Expert prognosis for the planet

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Well, I think not everyone gets it, which is why I posted the response. Specifically, people seem more focused that the name FSD implies Level 5 autonomy and that the name leads to the incorrect behavior. This is not the case. People aren't naive; they are actively trying to circumvent the warnings. Again, my argument is the name is not the contributor. People are just abusing the system, and Tesla is taking a passive approach in regulating how Tesla's customers use their own possessions. Why they are taking a passive approach is unclear, so I guess someone could conclude it is because they want free good or bad publicity, but that would be baseless conjecture at this point.

I agree that Supercruise offers more protections. Many cars offer more protection to the driver and to the driving public too with safety software and driver aids. I am assuming you aren't special pleading Tesla and are equally disgruntled with them too.

Story update:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...on-musk-2021-4

Without having the time to read through the updated article, there are two problems with how tesla is handling their driver assistance features.

1. Their marketing, for years, has been describing their (not that great) level 2 system as if it were a level 3+ system. The use of FSD is evidence of that.
2. They give the car too much leeway to make it's own decisions without adequately communicating those decisions to the operator, especially regarding timing and maneuvers. The car can suddenly do something unexpected requiring instantaneous reaction from the driver. This actually makes the "machines react faster than humans" cause the opposite problem. Hence the unguarded left tun videos from a while back. Anyway, it totally ruins the concept of redundant control authorities. The human is out of the loop until the car actually does something, and then control authority takes too much time to switch.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Without having the time to read through the updated article, there are two problems with how tesla is handling their driver assistance features.

1. Their marketing, for years, has been describing their (not that great) level 2 system as if it were a level 3+ system. The use of FSD is evidence of that.
2. They give the car too much leeway to make it's own decisions without adequately communicating those decisions to the operator, especially regarding timing and maneuvers. The car can suddenly do something unexpected requiring instantaneous reaction from the driver. This actually makes the "machines react faster than humans" cause the opposite problem. Hence the unguarded left tun videos from a while back. Anyway, it totally ruins the concept of redundant control authorities. The human is out of the loop until the car actually does something, and then control authority takes too much time to switch.

1. What marketing? Musk? If the level 2 Autopilot was being touted as level 3+ before FSD, was it because there was beta features of FSD being available to Autopilot? Maybe he was saying Autopilot was providing 3+ beta features temporarily. Again, I don't agree that the idiots abusing FSD beta or Autopilot are naïve, so I don't agree that is evidence for your point. I'll have to agree to disagree.

https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot

2. That makes sense, and if the car is not warning people before a dramatic input by the computer or warning the person to assume control fast enough then that is definitely on Tesla. I also believe Tesla should be actively trying to fix these issues because there needs to be redundant systems like recognizing the neighborhood or something than just allowing these occurrences to happen. A driver could intervene, but if they ever want to get to robotaxis for 4/5 autonomy then these type of issues need to be sorted, but these issues are far different than users being morons with their possessions. I'm more of the mind that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", as it applies to these idiots, but I can get behind the sensible things you just mentioned.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rate-to-85-mph

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I feel like in any other context, we would say these idiots, who are driving drunk or car surfing or whatever, win the Darwin Award, and if their idiocy caused collateral damage, injuries or deaths then we would say it is a shame these idiots exist, but we wouldn't blame Ford or Toyota. The comments made about Tesla comes off as special pleading.

I am saying that about the consumers using this, but I also feel Tesla is more to blame. Your own example of them releasing "beta" code to be used in a public setting, even to a limited number of users, puts them at least partially at fault here.

I go back to my example about summon mode. Do you think Tesla is willing to accept blame if that inadvertently runs over an infant, or even a stray black cat laying on the black tarmac who somehow doesn't get picked up by the sensors, or is the fault of the car owner? At that point, Tesla is driving the car.

As far as the tweet, yes, I agree it's Tesla's responsibility to protect their user's data. I also think it is a perfect example of how Musk is using the situation for his own purposes, rather than addressing the concern. So, if the car wasn't on Autopilot, did the phantom driver just leave the car? Did Autopilot turn itself off right before the accident so technically yea, it wasn't own when it hit the tree but is was on 5 seconds before?

Show me another manufacturer that is having these same issues with a similar type system and I'll agree, yea, they are being irresponsible. Like it or not Tesla, and Musk, are being irresponsible at this point, IMO.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I am saying that about the consumers using this, but I also feel Tesla is more to blame. Your own example of them releasing "beta" code to be used in a public setting, even to a limited number of users, puts them at least partially at fault here.

I go back to my example about summon mode. Do you think Tesla is willing to accept blame if that inadvertently runs over an infant, or even a stray black cat laying on the black tarmac who somehow doesn't get picked up by the sensors, or is the fault of the car owner? At that point, Tesla is driving the car.

