the back of a stationary truck at speed, killing the driver. Should that incident prove to be related to Autopilot...". Well, yes, in the same way that if a train were to crash tomorrow you could write "Should that incident be related to the Galaxy 7..." without any evidence that it was involved at all.
Here's a Google Transmangle of the original article in Chinese:
https://translate.google.com/t...
Basically, the evidence that autopilot was in use was... um... his dad thinks it must have been because his son is a good driver and wouldn't have hit that truck. And he wants to "prove" it by... showing that the car's speed wasn't changing.
Whether the autopilot was on or off in a given situation is logged and easy to recover. Any reporter who suggests that an incident was "due to autopilot" without at first finding out whether the system was even on is being grossly irresponsible.

--
"I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
Re:Gives new meaning to computer crash by curiousgeorgeishere · 2016-09-15 08:31 · Score: 2

new info as undiscovered feature found in Tesla Autopilot https://www.inverse.com/articl... Could this could be an issue in terms of agreement ?

Gates. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:44 · Score: 0

(This statement appears to be at odds with statements made by Musk at shareholder meetings.)

It's Gates and/or Jobs-style marketing, which is the same as just plain old marketing.

You know those inflatable pools for kids that look 9000% more awesome on the box than they do when inflated?

Musk is selling you that and he damned well knows what he's doing.

Re: Gates. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:55 · Score: 0

thats fine if you're marketing a bank thats not a bank.
but cars... and a car control system? hah. no
just no.
i called this when mobileye announced their departure. tesla was abusing it.
other manufacturers werent

Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:45 · Score: 0

Then Tesla has obviously been lying to everyone about Autopilot. From the way they described it, it was practically a self driving car.

Re:Well.... by bobbied · 2016-09-15 04:12 · Score: 2

Then Tesla has obviously been lying to everyone about Autopilot. From the way they described it, it was practically a self driving car.
Well... It IS a self driving car... Until it crashes into something...
How's that different from and airplane which flies... Until it hits the ground?
How practical this all is, is left up to the reader to decide.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:33 · Score: 0

Tesla looks more and more like Theranos as the days go by.
Re:Well.... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:04 · Score: 1

Then Tesla has obviously been lying to everyone about Autopilot. From the way they described it, it was practically a self driving car.
It is "practically" a self-driving car, for the typical value of "practically" — in colloquial English, it is a common substitution for the word "almost". Which is to say, not practical at all. But what's actually far more relevant than stupid word games (which is all you're playing at) is that Tesla forces a substantial safety lecture onto drivers who want to use Autopilot. You can't actually turn it on until your vehicle has been blessed, which doesn't happen until after you've been lectured to. It's quite clear to any driver who has been through this process what the limitations of the system are; if not, they are not capable of understanding fairly clear language and should be imprisoned within a remedial language classroom for the safety of themselves and others.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:18 · Score: 0

Tesla looks more and more like Theranos as the days go by.
Are you & Daredevil shopping at the same optician?
Re: Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 09:43 · Score: 0

Nerd burn!

Unreasonable by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-15 02:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Asking customers to remain alert while the car drives itself for hours on end is unreasonable. Psychologists know that, NASA warned them about it... Human beings simple can't concentrate for that amount of time with nothing to do.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:54 · Score: 0

I drove from Albuquerque to seattle in 17 hours, nonstop. Its not that hard.
Re:Unreasonable by stanjo74 · 2016-09-15 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Survivor bias. You were not alert, just lucky.
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 03:04 · Score: 1

Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

And did you remain alert all that time or did you just imagine that? The problem with losing concentration, dozing off etc. is that there's a good chance you don't notice it at all.
Re:Unreasonable by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-15 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
... unless they are actually a Tesla owner. I use Autopilot, and Tesla repeatedly and emphatically makes the capabilities of the system and the responsibility of the driver very clear.
Re:Unreasonable by I4ko · 2016-09-15 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

His point exactly - YOU drove, you weren't driven.
Re:Unreasonable by Dare+nMc · 2016-09-15 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

>Asking customers to remain alert while the car drives itself for hours on end is unreasonable.
It is also be unthinkable to have your "backup" to evaluate the performance of the autopilot watching only the output. I have hundreds of hours logged in autonomous vehicles, but I would review the data, see all the diagnostics logged, all of the GPS signal lost, or drifted, etc for the week. I thus have never completely trusted them. All of the operators, even when told by engineers of running a beta release with big untested changes would spend all of their time working on their phones. Without knowing when every backup and sensors have failed to read something wrong. You cannot evaluate the maturity just off of, well it stopped the other 5 times someone stepped in front of the vehicle, why would I have to worry about walking in front of them. If you don't know 15 times in the last mile the cameras failed to maintain the road edge monitoring, and 20 times during that same period that sensor was the only thing that kept you on the road. Only dad those 2 events overlapped, which they eventually will, would the failures actually show up in the output.
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 03:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel, and pay attention, then... it's not an autopilot.
(Not that I'm shocked or anything by deceptive marketing practices.)

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re: Unreasonable by WindBourne · 2016-09-15 03:38 · Score: 0

Huh. So, you call yourself nutria. Are you really a fucking river rat? Wow. Evolution is in progress.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 03:47 · Score: 1

Yes, yes I am.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Unreasonable by Octorian · 2016-09-15 04:09 · Score: 2

Except everyone who casually reads tech news, only vaguely paying attention to headlines written by tech writers, has a completely mistaken impression of what it is and does.
Seriously, I've seen everyone from random friends to strangers on the street assume the car could basically drive itself. (Yes, even before they released the feature.)
The capabilities of the system, and the responsibilities of the driver, are quite clear... if you actually drive the car or read past the headlines. Unfortunately, most people who write knee-jerk article comments don't fall into either of these categories.
Re:Unreasonable by thinkwaitfast · 2016-09-15 04:11 · Score: 1

I warned them about that. But then I worked for NASA. I even said similar things in the past and was labeled as a troll. I don't care and rarely comment on /. anymore.
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:24 · Score: 0

Well, you were driving, so clearly you had something to do. Now imagine you were using a car with a driver, would you still be able to focus on the road for 17 hours?
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:35 · Score: 0

I find this with cruise control. When driving long distance if I use it after a while I consciously have to remember to use the pedals because I haven't been constantly adjusting them with my feet. It also makes me feel sleepier with less to do (as a passenger I almost always fall asleep but never as a driver). I almost never use it any longer as a result.
Re:Unreasonable by rhazz · 2016-09-15 04:37 · Score: 2

And here I was hoping to see a Tesla conversation that didn't devolve to an argument about the definition of the word "autopilot". Every fucking thread. Get over it.
Re:Unreasonable by bobbied · 2016-09-15 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
The problem though is actual "autopilots" are in airplanes and they range in complexity and features.
Some are simple 2 axis affairs that can maintain heading and altitude, sort of, as long as your DG doesn't drift and the altimeter works. Some are fully automatic, land in a fog bank worthy of a mystery novel affairs that literally do everything but talk on the radios from departure to arrival with little more than a few button pushes. Most fall in between the extremes.
Using an autopilot in an airplane requires the pilots be fully aware of the automation's limitations and be monitoring the flight's progress. It's purpose is two fold, 1. to lower the pilot workload and increase safety at critical phases in flight, by automating the more mundane tasks like controlling altitude, heading and speed, and 2. Increase efficiency by keeping the aircraft operating in its most efficient way possible.
Tesla's "autopilot" is something totally different. It's not about efficiency, and it's not about safety, it's about convenience. Though they call it an autopilot, it's most certainly isn't one. It's built for a totally different reason.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:42 · Score: 0

The term "autopilot" comes from aviation (of course), in all but the most modern aircraft it is simply a system keep the craft pointed on a certain compass bearing and at a basic altitude. There is nothing in the term itself suggesting that it can avoid collisions, handle severe weather, land and/or do complex navigation. It is a reasonably apt term for a vehicle that simply keeps itself between the lines and at a certain speed, it even tacks on a few extra things that wouldn't be included in the traditional term such as auto braking and adaptive cruise control.
Re:Unreasonable by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 04:50 · Score: 2

Asking customers to remain alert while the car drives itself for hours on end is unreasonable.
Asking drivers to remain alert while they drive for hours on end is unreasonable. That's why we have rest stops, and why everyone and your mom (literally!) will tell you to pull over and take a break occasionally.
Perhaps Autopilot will, in the future, require that drivers do the same, and offer to drive them to a rest stop.

