I think it would help a lot of Tesla were to explain what the point is of putting a self driving feature in a car that you can't leave alone for a second. It totally baffles my mind what the point of this even is.
Face it. People are limited and stupid. This is not a great secret to life. If you design a system in a car, it has to work with the most limited and stupid of all people. Again, this is something that has been learned by the automotive industry over years and years, it's no secret. I personally believe Tesla was wrong to sell this system in their cars, because if you leave the door open for people to abuse anything then people will. They tried to design a system that augmented the ability of humans without thinking about how humans would use it, which is a total failure. If a car didn't need to work with all manner of humans, then designing a self driving car would be easy and everyone would be doing it. All Tesla did was ignore the human factor in this case, rather then do anything particularly amazing. It's not illegal to be stupid but it is illegal to make a car that kills people.
If there were a human that was only really good at chess but couldn't do anything else, you might call him/her a savant but you certainly wouldn't call them smart.
As exemplified by this case, any feature that controls the steering wheel 'some of the time' is dangerous because people will not be involved enough in what is happening on the road to take control if they need to. Otherwise, if they want to put that stuff in a car for free I'll buy it, but in my experience those things tend to go into luxury cars that I would never consider.
He wasn't driving because he had autopilot. There are plenty YouTube videos of Musk and his wife doing the exact same thing (being in the car with their eyes closed, etc), so if Musk thinks that is what Autopilot is for then why not the customers?
If self driving cars can't save enough lives (and property) to offset the costs of the vehicle then they will have failed.
Taxi companies and any company that wants to avoid paying a driver, yes that is true the charge may be worth that. But that isn't going to save lives. The thing that's going to save lives is having all drunk drivers in these things; but most drunk drivers aren't going to pay for them. Hey, exercise and healthy eating saves lives and it's free but we can't even get the average person to make that sacrifice.
So of course all this proves is making a case for automated cars saving lives is complete BS, or at least generations down the road. People should not be dying as a cost of testing these things. The human toll may easily exceed more than they will ever save.
NOT reported in those statistics is how many of those 130 million miles were doing things more complex then just driving down a straight road. If people are disengaging autopilot every time there is a bump in the road then 130 million miles doesn't prove anything. Show me 130 million miles where a person was specifically prohibited from disengaging autopilot and then I might listen.
The thing I'm trying to grasp in all of this is how Tesla could think that people would be able to use this as a workable solution. It's obvious people are idiots. Look at the McDonalds coffee cup case, look at all the instructions for electronic devices that specify that they should not be used near water. If you go out in the world it is so blatantly clear that people are idiots that it is almost reprehensible that autopilot was released in this capacity.
But Autopilot apparently only sees in 2D. So in 2D, a sign in the distance is a small rectangle and a trailer nearby is another small rectangle. If they line up and there is a line in the code that says 'If see rectangle of size x in front, it is ok keep driving' then the car will keep driving.
So why do we label automatic transmissions P R N D 1 2 3. It's your belief if car manufacturers switched the R and the D people should just be smart enough to figure it out and deal with it? To a certain extent a company should anticipate the shortcomings of their customers and do the safe thing.
Do you really think at a certain point data will have every single possible scenario? There will always be edge cases that may make AI too dangerous to use ever.
People keep saying that autonomous cars will save lives.. but for that, all the dangerous drivers out there need to actually buy one. Dangerous drivers usually don't think they're dangerous. So unless there are going to be huge subsidies for people to buy autonomous cars quickly, this dream of safer roads will never come to fruitation. I can't believe that an autonomous car will be anywhere near the price of a regular car, given that all current driver assist features are in more expensive cars.
So basically Tesla is using the public for something that previously companies would have a whole team of testers for. Nice that Tesla saves money on employees at the cost of lives.
I don't get autopilot either. I mean, if you have to pay attention why have it. When people buy something like this they do what makes sense to them. So they will not be watching while it drives for them, because that is the only use purpose for this that makes sense.
There's the rub. Cruise control goes some of the way but it doesn't do the whole job for you. This makes cruise control an entirely bad comparison. If people still have something to do they will pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
The other car manufacturers didn't put 'auto' in the name of the technology.
I think it would help a lot of Tesla were to explain what the point is of putting a self driving feature in a car that you can't leave alone for a second. It totally baffles my mind what the point of this even is.
Why should everyone change because Tesla can't make a self driving car work?
I think you should try driving a truck and see how easy it is to 'break' into busy roads without getting in anyone's way.