As far as the tweet, yes, I agree it's Tesla's responsibility to protect their user's data. I also think it is a perfect example of how Musk is using the situation for his own purposes, rather than addressing the concern. So, if the car wasn't on Autopilot, did the phantom driver just leave the car? Did Autopilot turn itself off right before the accident so technically yea, it wasn't own when it hit the tree but is was on 5 seconds before?

Show me another manufacturer that is having these same issues with a similar type system and I'll agree, yea, they are being irresponsible. Like it or not Tesla, and Musk, are being irresponsible at this point, IMO.

I think Tesla is to blame if the car or systems were used within the capacity of their capabilities, and the system is at fault. For example, if the car immediately started accelerating out of nowhere or jerked the steering wheel in a certain direction then that is on Tesla, but say someone summoned the car in Summon mode, and the driver did not pay attention like they are suppose to, and the car hit someone or something where it was in the wrong (I don't know how this happens, example?) then I suppose that implies partial fault on Tesla. For Summon examples, failures I have seen looked like negligence or like another vehicle caused the problem. Do you have an example of the car systems failing activate during Summon or was that more of a hypothetical? If it failed to pick up a black cat then that is on Tesla. If it failed to pick up a person laying on the ground in all black then that is on the person in black and on Tesla like it would be on the person in black and on a driver who doesn't see someone, although that driver would likely not be blamed, and it would depend the degree of negligence.

Once the warrant is served then the police will get the specifics, but Tesla shouldn't volunteer anything in my opinion until then to protect our amendment rights. I'm curious as well. If I read the article carefully enough, it sounds like they were test driving the car. I don't know if this was from a private seller or from an used car dealership, but it sounds like they were told the car could drive itself, so they were in the front passenger and rear seat. Was there a driver ever and did the person move to the passenger seat, or did someone leave the scene? I don't know. Were tricks used and warnings dismissed to allow the car to drive without a driver? Most likely. I think Musk is saying something to handle the negative PR, while not giving more, so he doesn't get into a 4th amendment issue, which both seem reasonable.

Well, following my point before, it would be good to be logically consistent across all manufactures and all systems, and not special plead to Tesla or to just driving assistance packages, but to answer your question, Tesla's system has been on the market for a much longer time, and unless I am mistaken, it is available for use in many more locations. Is Supercruise, for instance, only available on certain roads or certain highways that have been lidar mapped? I don't know if Tesla's systems are directly comparable. How many Supercruise vehicles are on the road and how limited are their capacities? Maybe that is a pro for your point, but it seems that Tesla's approach is about less babysitting and less regulations and less nannies, kind of like my gun ownership example or other driver/pedestrian protection and limitation examples.

https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gene...-super-cruise/

I'm curious if Tesla has settled cases or if they are just lucky to not lose lawsuits, but I am unaware of a case where the systems were found at fault. Is that telling, or is that just a case of Tesla paying off the plaintiffs? I don't know. All I am aware of is the Germany lawsuit that said the language in Musk's Tweets is misleading, partially because his timelines are off like saying the system will be fully autonomous by a given date, but that didn't happen, or by not being clear enough with his tweets what level the systems are actually capable of.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think Tesla is to blame if the car or systems were used within the capacity of their capabilities, and the system is at fault.....

The Summon was a hypothetical more than anything. I just have an issue reconciling the logic that says "our car is a L2 only driver assistance car" and "our car can drive itself around a parking lot without you in it". Which one is it, because to me, either the car can drive itself or it can't. I have a similar concern about cars that just pull in and out of a parking space.

Super-Cruise is limited to measured and tested highways. And, yes, I do think that is a better system at least as a start down this path. It also is much more proactive in its monitoring of the driver, even in inadvertent distraction (looking down too long, falling asleep, etc).

As you, unsure about the legal cases.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The Summon was a hypothetical more than anything. I just have an issue reconciling the logic that says "our car is a L2 only driver assistance car" and "our car can drive itself around a parking lot without you in it". Which one is it, because to me, either the car can drive itself or it can't. I have a similar concern about cars that just pull in and out of a parking space.

Super-Cruise is limited to measured and tested highways. And, yes, I do think that is a better system at least as a start down this path. It also is much more proactive in its monitoring of the driver, even in inadvertent distraction (looking down too long, falling asleep, etc).

As you, unsure about the legal cases.