Human beings simple can't concentrate for that amount of time with nothing to do.
Except when you're in traffic with a bunch of fuckheads and your life is being threatened every few minutes (or seconds, as is more likely around say the Bay Area... or any big city in Texas, or lots of other places) driving is already well below that threshold for anyone who has any actual business driving. Hence the need for more automated driving features...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 04:51 · Score: 1

It's not about efficiency, and it's not about safety, it's about convenience. Though they call it an autopilot, it's most certainly isn't one. It's built for a totally different reason.
Exactly.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 04:54 · Score: 1

Except everyone who casually reads tech news, only vaguely paying attention to headlines written by tech writers, has a completely mistaken impression of what it is and does.
It only takes 97% of the 90K Tesla drivers doing the right thing for there to be thousands of Tesla drivers not doing the right thing.
Hilarity ensues.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Unreasonable by DirkDaring · 2016-09-15 05:06 · Score: 1

They can make it as clear as daylight, but its human nature to begin doing the exact opposite after a period of time. It's human nature to not pay attention when you're not doing anything. Read the NASA opinion on this, explains it well.
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:21 · Score: 0

Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
In this day & age, don't people understand branding?
Do you think your Under Armour longjohns will stop a bullet or a swift kick to the balls?
FYI, "autopilot" comes from airplanes and those are not fully autonomous either.
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:33 · Score: 0

Those 3% are the modern day headless horsemen.
Re:Unreasonable by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-15 05:41 · Score: 1

It only takes 97% of the 90K Tesla drivers doing the right thing for there to be thousands of Tesla drivers not doing the right thing.
Stupidity and ignorance are two different things. The idiots posting Youtube videos, filmed from the backseat, of driverless Teslas, are fully aware that their behavior is reckless. They were not "tricked" by the name of the software.
Re:Unreasonable by WaffleMonster · 2016-09-15 05:42 · Score: 1

Except when you're in traffic with a bunch of fuckheads and your life is being threatened every few minutes (or seconds, as is more likely around say the Bay Area... or any big city in Texas, or lots of other places) driving is already well below that threshold for anyone who has any actual business driving. Hence the need for more automated driving features...
The idea that driving is too dangerous so machines should do it instead is a nice philosophical concept.
In the real world details matter, implementation quality matters, technological capabilities matter and philosophy is in fact worthless.
Technologies like AEB have a proven track record of significantly improving safety. Others such as LDW/LKS have yet to make the case or shown to be a liability in terms of safety in the aggregate.
The question at hand does feature 'x' provide a benefit or is it in fact a liability? This isn't about some future date where fully autonomous driving is an easy problem nor is it about advancing dreams and wishes. It is about the real world as it actually exists. There is currently NO statistically significant information available to suggest self driving mode of Tesla improve safety regardless of any PR nonsense spewed by Musk et al.
There is human factor research on complacency induced by automation mostly in the context of aircraft. What we know is the issue is real yet to the extent it hurts or helps with regards to Tesla requires real world detailed information and analysis not wishful thinking and philosophy.
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 06:01 · Score: 1

are fully aware that their behavior is reckless. They were not "tricked" by the name of the software.
Yet how many are thinking, "telling us to keep our hands on the wheel at all times is just lawyer CYA"?

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re: Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 06:06 · Score: 0

Obviously not.... the longjohns go *under* the armour.
Re:Unreasonable by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 06:19 · Score: 1

The idea that driving is too dangerous so machines should do it instead is a nice philosophical concept.
In the real world details matter, implementation quality matters, technological capabilities matter and philosophy is in fact worthless.
Yes, this is why I am opposed to additional proliferation of roadways, and support instead revising transportation to use a combination of PRT and pathways suitable for cyclists, pedestrians, riders of horses, et cetera. We have had the technology to have vehicles steer themselves since the 1800s and it is called rail. There are many reasons why cars are a stupid way to get around. Roads are crap, tires are crap, people are great drivers except when they aren't, and making a self-driving car that can literally handle all situations turns out to literally be impossible, who'd have thought it? It may not have to be as smart as us to be a better driver, for a bunch of reasons which are related to us being squishy [meat]bags of mostly water, but it's still going to occasionally fail to save someone's life no matter how great it is.
I really like cars, and driving, but cars are dumb and no matter how fancy you make them they're still going to suck. What's really maddening is that we can still have all the stupid car company bullshit, only with PRT cars; the system can easily be designed so as to encourage private vehicle ownership. So we could improve the planet and still support corporate greed, but it's still not happening. You bring up switching from roads to rail and people start quoting Simpsons episodes at best.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Unreasonable by jbengt · 2016-09-15 06:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I drove from Albuquerque to seattle in 17 hours, nonstop.
I admire and envy your bladder.
Re: Unreasonable by WindBourne · 2016-09-15 07:23 · Score: 1

well, then that explains how tesla's autopilot is an autopilot. Basically, it is evolving along from a level 4 to a level 5.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-15 07:34 · Score: 1

The difference is that I'm not advertised as an autopiloted, 70 mph, 4600 lb passenger carrying swamp root eater.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re: Unreasonable by WindBourne · 2016-09-15 07:56 · Score: 1

odd, but neither is tesla.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 08:26 · Score: 0

An aircraft autopilot wont keep you from flying into a mountain or another plane by itself. It sounds even less like an autopilot than what is in the tesla, yet you're not complaining about that completely ubiquitous use of the term.
Re: Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 08:33 · Score: 0

I don't have this problem and I use cruise control any time I'm on a highway.
Re:Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 09:58 · Score: 0

Bill Gates? Is that you?
Re:Unreasonable by thegarbz · 2016-09-15 11:17 · Score: 1

17 hours non stop at the wheel? He didn't drive. Luck drove him.
If I were to place a dollar amount on the survival rate of a driver being behind the wheel that long, and the autopilot, ALL the money is on the autopilot.
Re:Unreasonable by thegarbz · 2016-09-15 11:19 · Score: 2

Exactly. If you call something autopilot, then people expect it to be an... autopilot.
I know. Tesla's system isn't an autopilot. It's far better than that. Autopilots as we traditionally know them can't cope with anything, they can only maintain direction and heading and drop back to the pilot control everytime someone looks at them funny. It'll happily fly into a storm or into a mountain.
I propose we name the Tesla system the drunk chauffeur, much better than an autopilot system but it may still get you killed.
Re:Unreasonable by thegarbz · 2016-09-15 11:19 · Score: 1

If the driver has to keep his hands on the wheel, and pay attention, then... it's not an autopilot.
Except they really don't. The driver does however need to react to unexpected conditions ... just like an airline pilot when the plane is on autopilot.
Re: Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 14:29 · Score: 0

Unless he was driving a gas rig there is no way he did it non-stop. With most cars you get at least 4 gas stop, 3 if you are diesel. I am pretty sure it wasn't non-stop
Re: Unreasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 11:12 · Score: 0

Hurray, you want to rob everyone to build your personal Disneyland. And you probably think you're enlightened, too.
Re:Unreasonable by cwsumner · 2016-09-16 11:32 · Score: 1

Just because some people think something, that does not make it true.
Autopilots require a pilot at the controls. Robots might not. Something they saw in a movie doesn't count... 8-P
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-16 11:50 · Score: 1

Airplane (and ship) pilots are highly trained with years of "apprenticeship" as co-pilot.
Automobile "pilots"? Not so much.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Unreasonable by Nutria · 2016-09-19 08:00 · Score: 1

That was certainly true in the 1950s. I wonder if it's also true in 2016.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1

Re:I'm short TSLA by kaybee · 2016-09-15 02:46 · Score: 1

Bad move...

Work with Tesla, don't want to push the envelope by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:48 · Score: 0

Sounds like an odd combination to me...

Re: I'm short TSLA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:49 · Score: 0

Please, be a man and short Tesla with everything you have.

Well... by johnsmithperson123 · 2016-09-15 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Tesla has about 2 fatalities per 100 million miles. South Carolina, the worst state in the US for accidents, has 1.65 accidents/100M. Massachusetts has .57. Clearly, self driving cars have a long way to go.