Face it. People are limited and stupid. This is not a great secret to life. If you design a system in a car, it has to work with the most limited and stupid of all people. Again, this is something that has been learned by the automotive industry over years and years, it's no secret. I personally believe Tesla was wrong to sell this system in their cars, because if you leave the door open for people to abuse anything then people will. They tried to design a system that augmented the ability of humans without thinking about how humans would use it, which is a total failure. If a car didn't need to work with all manner of humans, then designing a self driving car would be easy and everyone would be doing it. All Tesla did was ignore the human factor in this case, rather then do anything particularly amazing. It's not illegal to be stupid but it is illegal to make a car that kills people.
I hope you don't work on software that interfaces with people.
If there were a human that was only really good at chess but couldn't do anything else, you might call him/her a savant but you certainly wouldn't call them smart.
As exemplified by this case, any feature that controls the steering wheel 'some of the time' is dangerous because people will not be involved enough in what is happening on the road to take control if they need to. Otherwise, if they want to put that stuff in a car for free I'll buy it, but in my experience those things tend to go into luxury cars that I would never consider.
He wasn't driving because he had autopilot. There are plenty YouTube videos of Musk and his wife doing the exact same thing (being in the car with their eyes closed, etc), so if Musk thinks that is what Autopilot is for then why not the customers?
Well I guess that will be for the courts to decide.
If self driving cars can't save enough lives (and property) to offset the costs of the vehicle then they will have failed.
Taxi companies and any company that wants to avoid paying a driver, yes that is true the charge may be worth that. But that isn't going to save lives. The thing that's going to save lives is having all drunk drivers in these things; but most drunk drivers aren't going to pay for them. Hey, exercise and healthy eating saves lives and it's free but we can't even get the average person to make that sacrifice.
So of course all this proves is making a case for automated cars saving lives is complete BS, or at least generations down the road. People should not be dying as a cost of testing these things. The human toll may easily exceed more than they will ever save.
Yes. Let's punish EVERYONE with excessive traffic signals because Musk gambled on a beta system and lost.
NOT reported in those statistics is how many of those 130 million miles were doing things more complex then just driving down a straight road. If people are disengaging autopilot every time there is a bump in the road then 130 million miles doesn't prove anything. Show me 130 million miles where a person was specifically prohibited from disengaging autopilot and then I might listen.
The thing I'm trying to grasp in all of this is how Tesla could think that people would be able to use this as a workable solution. It's obvious people are idiots. Look at the McDonalds coffee cup case, look at all the instructions for electronic devices that specify that they should not be used near water. If you go out in the world it is so blatantly clear that people are idiots that it is almost reprehensible that autopilot was released in this capacity.
But Autopilot apparently only sees in 2D. So in 2D, a sign in the distance is a small rectangle and a trailer nearby is another small rectangle. If they line up and there is a line in the code that says 'If see rectangle of size x in front, it is ok keep driving' then the car will keep driving.
Not to mention the entire tower of people helping that plane get to the ground.
So why do we label automatic transmissions P R N D 1 2 3. It's your belief if car manufacturers switched the R and the D people should just be smart enough to figure it out and deal with it? To a certain extent a company should anticipate the shortcomings of their customers and do the safe thing.
Do you really think at a certain point data will have every single possible scenario? There will always be edge cases that may make AI too dangerous to use ever.
By calling it AUTO pilot.
I'm sure he listened to everything Tesla said, and this is the conclusion he came to from that.
People keep saying that autonomous cars will save lives.. but for that, all the dangerous drivers out there need to actually buy one. Dangerous drivers usually don't think they're dangerous. So unless there are going to be huge subsidies for people to buy autonomous cars quickly, this dream of safer roads will never come to fruitation. I can't believe that an autonomous car will be anywhere near the price of a regular car, given that all current driver assist features are in more expensive cars.
So basically Tesla is using the public for something that previously companies would have a whole team of testers for. Nice that Tesla saves money on employees at the cost of lives.
I don't get autopilot either. I mean, if you have to pay attention why have it. When people buy something like this they do what makes sense to them. So they will not be watching while it drives for them, because that is the only use purpose for this that makes sense.
to some extent
There's the rub. Cruise control goes some of the way but it doesn't do the whole job for you. This makes cruise control an entirely bad comparison. If people still have something to do they will pay attention.
Selling cars that kill people isn't enough of a reason to hate him?