The Summon feature is interesting because the car doesn't have a driver like a Level 4/5 car, yet it is clearly not a level 4/5 vehicle by definition. Assessing guilt in an accident is never black and white, so I don't know if there needs to be clear lines who or what is at fault, even if we want there to be clear lines who or what is at fault in any given situation. Sometimes it is a matter of assessing the unique nature of the situation. In the Summon example, clearly this creates the potential for confusion as to who is at fault, potentially, but maybe it could be teased out with vehicle data from video and information logs, or maybe it is the case that it can't, and responsibility is shared, or maybe both parties are exonerated. I feel like such things happen all the time in many different areas of life besides driving. I also think adding Tesla to the potential list of parties involved is no different than a three car crash where 0-3 drivers could be at fault, as well as, the manufacture if the problem stemmed from a faulty system like an airbag randomly going off or an accelerator pedal sticking or whatever. My point is this isn't that new or different.

This article is interesting. They tested hands-on reaction times with an engaged driver issued a warning compared to hands-off reaction times with a poorly engaged or typical driver. Times were worse. I actually rarely drive with cruise control on because of this very fact. If I am normally driving, and I need to stop suddenly, then as I lift off the accelerator the car starts decelerating and then it decelerates faster, as I press the brake, but during basic cruise control, my foot is on the floor like it would be on the accelerator, and I have to move it to the brake. The reaction time is similar, yet it is typically longer and clumsy because my foot is on the floor and not poised next to the brake, but the effect is that there is a more abrupt transition from throttle input to immediate braking, and there is slightly more distance traveled by the car. This is compounded if I was driving with my knee while on cruise control, or if I had a hand on the radio or shift knob, and the evasive maneuver requires two hands. I don't know if the delay is as bad as an extra two seconds, but it is definitely greater than normal. This article suggests that all systems will inherently be worse when the driver has their hands off the wheel, and especially if they are disengaged from facing the road. I don't know how sensitive Supercruise or Subaru's driver monitor system is at warning the driver to look at the road. With these systems coming around for driver assistance packages, it makes me wonder if they will use them all the time, even when the system isn't activated, so it can reduce distracted driving, or if these systems will be limited to hands-off driving or only when assistances are on.

https://www.caradvice.com.au/699131/...actions-study/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The Summon feature is interesting because the car doesn't have a driver like a Level 4/5 car, yet it is clearly not a level 4/5 vehicle by definition.

I think this alone points out, for me, the hypocrisy in Telsa/Musk's hemming and hawing around what they are doing. As I said, either it is or it isn't a level 4/5. If it's not, don't let it do things that it isn't "capable" of doing.

As far as Super-Cruise it uses an infrared camera to monitor a person's position in the car, including where your eyes are pointing.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...20road%20ahead.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

1. What marketing? Musk? If the level 2 Autopilot was being touted as level 3+ before FSD, was it because there was beta features of FSD being available to Autopilot? Maybe he was saying Autopilot was providing 3+ beta features temporarily. Again, I don't agree that the idiots abusing FSD beta or Autopilot are naïve, so I don't agree that is evidence for your point. I'll have to agree to disagree.

https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot

2. That makes sense, and if the car is not warning people before a dramatic input by the computer or warning the person to assume control fast enough then that is definitely on Tesla. I also believe Tesla should be actively trying to fix these issues because there needs to be redundant systems like recognizing the neighborhood or something than just allowing these occurrences to happen. A driver could intervene, but if they ever want to get to robotaxis for 4/5 autonomy then these type of issues need to be sorted, but these issues are far different than users being morons with their possessions. I'm more of the mind that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", as it applies to these idiots, but I can get behind the sensible things you just mentioned.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rate-to-85-mph

For 1. I took a look back at some Musk quotes. It seems like he has a habit of providing sound bites that the fanbois and "writers" pick up on and proliferate, but then says a bunch of caveats and such. No, they do not directly state "level 3 driving", but there are a lot of allusions to the car driving for you with no problems. Hence them sticking with the "full self driving" package. Colloquially, if I said it was a full self driving car, what would that mean to you. How about some random coworker? Yes, they go further to define it as only level 2 if you look further, but the terminology they use up front is vague.

[soundman98]

i will say, tesla is the only car maker that has ever required i learn the definition, interpretation, and operation of an aviation system in order to understand their usage of the terminology in a ground-based a vehicle system.

i feel like i'm halfway to being a pilot now!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think this alone points out, for me, the hypocrisy in Telsa/Musk's hemming and hawing around what they are doing. As I said, either it is or it isn't a level 4/5. If it's not, don't let it do things that it isn't "capable" of doing.

As far as Super-Cruise it uses an infrared camera to monitor a person's position in the car, including where your eyes are pointing.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...20road%20ahead.

I think it is capable of being summoned in that particular situation. Just because it lacks a driver doesn’t define it as level 4/5, but it is a characteristic of level 4/5 cars. It is an if A then B type of statement: all polar bears are white animals, but all white animals are not polar bears. Just because it can operate without someone in the driver’s seat in a limited capacity at limited speeds for limited distances with continual monitoring doesn’t mean it is level 4/5 autonomy or that it has been claimed to be so just because there was no driver.