Re:Well... by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Statistically insignificant. Tesla stats will only matter when tens of thousands, if not millions, of trips have been made under autopilot. Then compare accident rates. If Tesla turns out to be safer, it won't be because of AI, because we have no idea how humans drive in the first place. It will be because of image processing and predictive algorithms, combined with pre-ordained decision trees. And there may well be major unforeseen consequences, such as cascading failures and catastrophic feedback loop interactions between vehicles.
Re:Well... by I4ko · 2016-09-15 03:32 · Score: 1

??? 57>>>>1.65..
Re:Well... by segedunum · 2016-09-15 03:49 · Score: 0

After such a short period of time and usage, I'm afraid it is statistically significant. Even more so.
Re:Well... by kiviQr · 2016-09-15 03:56 · Score: 1

Are comparing fatalities to accidents?
Re:Well... by sosuke · 2016-09-15 04:01 · Score: 1

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic... http://www.cheatsheet.com/auto... It seems Tesla isn't doing to bad. The Nissan 350Z had 143 deaths per million registrants.
Re:Well... by jeremyp · 2016-09-15 04:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Nope.
That's not what "statistically significant" means. What it does mean is that the result is unlikely to happen by chance. If there have only ever been two fatalities while driving on autopilot, there really isn't enough data to be confident it's not a random cluster and so the number is not statistically significant.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Well... by Rei · 2016-09-15 04:11 · Score: 1

What's the fatality rate in South Carolina for luxury sports sedans?
How do South Carolina's collision rates compare to others were Tesla's are (or are you suggesting that all Teslas are in South Carolina)?

--
"I need swat, tactical, the guys with the flashlights on their guns, those guys with the big shield thingies"
Re:Well... by speedplane · 2016-09-15 04:28 · Score: 2

Statistically insignificant. Tesla stats will only matter when tens of thousands, if not millions, of trips have been made under autopilot.

The problem with waiting around for better data is that you're asking consumers to be the guinea pigs for an untested and potentially dangerous device. Through their overreaching marketing, and their lack of transparency, most would not trust Tesla with their life, and those that do, do so at their peril. A safer (albeit slower) approach would be for Tesla to demonstrate safety through public testing data.

--
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:31 · Score: 0

But 1.65>0.57.
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:31 · Score: 0

NOT SELF DRIVING YOU DIPSHIT!
Not that I care. Once we get self-driving cars without basic income, the economy is going to collapse soo hard, and I'll be laughing at all of you from my luxury bunker!
Re:Well... by burtosis · 2016-09-15 04:43 · Score: 1

Statistically insignificant. Tesla stats will only matter when tens of thousands, if not millions, of trips have been made under autopilot. Then compare accident rates. If Tesla turns out to be safer, it won't be because of AI, because we have no idea how humans drive in the first place. It will be because of image processing and predictive algorithms, combined with pre-ordained decision trees. And there may well be major unforeseen consequences, such as cascading failures and catastrophic feedback loop interactions between vehicles.
Apples to oranges - almost no one uses autopilot in the most adverse conditions where many If not most driving fatalities occur such as icy roads.
Re: Well... by johnsmithperson123 · 2016-09-15 04:52 · Score: 1

Its per hundred million miles driven.
Re:Well... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 04:56 · Score: 1

Statistically insignificant. Tesla stats will only matter when tens of thousands, if not millions, of trips have been made under autopilot. Then compare accident rates.
How few trips do you imagine have been made under autopilot so far? the 100 million mile mark was passed back in May. 100M/10k=10k. Since a Tesla can only go 300mi on a charge (assuming the best case) that means that they have to have had at least 333,333 trips. In actuality, of course, the number has to be much, much higher than that. Odds are beyond good that with 100M miles, there are more than 1 million trips.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:11 · Score: 0

Hedging a way to interpret a matching outcome as not Tesla's fault while moving the goalposts to achieve that scenario. Impressive cognitive dissonance, but as predictable as a higher accident rate with automated technologies in uncontrolled, complex environments.
Re:Well... by barc0001 · 2016-09-15 05:13 · Score: 2

> The problem with waiting around for better data is that you're asking consumers to be the guinea pigs for an untested and potentially dangerous device.
Counterpoint: You HAVE seen the roads being filled with potentially dangerous and unqualified meatbags driving multi ton objects at lethals speeds, yes?
An autopilot car has never crashed because it was doing its makeup, talking on a cellphone, had too many at the local bar, fell asleep, argued with its wife and jerked the wheel around to punctuate a salient point, confused the gas and brake and run through a farm market crowd, or just straight up had a psychotic break and decided that running over a sidewalk full of people was a cool thing to do. All of the former have been done by meatbags, who will continue to do so.
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:18 · Score: 0

They're comparing fatal accidents to all accidents. A fatal accident is a type of accident.
Re:Well... by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:19 · Score: 2

Tying the steering wheel with a rope and putting a brick on the gas pedal never got into an accident for any of those reasons either.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:22 · Score: 0

Exactly. In practice, Autopilot seems to only be engaged during the safest conditions. Plus, consider the type of vehicles, as we should be comparing Tesla with other higher end sedans, and not trucks, SUVs, or even compacts.
Re:Well... by barc0001 · 2016-09-15 05:40 · Score: 1

Except that the rope and brick method isn't intended to be an autopilot. More of a kinetic payload strike, so the fault would lie with the meatbag who sent the brick car on its course.
Re:Well... by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:52 · Score: 1

My point is that there is fault for all kinds of reasons. Just because it is a computer AI reason and not a human reason doesn't make it any less at fault.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Well... by orgelspieler · 2016-09-15 06:21 · Score: 1

It may not indicate what you think. It's possible that Tesla drivers are just bigger d-bags and worse drivers than the average joe blow. It might have nothing to do with autopilot at all. In my part of the country, it's generally assumed that if you drive a fancy car, you have to drive it like a complete asshat.
Re:Well... by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 06:46 · Score: 1

To continue your point, if I bought a $60K vehicle I would certainly be ultra-careful with it.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re: Well... by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 07:08 · Score: 1

But each of those trips has been a driverless car in isolation, surrounded by other cars driven by intelligent humans. Who knows how many accidents have been averted by the fast action of smart thinking people? Nobody, that's who.
Re: Well... by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 07:14 · Score: 2

Make a good point. Quite possibly driverless cars are impossible to adequately tested without putting many humans at risk. We have to decide if the value of that risk, and the inevitable deaths that will result, outweighs the benefit inconvenience and not having to drive ourselves. There is no guarantee that driverless cars will end up being safer than driving ourselves. It may be a wash, or it could be far more deadly. Nobody knows, because there is zero data on accidents in an environment where many or most cars are driverless.
Re: Well... by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 07:15 · Score: 1

You answer that perfectly, and I'm posting it on my wall as the correct explanation of "statistically significant"
Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 08:36 · Score: 0

Huh? A freakin ford f-150 pickup costs $60k.
Re:Well... by I4ko · 2016-09-15 10:40 · Score: 1

There was no 0
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 10:45 · Score: 0

Nope.
That's not what "statistically significant" means. What it does mean is that the result is unlikely to happen by chance. If there have only ever been two fatalities while driving on autopilot, there really isn't enough data to be confident it's not a random cluster and so the number is not statistically significant.
Agreed on your definition. I'm not sure I agree with your statement that this is not "statistically significant."
Let's assume for a moment that the probably of x% chance of a fatality per mile driven. I would say having a sample size of 10,000,000 miles would give enough of a sample to provide statistic significance. I don't know if this is the correct model to use, but I think those saying that this is a statistically insignificant sample need to explain WHY it is.
Yes, we have a lot more data on human drivers. However, as anybody with basic knowledge of math knows, that doesn't matter for this calculation. We may know a ton of statistics on the chances of a person winning the lottery, but that doesn't make the estimates of a person's chance of being robbed any more or less accurate.
So why with 10,000,000 miles of data can you say with confidence that we still don't have enough data?
Re: Well... by Cederic · 2016-09-15 11:06 · Score: 2

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f15... suggests you're at best being disingenuous.
Most people spend a fuck of a lot less than $60k on a car.
Re:Well... by thegarbz · 2016-09-15 11:21 · Score: 1

I have 0 per 100 million miles. Clearly I'm the safest person in the world.
The best thing about statistics is how few people understand them.
Re:Well... by RightwingNutjob · 2016-09-15 12:36 · Score: 1

There are about 4 million drivers in Mass. Average commute is 10 miles (ballpark). People work 250 days a year, making 500 trips for 5000 miles/yr/person. Total per-year is 20 x 10^9 miles. A rate of .57 per 100M would be about 11 fatalities per year, which is kind of low but within an order of magnitude of the correct answer. If stats have been kept for 50 years, that's 550 deaths, for an uncertainty (1-sigma) of 22 total deaths, meaning the uncertainty in the .57 number is 0.022. So on the high end, it would be about 0.6 per thousand. Tesla had 2 deaths with an uncertainty of 1.44. So yeah, sorry, there's like a 66% chance (and that's being generous) that Autopilot is less safe than our lovely Boston roads.
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 00:37 · Score: 0

That's a high rate of accidents per 100 meters
Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 11:17 · Score: 0

That may be. But the acceptance and success of Tesla and self-driving cars will be determined by customers and therefore human beings who don't give a shit about statistically significant in potentially live threatening situations.
Or do you touch a hot stove 1 million times because once is not statistically significant?
Re:Well... by segedunum · 2016-09-21 03:22 · Score: 1

Nope. You'd expect to have waited an awful lot longer for two fatalities to occur regardless. The lack of data owing to the short period of time actually doesn't help your case here.

Statistics is such a great game and you get a lot of numpties acting like it's some kind of science.

I smell fish by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:50 · Score: 0

Why would Mobileye care what Tesla was using its tech for. Sounds fishy.

Re:I smell fish by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:55 · Score: 0

Because Mobileye doesn't want to be associated with dead Tesla pilots as they try to sell their collision avoidance stack to other car makers.
Re:I smell fish by BostonPilot · 2016-09-15 03:04 · Score: 1

Right, nor do they want to be named in the inevitable lawsuits...
Re: I smell fish by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:04 · Score: 0

liability. reputation.
they provide practically all car manufacturers with the tech, but tesla refused to implement/keep enabled the safeties and promptly then marketed it as something it is not(musk doesn't understand that tweets by him are company marketing).
if you look at their tech sheet for off the shelf packages, it's obvious how tesla made their autopilot from it. tesla uses warning data for steering and took out limits and basically ignored the licenses. ..and probably reverse engineered some parts to use the internal data for purposes they feel it is dangerous for.
now tesla needs to find another provider - quick! that wants to "push the envelope".
mobileye was already pushing the envelope. they know it's stupid to allow the car to be totally controlled by the system even if is trivial to modify it to work like that and it can work for hundreds of km.
Re: I smell fish by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 06:51 · Score: 0

When you are a computer science professor who has published about a hundred highly cited articles on computer vision since 1988 and have been nurturing a company in this field since 1999 you are perfectly entitled to have a different outlook on risk tolerance than Elon Musk. A liability lawsuit can really ruin your day. Or your lifetime project.

Accidents are 99%... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 02:51 · Score: 0

Driver stupidity.

Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HBI · 2016-09-15 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Expecting Tesla to survive the avalanche of product liability suits that are coming is crazy. Musk appears oblivious to the problem. This is not a PR issue. There are numerous chinks in Tesla's armor that will be pried open and exploited by plaintiff lawyers. The company is toast. Mobileye is just trying to save itself and preserve relationships with other vendors.

As for that idiot Hotz...we can go visit him in some slum apartment in a few years. Bring a 12 pack and you can listen to him complain about how the system is rigged.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:04 · Score: 2

Musk is a Silicon Valley software guy. They have no concept of making things and they are used to an industry where you can sell people defective crap, have them find the bugs and then sell them a new version that fixes the crap that shouldn't have been shipped in the first place. Also SV people have this knack for over-hype that leads people to have expectations that the product cannot deliver.
AND, Musk has Space X and Tesla going.
Even if he were a competent manager, he is stretched too thin.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by BostonPilot · 2016-09-15 03:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

Expecting Tesla to survive the avalanche of product liability suits that are coming is crazy. Musk appears oblivious to the problem. This is not a PR issue. There are numerous chinks in Tesla's armor that will be pried open and exploited by plaintiff lawyers. The company is toast.

I'm glad you mentioned this. Just this weekend I telling (another pilot) that I don't understand the strategy. The goal of Tesla was to bring electric vehicles to the masses. How are they going to do that when they get sued into oblivion? A conservative approach would have been to offer assist technologies similar to what their competition (other luxury brands) was offering. Instead, Elon has acted like it's Autopilot that's selling Tesla cars. I think people like Autopilot, but would buy the car if it had a much less aggressive auto-drive system because the real value is in the electrification of the car, not the autopilot system.
It's not all that dissimilar to his falcon wing door misstep, except that falcon wing doors did not present an ongoing risk of expensive lawsuits.
So far the accidents have been such that the Tesla driver was the one who got hurt. What happens when a Tesla hits another car and kills everybody inside? How is Tesla going to avoid the liability? Yeah, sure, the driver should have been paying attention, but at least in the US Tesla will still get named in the lawsuit, and when they lose guess who is going to have to pony up the majority of the settlement? Hint: it won't be the driver.
The good news is that Elon may have already jump-started the electric car industry and even if Tesla gets sued out of existence we may have enough momentum for the other car companies to keep moving forward.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:16 · Score: 0

The world/government/customers want self driving cars. Not just want them, self driving cars have to become a reality as soon as possible. Roads of self driving cars will save billions in road/traffic maintenance and accident prevention. This has to happen, yesterday if possible.
Tesla will be given a free pass for being first to break the ice. They will probably fair better than the companies that follow. Every new problem Telsa faces will be wrapped in a "we didn't know better" safety blanket. The companies that follow will be raked over the coals for NOT doing what has already been proven.
You could say Tesla has indemnified itself by pushing to be first.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by 110010001000 · 2016-09-15 03:24 · Score: 1

100% correct! I have been saying that for years. He is a software services guy. He just thinks if there is a bug, no big deal, we will just fix it. No harm no foul right? Except now people are dying.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HBI · 2016-09-15 03:29 · Score: 2

My theory is that Musk didn't realize what was going to happen because it's his blind spot - the practicalities of selling hard consumer goods.
I think he may actually have an inkling of the fact that Tesla is doomed already and that's why the Mobileye announcement. Typically, if they thought they could weather this, they would join at the hip and offer a common defense and probably announce more cooperative deals. Someone got the hint amidst their discussions that Tesla realizes its impending doom and is going to throw its supplier under the bus, as it were. (ha) Mainly because they lack better choices because of poor strategy, as you note. So Mobileye is now blaming Tesla for its implementation, to absolve themselves of liability. You can see the battle lines forming.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:42 · Score: 0

People are dying/getting in accidents at a lower rate than human drivers... Expecting systems to be 100% perfect all the time is unrealistic - making it better than a human driver is what should matter, because perfection isn't possible.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HBI · 2016-09-15 03:49 · Score: 1

I don't think it is going to work that way.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by segedunum · 2016-09-15 03:51 · Score: 1

Take a look at those 'falcon wing' doors. No sensible engineer thinks those are a good idea. They're a nightmare production problem and an even bigger nightmare maintenance headache. They are there for visual and 'wow' impact.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HornWumpus · 2016-09-15 04:13 · Score: 1

Not that again: Once again, the only stats that show Tesla safer than human drivers compares Tesla divided highway driving (the safest kind of driving) with human driving in general.
It's an obvious statistical lie. Stop repeating it. If you're going to repeat it, go for the gusto...include driving in Mumbai, compare it to the world accident rate.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Digicrat · 2016-09-15 04:42 · Score: 2