Interesting article. Supercruise seems well made for a very limited scope of abilities. I wonder why GM doesn’t monitor the driver when Supercruise is not engaged for distractions and engagement. It will be interesting to see if Supercruise will be able to keep up with Tesla’s system in performance or function in the future if they have to lidar map all roads for it to work everywhere. Also interesting that Tesla scored low on driver monitoring, but scored higher on emergency driver monitoring, as if it had the capacity to do more monitoring, but it chooses not to, and this seems like differences in state laws about gun laws or things such as open carry. Seems other manufacturers are doing what Tesla is doing. Maybe the media just enjoys reporting on Tesla. Good click bait.

In response to a request for comment about our evaluations, Mazda stressed that its “Lane Keep Assist system does not perform lane centering.” Volvo underscored in its response that its “focus is to have the driver in the loop and engaged.” Jaguar Land Rover told CR its systems meet “both regulatory safety requirements as well as our own stringent standards for function and usability.” General Motors, which makes both the Super Cruise and Buick systems, says that the Encore GX offers “an impressive amount of standard active safety features.”

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i will say, tesla is the only car maker that has ever required i learn the definition, interpretation, and operation of an aviation system in order to understand their usage of the terminology in a ground-based a vehicle system.

i feel like i'm halfway to being a pilot now!

Is the name Autopilot, so different? GM can educate you more on aviation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

For 1. I took a look back at some Musk quotes. It seems like he has a habit of providing sound bites that the fanbois and "writers" pick up on and proliferate, but then says a bunch of caveats and such. No, they do not directly state "level 3 driving", but there are a lot of allusions to the car driving for you with no problems. Hence them sticking with the "full self driving" package. Colloquially, if I said it was a full self driving car, what would that mean to you. How about some random coworker? Yes, they go further to define it as only level 2 if you look further, but the terminology they use up front is vague.

I would think it means it is capable of fully driving from A to B, which it actually could do, but I wouldn’t assume that means it could do it all the time, everywhere, in every situation, with no driver monitoring, while I’m in the back seat. I would want to confirm that in the manual, and the fact that it couldn’t do that would be apparent right away when the car failed to leave with me in the back seat.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think it is capable of being summoned in that particular situation. Just because it lacks a driver doesn’t define it as level 4/5, but it is a characteristic of level 4/5 cars. .

I fail to see the difference. A car can either drive itself or it can't. I admit it's pretty amazing tech after watching videos of it in action, and it does a decent job of keeping the car out of trouble, but it it is again a case of where Tesla admits the software isn't perfect, but improving. Basically, translated that means it's beta software and they (Tesla) are willing to put the general public at some risk for the knowledge it gains the company.

I mean if the software can't do something as simple as pulling out of a garage without failing, is it really ready for a Walmart parking lot?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I fail to see the difference. A car can either drive itself or it can't. I admit it's pretty amazing tech after watching videos of it in action, and it does a decent job of keeping the car out of trouble, but it it is again a case of where Tesla admits the software isn't perfect, but improving. Basically, translated that means it's beta software and they (Tesla) are willing to put the general public at some risk for the knowledge it gains the company.

I mean if the software can't do something as simple as pulling out of a garage without failing, is it really ready for a Walmart parking lot?

I read that and immediately thought of a new teen driver or grandpa Joe, but then I imagined anyone really. Seems like so many people shouldn’t drive based on door dings and side swipes.

It isn’t perfect like how no one is perfect. Maybe it was in beta then it was at the driving level of a geriatric driver and maybe now it is better. I don’t know. With millions of Teslas in the world, there will likely forever be content on YouTube of the system failing, just like humans. This doesn’t give us a metric of the rate of failure. With trillions of searches a year, Google sees a lot of searches, yet for years they have been saying somewhere are 15% of searches are unique. In a similar way, neural networks will improve and improve, but there will likely always be something unique that throws it off. If it isn’t already there, systems like summon will likely outperform humans in having less incidents, but they don’t need to outperform humans or be perfect; they need to not be worse.

I can’t really speak for the video. I don’t know if this was a beta or when it was taken. I don’t know if there was a glare on the pavement that looked like an obstacle or some lines on the driveway that tripped up the cameras or what. It almost looked like it was trying to avoid the garage in front of it, but it is hard to see from that angle. I also feel like this was a woman-behind-the-wheel scenario because the second the car started pointing itself away from me, I would have stopped it, but she just kept going. That part of it is odd. Maybe her GPS location/signal was jumping around if that confused the car, but all I can do is make baseless conjecture.