Not that again: Once again, the only stats that show Tesla safer than human drivers compares Tesla divided highway driving (the safest kind of driving) with human driving in general.
And that is also the only stat that matters for the Tesla Autopilot. The system was only designed to be used on divided highway driving. Any other usage is not supported or encouraged. Just because early versions of the system didn't prohibit the driver from engaging it on unsupported roads, doesn't mean that those use cases are supported. They clearly state that the driver is responsible for paying attention, and that it should only be used for highway driving.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by ripvlan · 2016-09-15 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll agree with the suggestion - although think Musk has enough influence to survive and make it go away. If real problems began he'd probably leave to pursue other opportunities and new management would right the ship.
As a person who works in a regulated environment - you can't make claims about something that aren't proven. The product must be specifically designed & tested for these *Uses*. Read the back of a Tylenol / Aspirin bottle : "This product intended for the temporary relief of pain caused by ....(etc)" It doesn't cure cancer. If a salesperson tried to hint that maybe it did - they'd be strung up and fined (the drug industry has many examples of this).
However - apparently Tesla isn't regulated in this space. They can hint and suggest. The can say, "It is so good that most of the time it works as an autopilot self-driving system... but don't try it at home." It wasn't specifically designed to do this - so they shouldn't be able to hint at it. Customer's don't understand what this means - the darn thing works most of the time and they get used to it working.
Since the auto-pilot is designed to Assist the driver - the computer should monitor the driver and verify they are paying attention or pull the car over. Or NOT take over the wheel for indefinite periods of time. Consumers get used to this "not an approved use" behavior and begin to trust it - even make up their own uses ("hey look I can take a nap").
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:48 · Score: 0

BECAUSE THE CAR IS NOT DRIVING!!!!
THIS IS NOT A SELF-DRIVING CAR!!!! ARGH!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 04:58 · Score: 1

I think he may actually have an inkling of the fact that Tesla is doomed already and that's why the Mobileye announcement. Typically, if they thought they could weather this, they would join at the hip and offer a common defense and probably announce more cooperative deals.
Tesla is a niche player in the automotive industry, and no supplier wants to be married to a niche player. So... no.

Mobileye is now blaming Tesla for its implementation, to absolve themselves of liability.
Which is what they would do as an independent supplier no matter what.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by avandesande · 2016-09-15 05:00 · Score: 1

You have to wonder how many millions they sunk into this autopilot system and if it even 'sold' a single car. What a terrible business choice.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HornWumpus · 2016-09-15 05:00 · Score: 1

So what? There is no justification for comparing the Tesla highway 'autopilot' accident rate to the human general driving rate. Except statistical lies to make Tesla look better.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HBI · 2016-09-15 05:10 · Score: 1

They might not throw Tesla under the bus if the business was valuable enough. Apparently it isn't.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by DirkDaring · 2016-09-15 05:11 · Score: 1

And on a 'SUV'. Some sports utility vehicle that you can't put a kayak on the roof.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:12 · Score: 1

The problem that no one seems to be addressing is that driverless cars that work properly are going to be *expensive*. There has been driving assistance tech such as adaptive headlights for ten years, and the price doesn't come down. Rather, it just jacks the price of a luxury vehicle up. Unless the government is going to start subsidizing driveler cars for everyone they will never gain the adoption it needs for any kind of statistically relevant safety. It's just the way capitalism works.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by HBI · 2016-09-15 05:13 · Score: 1

I'd be willing to grant your point, but it'll be an irrelevancy to a jury. They are deciding a liability case, not deciding if Tesla is a benefit to society.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:18 · Score: 1

Tesla is a niche player in the automotive industry, and no supplier wants to be married to a niche player. So... no.
They might not throw Tesla under the bus if the business was valuable enough. Apparently it isn't.
Yes, very good, that's what I said. On one hand, they've got Tesla, which is selling a tiny handful of cars compared to the other hand... potentially, everyone else. They might even wind up supplying Tesla again someday, since this kind of dialogue is SOP for the industry. Nobody wants to be at fault for anything, predictably.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by PrimaryConsult · 2016-09-15 06:09 · Score: 1

To be fair, less vehicles with Kayaks on the roof is a net gain for society...
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by jezwel · 2016-09-15 13:19 · Score: 1

The average age of cars is 8-12 years, depending on your country. Self-driving cars will take a decade to become the norm after they completely replace unassisted cars in the marketplace, which is still years away simply due to immaturity of the technology and price to implement in the cheaper cars.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 13:22 · Score: 1

How will they ever get cheaper than manual cars? People will prefer manual cars as long as they are cheaper.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Mobileye understands lit. Musk doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 02:15 · Score: 0

Actually, if the only SUVs that were on the road had kayaks on the roof, that would be a net gain for society. And you could look upon SUV drivers without utter disdain for their total disregard for said society.

Saving face? by Dega704 · 2016-09-15 02:55 · Score: 1

It is very possible that this whole mess really is all Tesla's fault, but I also can't help but wonder if Mobileye just threw them under the bus to protect their own reputation.

Re:Saving face? by mea_culpa · 2016-09-15 04:19 · Score: 1

Any computer vision system that does not use LIDAR as its primary sensor does not belong in a vehicle capable of causing harm. Each death that has occurred in autonomous vehicles thus far is due to inadequate sensors being used.
I am baffled that someone really thought it was a good idea to install these on production vehicles knowing these limitations.
I haven't looked, but I'd imagine that even Mobleye intended for these to be installed in vehicles.
Re:Saving face? by Bartles · 2016-09-15 10:35 · Score: 1

I disagree. If people can do it with visible spectrum vision, an accelerometer, and feedback through the steering system, then so can a computer. It's a software issue.

In other words.... by Bugler412 · 2016-09-15 02:55 · Score: 1

Mobileye doesn't want the liability exposure in that market, whether or not their product actually fulfills the role that Tesla is using it for.

Translation: Tesla dropped our product. We Mad by BenJeremy · 2016-09-15 02:57 · Score: 2

Sour grapes from a former vendor. Mobileye would sell cameras to blind people if they could. Vendors are not leading any auto program in the industry... 2nd and 3rd tier vendors are even worse, and require constant attention, or they will deliver poor quality and unsafe products.

More likely they raised their prices and Tesla balked at the price and moved to another vendor.

Re:Translation: Tesla dropped our product. We Mad by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:40 · Score: 0

No; there was word from Tesla that Mobileye was no longer willing to sell cameras to Tesla; Tesla spun it as: we planned to drop them anyways because they don't innovate as fast as we do since they work with other car makers too.
Re:Translation: Tesla dropped our product. We Mad by WaffleMonster · 2016-09-15 04:59 · Score: 1

Sour grapes from a former vendor. Mobileye would sell cameras to blind people if they could. Vendors are not leading any auto program in the industry... 2nd and 3rd tier vendors are even worse, and require constant attention, or they will deliver poor quality and unsafe products.
More likely they raised their prices and Tesla balked at the price and moved to another vendor.
It was actually space aliens because this seems like most likely reason to me.

Symantics by ddtmm · 2016-09-15 03:03 · Score: 1

The problem with Mobileye's view is that no matter what you call it, people will treat it like the car drives itself. Mobileye's CTO, "No matter how you spin it, (Autopilot) is not designed for that. It is a driver assistance system and not a driverless system". They'd like to differentiate the 2 but the line is very blurry, and fading more everyday. Mobileye's disclaimer is no more indemnifying than Tesla's, "continuously educated customers on the use of the features, reminding them that they're responsible to keep their hands on the wheel and remain alert and present when using Autopilot". To me it just smells like Mobileye is doing anything they can to make sure blame doesn't make it all the way to them.

Re: Symantics by WindBourne · 2016-09-15 03:43 · Score: 1

Not really. Mobileye product is not just hardware, but software. Sadly, it's crap, which is why Tesla used the hardware, but never used ME's software.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Symantics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:44 · Score: 0

What does Symantec have to do with it? Cars virused?
Oh, you mean semantics.
Re:Symantics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:05 · Score: 0

"people will treat it like the car drives itself"
Which is why the software forces drivers to keep their hands on the wheel, have you ever seen a review video with someone letting autopilot drive? If you don't routinely move the wheel it beeps at you, if you still don't move the wheel it turns autopilot off. Blaming Tesla for accidents where the driver wasn't paying attention is a little like blaming a wood chipper manufacture when some idiot decides to ignore the cowling, the the warning labels, etc and climb into the chipper to retriever an item while it is still running and looses some fingers or their life.
Re:Symantics by MichaelSmith · 2016-09-15 05:22 · Score: 1

reminding them that they're responsible to keep their hands on the wheel
If Tesla were serious about they they would put a dead man switch on the steering wheel.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by bagboy · 2016-09-15 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

because there isn't much to run into in the air and flights are required to file a flight plan so they have clear airspace. Even then, you always have a pilot on the ready. And this has been around for decades. Letting a computer be in full control of your life on the ground at high speeds is foolish.

Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:18 · Score: 0

>Letting a human be in full control of your life on the ground at high speeds is foolish
FTFY
Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by bagboy · 2016-09-15 03:20 · Score: 1

touche. Although I'd rather chance having other humans on the road than a system designed by those same flawed humans.
Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:29 · Score: 0

Yes, but in an airplane of any commercial size you also have a TCAS system which does its best to resolve imminent collisions - i.e. if you don't do the recommended action immediately, the autopilot will be overridden according to the programmed protocol to take an algorithmic action as a last-ditch effort to avoid collision. And even then, sometimes the system fails and you get a big jet collision.
Where's the TCAS in a Tesla?
You also have pilots who are trained to continue to scan the skies and use their skills while floating on autopilot. I'm not saying they always do that, but that is how they are trained. Maybe we should require ground vehicle operators to have the same degree and amount of training that a beginner pilot is required to have?
Oh.
Then yeah, I have to agree with my father who said back in the 70s, "Self driving cars will never be allowed to exist on any large scale. People won't allow that."
Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:00 · Score: 0

Even then, you always have a pilot on the ready.
I think you missed the story a few years ago where either both pilots fell asleep or were too busy reading work related changes off their iPads that they accidently massively overshot their destination while on auto pilot. I can't wait for the similar stories of people who fall asleep on the highway and find themselves out of gas in the middle of nowhere with no cell service and no maps. Have the horror movies picked this up yet? Hacker hacks your car to take you to his killing arena while you're too busy reading or sleeping to notice.
How many people have played Desert Bus? We played it at school and managed to get one point before someone fucked it up, and even then we were trading drivers fairly regularly. I imagine handling a cross-country trip with a half-functioning autopilot is like playing that game.
Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:00 · Score: 0

CSI:Cyer had an episode with a similar albeit different storyline.
Re:Autopilot works on Airplanes.. by MichaelSmith · 2016-09-15 05:26 · Score: 1

And aircraft use radar for collision avoidance.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Mobileye got dumped by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:08 · Score: 0

Oh give me a break. Tesla/Musk is a customer of Mobileye's, Mobileyes system drove a car into the side of a truck. It could have been any of Mobileye's customers cars it drove into a truck, it happened to be Tesla. Musk marketing Autopilot hard MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the performance of that system. Tesla HAS taken repeated steps to force peoples hands on the wheels to compensate for this crap tech.

So Mobileye got dumped by Tesla, and rightly so. Even if they market it, as Tesla's fault their self driving tech can't see a truck across the road.

Musk will push self driving cars because he's a marketer and thats what they do. What needs to happen now is the US regulators get their shit together and push back, so that only the safe levels of this tech get passed. If Mobileye's stuff doesn't pass a driving test, then it shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Whether the car is a Tesla or other vendor.

Musk pushing forward with self driving cars is a GOOD thing. Governments pushing hard tests of those cars is also a GOOD THING. Musk needs to find a better system, likely with a lot more sensors, and governments need to device decent tests of those so everyone has confidence in the self driving cars that are launched.

Re:Mobileye got dumped by HBI · 2016-09-15 03:19 · Score: 2

You don't understand litigation either. Tesla sold the vehicle and will take the lion's share of the liability. Even if they manage to hold in a component vendor, it won't be for the bulk of the payouts.
Even if Tesla had an umbrella liability policy covering this type of thing, it's either cancelled already or under underwriter review and will be cancelled based upon these events.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re: Mobileye got dumped by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 11:28 · Score: 0

It would be a good thing if he would only use his own money. But he's ripping off the middle class to produce cars for his rich crooked friends while pretending to save the world.
In short, he's like Goldman Sachs

Re:Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:14 · Score: 0

>plundering government subsidies
can you give us some data on that ?

AI's a Lie by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 03:23 · Score: 1

We don't even understand how humans make split-second decisions while driving, let alone know how to replicate that decision-making in software. So programming a computer to do this is a completely random act. This is not AI, and anyone who says it is now an accomplice to manslaughter.

Re:AI's a Lie by AuMatar · 2016-09-15 03:44 · Score: 1

We don't need to, because the program doesn't need to make the decision in the same way, it just needs to come to a correct outcome. Basically it needs to be able to process the images/radar info/other input and come to a decision as to whether its about to hit anything and if so what to do about it. That is something that we're becoming capable of doing (and improved image recognition will push this along). But the path taken to get there can be completely divergent from how humans think.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:AI's a Lie by thinkwaitfast · 2016-09-15 04:19 · Score: 1

Car AI's think in the same way that a web servers thinks about sending out a page to a requesting computer.
Re:AI's a Lie by HornWumpus · 2016-09-15 04:19 · Score: 1

How do you tell the difference between a blowing plastic bag and a bouncing kid's ball on a side street?
Highways are the easy part of the automated driving problem.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:AI's a Lie by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:02 · Score: 1

People who argue otherwise really, REALLY don't understand human psychology at all.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re: AI's a Lie by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 07:07 · Score: 1

The outcome isn't the same though. In this case the outcome has been death, two times, through no mistake by the human occupants. The problem with calling this AI is that it imbues driverless cars with some kind of mystical advantage that they don't really have. This isn't intelligence, it isn't an analog of human analog driving processes, and it isn't proven to be safe in anyway. It's just a bunch of algorithms strung together with some image processing tools and half-vast heuristics to implement someone's best idea of how to automatically drive a car.
Re: AI's a Lie by AuMatar · 2016-09-15 07:33 · Score: 1

Congratulations you just described what AI is. Its a bunch of algorithms strung together with heuristics to implement someone's best idea of how to do something. Believing it to be anything else means you spend too much time reading sci-fi books and not enough time actually studying AI. All anything based on processors and software can ever be is just that. The question is how well can that drive a car? The answer is it isn't quite there but we're getting a lot closer. I don't really expect it in the next 10 years, but we will get there.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re: AI's a Lie by mbeckman · 2016-09-15 07:45 · Score: 1

Congratulations, you just admitted that there is no actual Intelligence in AI. I wish all AI proponents were so honest. What we have here is no more than a trumped up tic tac toe program, intrinsically no different from any other flawed thinking about what intelligence really is. What it really is not is algorithms strung together.

Distract from a buggy product by Steve1952 · 2016-09-15 03:26 · Score: 2

I find the timing interesting. After the Tesla crash, Mobileeye admitted that their system can't distinguish cars or trucks entering the main road from a side road. They then said it would take several years to implement this functionality. Then they "dropped" Tesla. It looks to me more as if the Mobileeye product had a hidden defect. If Mobileye had publicised this problem in advance of the crash, it is likely that Tesla and the other car manufacturers considering Mobileeye would have had a better understanding of the Mobileeye limitations, and could have adjusted their plans accordingly.

Re:Distract from a buggy product by yodleboy · 2016-09-15 03:32 · Score: 1

Yeah there's never, ever been a case where a company has used a component for a purpose it wasn't designed for, or exaggerated the capabilities of a used component. More likely is that Tesla picked Mobileeye because it was closest to being able to do what they intended, and they assumed they could provide the missing smarts in code. Mobileeye is now understandably worried about liability.

Must is a psychopath endangering others by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:35 · Score: 0

to get a momentary thrill. Tesla is a business failure and its products are a danger to society.

He is not lying. Mobile eye is not for that. by WindBourne · 2016-09-15 03:36 · Score: 1

Seriously, it is obvious that mobile eye could not do that. Otherwise, Tesla would not have put in all this work on software to go much much further than what mobileye software did. Tesla only used them for hardware, not their crappy software.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:He is not lying. Mobile eye is not for that. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 21:57 · Score: 0

If Tesla were just using Mobileye for the hardware, what exactly is special about their hardware that makes it different from other cameras? It seems to me that Mobileye's detection algorithms are part of the package. While Tesla (and other car makers) can control how their cars react to the output of those algorithms, surely those algorithms are the reason that Mobileye's hardware is choosen.

Re: I'm short TSLA by lxs · 2016-09-15 03:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Shorting a Tesla is generally a bad idea. 60-85kWH batteries tend to react vigorously to that sort of treatment.

permission to share: by KabarSebenarnya · 2016-09-15 03:58 · Score: 0

new features of facebook : http://www.newstop2.com/2016/0...

Re:Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:04 · Score: 0

>plundering government subsidies
can you give us some data on that ?

I got a better idea: you tell us something Elon Musk makes money off of that DOESN'T depend on government subsidies.

Seriously. Try doing that.

Re:Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:12 · Score: 0

Of course. They stole 300 million for something they don't have: http://watchdog.org/230562/telsa-cap-and-trade/

Archer by Nidi62 · 2016-09-15 04:22 · Score: 1

Whenever I think of Tesla drivers complaining about the Autopilot, I think of this(sorry, couldn't find the actual clip)

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Worthless feature by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:29 · Score: 0

An autopilot that doesn't allow you to do something else is worthless if not an outright danger. A proper one is coming I'm sure, but until then trying to push it the way Tesla has is risky as it may attract the attention of unwanted laws and regulations. After all once a good autopilot is widely available, we don't want laws existing that say the driver must be awake. Ultimately the auto makers will have to take on the liability of driving themselves.

You can't operate Autopilot safely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:32 · Score: 0

Assume the following situation:
You'r driving down the highway for 2 hours with autopilot enabled. Now the Autopilot has some error (sensor defect, software error, cosmic ray hit, other hardware error) and suddenly the it does some drastic steering. If you're near the guard rail you probably have 0.1 seconds before impact.
Even if you are alert all the time there's no way how you could react fast enough to avoid an accident. But it's your fault not the Autopilot.

There will be more accidents and it will become clear, that you can't operate half-autonomous vehicles safley.

Re:You can't operate Autopilot safely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:56 · Score: 0

Fault is up for grabs actually - the device is designed to make interrupt difficult for human users (i.e. drivers of cars). Faulty product design kills customers.
Re:You can't operate Autopilot safely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 08:56 · Score: 0

Is there even a single instance of the even being suspected of happening? I can dream up doomsday scenarios as well, "driver is minding his own business, suddenly the fuel line bursts and the entire engine compartment goes up in flames. OMG why don't all cars come equipped with a dashboard fuel cutoff and an engine compartment fire extinguisher system@!?". You're never going to have a perfectly safe vehicle, there will always be manufacturing defects, freak accidents, design issues, software issues, etc. The only thing that matters is if it is as safe/safer than current technology/methodologies. Admittedly the jury is still out on that when it comes to Teslas Autopilot, but its not looking all that bad for it either (what is it, 2 or three possible deaths and almost 100k vehicles on the road?).
Re:You can't operate Autopilot safely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 15:23 · Score: 0

Not even close - your are off significantly, and for every other production car cherry picking road mileage like autopilot does skews the statistics more in their favor. Tesla is nearly a death trap skimping on real safety and quality control for exotic battery and automation technology and more, all of which lack adequate testing. Why? Musk is a cheap bastard who thinks he has gets to ignore the way the universe works.

Musk by Curunir_wolf · 2016-09-15 04:38 · Score: 1

Prepare for the onrush of /. Musk worshipers defending Teslas and everything Musk does and says...

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:Musk by fnj · 2016-09-15 05:18 · Score: 1

Will they balance the mountain of mouth-breathing ignorant knee-jerk haters?

Re: I'm short TSLA by burtosis · 2016-09-15 04:38 · Score: 1

Funny but technically the tesla battery is probably the most advanced and capable electric vehicle battery on the market. It would most likely just heat the conductor you are shorting it with and have no internal issues. It's not like a galaxy note 7.

So...the burn? by argStyopa · 2016-09-15 04:39 · Score: 1

How hard did Elon fuck this guy's company that he comes out with this publicly?

My guess is this company said "you can't really do what you're trying to do with our stuff", Elon said 'make it work or else' and then implemented the 'or else' when they either failed or declined.

--
-Styopa

Liability is not for everyone by cloud.pt · 2016-09-15 04:40 · Score: 2

One of the few things I will take for granted from Elon, is his vision that if EVERY car on the road follows SOLIDLY PROGRAMMED RULES (and the sensors, of course, do not all catastrophically fail, frequently), you will have a drastic decrease, maybe even statistically eliminate car accidents. Everybody has this misconception that automated "piloting", whatever its form, will eventually create harm either by outright failure or for being so right it eventually acknowledges the "crew" is "a" harm. Fact of the matter is, everybody is just afraid of acknowledging their own imperfection, and of losing their jobs and their economy, because the definition of automation is exactly that: replacing people with a better, cheaper and easier process. We have robots flying millions of miles to other planets without much issue. Yet the main reason we don't send humans to first missions of anything is not because they're worse - it's just that they're a liability to lose in a complexity of aspects that cannot be controlled at all - public opinion is very powerful into downing any idea it preempts wrong..

I believe Elon is damn right that it is necessary to take risks in driving automation, and the holy grail in that field is to move human brain and action 100% out of the equation, for the simplest reason of them all: the driver, unlike computers, does not always have his safety as the first priority, be it by will to do something else or by distraction. Were talking big car companies here, not a service provider of a yet small car producer. Small companies cannot phathom the handling of such liability, oftentimes they don't even have the financial or legal capacity to handicap themselves with an established legal defense: ultimately the driver is liable for 99% litigation that happens about accidents TODAY because HE IS MAKING ALL DECISIONS IN REAL-TIME. Drivers don't stand a chance really. Judges will minutely side with the driver in litigation "against a car", and when they do, it usually makes it to national television.

Elon has been risking it with both Tesla and Space X because he knows he has, to some extent, the money (or the ability to direct others' money) into something bold. This is not courage like Apple likes to call it, it's calculated risk assessment with a very high return and smaller than usual probability - nobody wants that kind of bet, unless they're either truly altruistic or they're in the business of not having a standardized existence in this world. And guess what, that is just fine by me and I won't blame him for trying to be great.

Re:Liability is not for everyone by atikare · 2016-09-15 10:31 · Score: 1

I wish I could give you mod points for saying that. there is way too much hate for the guy for essentially trying to move us in the right direction. I mean look at the contrast, traditional automakers have been sitting on their asses on even basic things like touchscreen and navigation plus they all want to charge huge premiums for it. lets not forget that this is the guy who got a freaking rocket to land back on earth! making a car drive itself is not rocket science!!

overall i am fine with him taking calculated risks in both self driving & EV space.
Re:Liability is not for everyone by cloud.pt · 2016-09-15 11:51 · Score: 1

We have gotten to a point where bureaucracy is hampering basic human traits like originality, creativity or even technological progress. I'm kinda picturing what it would have been like if a guy in the stone age discovered a fire starting method, but then some form of authority came along and said "nuh-uh, that thing is dangerous, it's hot yet we cannot stop it with sheer will, and it spreads around like, huh, fire. Come back to me when it has been socially accepted to be safe, but you CAN'T introduce it to society :'-( . Who knows, you might not even be alive by then but at least you didn't die from a blaze. Hopefully."
I guess it's a scale problem. We need to get to them exoplantes STAT.

Re: Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 04:46 · Score: 0

SpaceX? Last I heard they had received a grand total of $20m in subsidies, less than a third of what they charge for a single launch. Seems difficult to conclude that they depend on that.

Rename it ... by Monoman · 2016-09-15 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Rename it to something like Copilot or Driver Assist. They can say what they want about how Autopilot should be used but the name suggests otherwise.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.

Re:Rename it ... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

Rename it to something like Copilot or Driver Assist.
You can't name it "driver assist" because that would be confusing — automatic emergency braking and adaptive cruise control are also driver assistance technologies. You can't name it "copilot" because a co-pilot can actually take over control of the vehicle completely; that is a spectacularly brain-damaged suggestion given that your complaint is that the name is misleading, and your suggestion would be more misleading. If you have any suggestions not inspired by drug-fueled fever dreams, I'm sure Tesla would be interested.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Rename it ... by Monoman · 2016-09-15 05:12 · Score: 2

Troll much? I disagree that they would be more misleading. I guess we should rename it "Not Autopilot"

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Rename it ... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:16 · Score: 1, Troll

Troll much?
It's pretty sad that you can't tell the difference between a troll and an opinion even when provided with an extensive comment history. Work on your parser.

I disagree that they would be more misleading.
Try a dictionary. It might help.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Rename it ... by Monoman · 2016-09-15 05:33 · Score: 2

Your comments "spectacularly brain-damaged suggestion" and "drug-fueled" are why I consider your post troll like. Have a great day.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Rename it ... by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:41 · Score: 0

The only explanations I can come up with for why you not only think those are better suggestions but actually thought that someone else might think so are drug abuse, or brain damage perhaps caused by drug abuse. There is absolutely no logical reason why you should think either of those things were better. When this was pointed out to you, instead of defending your choices (with an actual argument, such as I provided) you chose to cry about my choice of assertion. But trolling is when you're just trying to make someone mad, and usually involves saying something you don't even believe. I really do think there's something wrong with you, therefore my comment is not a troll, and by extension, neither am I.
On the other hand, your comment is utterly devoid of value, and contains the same sort of foolish suggestion that has been made and shot down repeatedly in these discussions by persons with superior domain knowledge (specifically automotive and language) and so it could reasonably be read as a troll. However, it would have to be a clever troll, and I've read enough of your comment history to know that you're not that clever.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Rename it ... by TrekkieGod · 2016-09-15 08:16 · Score: 1

Rename it to something like Copilot or Driver Assist. They can say what they want about how Autopilot should be used but the name suggests otherwise.
A variety of autopilot systems in airplanes differ in complexity, many of them not doing anything more than the Model S autopilot does. Hold this heading. Need to change heading now? Let me dial in the new heading...ok, now hold that heading. Exactly analogous to the Model S. Hold this lane and speed. Need to change lanes? Let me press and hold the turn signal button...ok, now hold this lane.
By contrast a copilot can actually take over for you. You transfer the pilot-in-command job, let them hold the yoke, and they go nuts.
I think the problem is that people don't really understand autopilots in airplanes. They think the pilot can just say, "take me to LaGuardia" and the thing will do it. Although the more advanced autopilots of the today in commercial airliners can land the plane for you, it still requires the pilot to go through the pattern, get on the final leg, dial in the ILS frequency for the runway in question, and THEN it can go through the motions of controlling speed, keeping the plane lined up, and flaring at the appropriate height. Autopilots are not replacements for pilots.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Rename it ... by Monoman · 2016-09-15 10:28 · Score: 1

Thank you for the insightful reply. You make some good points.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Rename it ... by thegarbz · 2016-09-15 11:22 · Score: 1

I agree. Tesla's system shouldn't be called autopilot. It is far more capable than the autopilot everyone knows and pretends to understand (plane autopilot).

Re:Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by DirkDaring · 2016-09-15 04:48 · Score: 1

Ok. Tesla. Next?

Humans by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 04:54 · Score: 1

I find it really bizarre that Tesla is using the logic that people are imperfect drivers so we need automated driving... and then expect them to be even more perfect in staying diligent at the wheel while there is nothing to do. Yes people are not perfect, so design a system that is foolproof or leave it alone.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Haters are going to hate... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:02 · Score: 0

So let me get this straight - the spurned supplier that just had an ugly breakup with Tesla is now dissing Tesla. What a *big* surprise! I also like how people who don't have Teslas and have never used Autopilot are experts. Also I notice that the statistics on deaths in Tesla vs. averages posted by someone else lack sources. I'm pretty sure the Tesla deaths are a fraction of the average. Let's see the source

Re:Haters are going to hate... by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:03 · Score: 1

Apparently Elon is still posting as anonymous coward.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Haters are going to hate... by ArtemaOne · 2016-09-15 14:41 · Score: 1

Yes, people requesting citation are certainly suspect.
Re:Haters are going to hate... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:19 · Score: 0

People making claims that get consumers killed go to prison. That is what Musk deserves.

Don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:03 · Score: 0

Corporations say a lot of things, and some of them are even true...

I remember when Microsoft bought VirtualPC maker Connectix, claiming it was the #1 virtualization platform. 6 months later we find out MS tried to buy VMware and were rebuffed, so they went with their #2 choice and spun it like they were the #1 choice. I'm thinking Mobileye got dumped by Tesla and they're using this to save face, and more importantly, stock price.

Re:Don't believe it by fluffernutter · 2016-09-15 05:15 · Score: 1

It would be pretty bold of them to make the claim that they never intended their technology to be used in the way that Tesla used it without being able to prove it.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Don't believe it by edtice1559 · 2016-09-15 05:58 · Score: 1

It's pretty well-known (among those who actually work on autonomous vehicles) that you don't even attempt to build something like the Tesla auto-pilot unless you have a (big, expensive) LIDAR system on the roof. Otherwise you stick to adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, and emergency brake application. You certainly don't attempt to follow the contours of a road with such very limited sensor input.
Re: Don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 06:09 · Score: 0

I hear even LIDAR can get tricked up by fog.
Re: Don't believe it by sl3xd · 2016-09-15 08:56 · Score: 1

The beauty of LIDAR is you aren't limited to visible wavelengths of light.
Infra-red is considerably better than visible wavelengths at handling smoke & fog. It may not penetrate for miles, but it will do just fine for a few hundred meters.
Ever wonder why the James Webb space telescope is infra-red? Because an IR telescope can see through gas clouds that block visible light.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.

Kudos to Shashua by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:21 · Score: 0

Kudos to Shashua for not being evil. That took guts. Shashua is an MIT PhD who's done seminal work in computer vision. He is no lightweight. Most people would not give up Musk's bounty. Those of us who actually know something about computer vision, unlike the media fanboys, know that none of these systems at present can deal with all eventualities. What's worse, the systems based on learning can't tell you why they decided something. They just say "trust me."

Re: Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:23 · Score: 0

Who are they charging for launches? The government. If you depend on a government contract to survive, you're not a business.

Engineering? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 05:23 · Score: 0

Success in engineering is about having the right political connections and lying about technical details. and of course, preferably not having many engineers in the staff...

Re: I'm short TSLA by ausekilis · 2016-09-15 05:41 · Score: 1

Apparently he's learned nothing from all the Samsung posts lately.

So, which friend of Monoman is modding me? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-15 05:47 · Score: 0

Or does he have his own separate account with modpoints?

It's pretty pathetic how you trollbags have to trollmod people when they make you look like the idiots you are.

I've been consistent in expressing the opinion that not only is autopilot a perfectly cromulent name, but that literally every suggestion which has been presented here on Slashdot is actually more confusing than autopilot. I've presented links to evidence of same, primarily located in the dictionary.

If you don't know what words mean, look them up. If this is too arduous for you, then why not just stop posting? That would be even better. And it would be double-plus extra even better if you would stop moderating things you don't understand. If you don't know why "driver assist" would be more confusing than autopilot, then you are insufficiently familiar with automobiles to have anything useful to say about them — all of these technologies are called driver assists and you cannot reasonably just go calling one of them "driver assist". But don't let your abject ignorance stop you from posting, it doesn't stop anyone else.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

I guess I must be unique by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 06:11 · Score: 0

I don't even feel comfortable using cruise control. I only resort to it when my leg gets sore and I have to let it relax for a few minutes on long trips. I never use it in bad weather or when traffic is heavy.

Re: I'm short TSLA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 07:53 · Score: 0

Technically, it is still a Panasonic battery, the Tesla sticker notwithstanding.

Hacker uncovers unknown Tesla technology by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 07:58 · Score: 0

https://www.inverse.com/article/20924-tesla-autopilot-collision-footage

Undiscovered feature found in Tesla Autopilot by curiousgeorgeishere · 2016-09-15 08:18 · Score: 1

Undiscovered feature found in Tesla Autopilot https://www.inverse.com/articl... Could this could be an issue in terms of agreement ?

funny.. by SuperDre · 2016-09-15 08:35 · Score: 1

and tesla said THEY dumped mobileye...

Re:funny.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 15:26 · Score: 0

That's just Musk spinning it for damage control, but the investors are smart and leaving while all his ventures are failing.

Re: Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 08:43 · Score: 0

Tesla has so far received billions in subsidies, hundreds of millions by cheating.

Re: Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Ries · 2016-09-15 09:10 · Score: 1

What? They launch for several countries and companies. http://www.spacex.com/missions

Re: Tesla has pushed the envelope on everything by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 11:44 · Score: 0

Do you understand the meaning of the word "trade"?

Slashdot Mirror

Mobileye Says Tesla Was Dropped Because of Safety Concerns

218 comments