[Soterios]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

A few wrongful death suits and the whole issue will be put to bed. The personal injury lawyers are drooling for the day autonomous driving gets here.

Cars seeing other cars is a far too simplistic view of the implementation. Sensors and software are fault prone. The objective is to not place two vehicles at the same place at the same time. The best way to accomplish that is to have all vehicles paths preprogrammed to avoid vehicle interaction and have contingency planning in case of errors.

Plenty of new tech emerges and survives "a few wrongful death suits". This isn't new. E throttle and ABS and electronic nannies have been getting added for years. This is an evolution, no a creation.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Soterios

Plenty of new tech emerges and survives "a few wrongful death suits". This isn't new. E throttle and ABS and electronic nannies have been getting added for years. This is an evolution, no a creation.

But as the driver who uses e-throttle, ABS, and electronic nannies, it is your ultimate responsibility to drive the car, not the electronic aids. When a machine is driving without human intervention, the legal case changes.

Autonomous driving is not an evolution, it is a step change.

I looked at some of the FSD video. I saw several driving errors. (1) in Virginia, the law is to slow down and move to the left (if possible) for any emergency vehicle on the shoulder. (2) passing the double trailer truck when the pickup was heading down the entry ramp was poor defensive driving technique. The Tesla should have moved over to the right to provide margin to the truck if its driver decided to move over to avoid interaction with the pickup entering the freeway. The car can't be programmed to drive any better than the humans who write the software.

I get it, he said it's a beta version. It will always be in beta version.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Than lough away.

Tesla is nowhere near this level of sensory based awareness.

I disagree. You've seen a lot of tesla autopilot crashes. But Waymo has only been hit by another car. It never hit anyone else. Part of it is less mileage on the fleet, but the tech plays a bigger role.

That's because Waymo have the right sensorics combination to map out the objects around them. Something Tesla can not achieve in the next 25 years with only using cameras. Or more specifically without the use of lidar.

There's nothing to stop tesla from using Lidar or a combination of lidar and optical camera.

Waymo seems to be solving a simpler problem of shuttling people around, not sure they will advance far out of that. Tesla is going for point A to point B navigated driving, they are going for the moon

[Alfisti]

It's literally easier to get to the moon.

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But as the driver who uses e-throttle, ABS, and electronic nannies, it is your ultimate responsibility to drive the car, not the electronic aids. When a machine is driving without human intervention, the legal case changes.

Autonomous driving is not an evolution, it is a step change.

I looked at some of the FSD video. I saw several driving errors. (1) in Virginia, the law is to slow down and move to the left (if possible) for any emergency vehicle on the shoulder. (2) passing the double trailer truck when the pickup was heading down the entry ramp was poor defensive driving technique. The Tesla should have moved over to the right to provide margin to the truck if its driver decided to move over to avoid interaction with the pickup entering the freeway. The car can't be programmed to drive any better than the humans who write the software.

I get it, he said it's a beta version. It will always be in beta version.

Boeing seems to be surviving just fine through a "Oh fuck our automation failed" situation. Planes will still have autopilot after.

Swarm robotics. It's cool tech and it's going to lead automation on the road to help sync up automatic and not automated cars.

Teslas are already puttering down the road mostly on their own. The beta will only last as long as the feds stand in their way.

[jimbobiggens]

Years ago, the '66 Mustang could be ordered with disc brakes, which came with a brake pedal that had a disc brake logo on it so you didn't forget your front brakes were special.

The '79 Pontiac Trans-Am had a plaque on the dash, touting this car's suspension was tuned for radial tire technology.

Full self driving is in it's infancy; twenty years from now mentioning to somebody then your car has FSD will get you the same funny looks as if you mention to somebody today your 2020 BMW has disc brakes and radial tires.

[5.M0NSTER]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

There's nothing to stop tesla from using Lidar or a combination of lidar and optical camera.

Waymo seems to be solving a simpler problem of shuttling people around, not sure they will advance far out of that. Tesla is going for point A to point B navigated driving, they are going for the moon

Other than Elon. He mandated Tesla "autopilot" has to use cameras and no lidar. Like a human. Except we're nowhere near being able to extract the data needed from cameras alone.

I don't understand your second point. Tesla is doing what's referred to in the industry as SAE Level 3. Driver aid, able to complete a lot of tasks on its own, but still requires human to intervene.

Waymo and others are doing SAE L4/L5. No human intervention needed for operation in geofenced areas and then beyond. And my point is that particularly for Autonomous operation in non-geofenced areas (L5) you need more sensory capabilities than Tesla has in any of their vehicles.

So who is going for the moon here?

[tranquility]

Has nobody seen I, Robot or the tv series, Next? I'm a nobody so it's extremely doubtful someone would assassinate me, but I don't like the idea that any capable hacker could possibly and literally commandeer my vehicle and send it over a cliff. I'd like to retain control of the thing I'm driving.

Now, I have no qualms about forcing crappy drivers into these self-drivers. Say a very lenient threshold, 3 at-fault accidents or more, something like that.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by 5.M0NSTER

Other than Elon. He mandated Tesla "autopilot" has to use cameras and no lidar. Like a human. Except we're nowhere near being able to extract the data needed from cameras alone.

I don't understand your second point. Tesla is doing what's referred to in the industry as SAE Level 3. Driver aid, able to complete a lot of tasks on its own, but still requires human to intervene.

Waymo and others are doing SAE L4/L5. No human intervention needed for operation in geofenced areas and then beyond. And my point is that particularly for Autonomous operation in non-geofenced areas (L5) you need more sensory capabilities than Tesla has in any of their vehicles.

So who is going for the moon here?

I get your point, both companies are taking steps to get to full L5 autonomy. Even though Tesla has always had a human as the failsafe, you get the feeling that they are just using people as monitors for risk mitigation as they improve it and eventually can less the cars run fully on their own. In contrast Waymo is removing the person earlier on but in more controlled environments and then intending to venture later into more unpredictable environments. They just have different paths to the moon

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by jimbobiggens

Years ago, the '66 Mustang could be ordered with disc brakes, which came with a brake pedal that had a disc brake logo on it so you didn't forget your front brakes were special.
[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/Dpf33zh/FM-EB003-B-...1549848554.jpg[/IMG]
The '79 Pontiac Trans-Am had a plaque on the dash, touting this car's suspension was tuned for radial tire technology.
[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/QcZ1BpD/71317243.jpg[/IMG]
Full self driving is in it's infancy; twenty years from now mentioning to somebody then your car has FSD will get you the same funny looks as if you mention to somebody today your 2020 BMW has disc brakes and radial tires.

By this reasoning a 3 Series should be doing the 1/4 mile in the 6s. :bs:

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

By this reasoning a 3 Series should be doing the 1/4 mile in the 6s. :bs:

Except computational power has increased exponentially. Speed has not.

[freakystyly]

Can't wait for a blue screen of death into a concrete wall of death.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Has nobody seen I, Robot or the tv series, Next? I'm a nobody so it's extremely doubtful someone would assassinate me, but I don't like the idea that any capable hacker could possibly and literally commandeer my vehicle and send it over a cliff. I'd like to retain control of the thing I'm driving.

Now, I have no qualms about forcing crappy drivers into these self-drivers. Say a very lenient threshold, 3 at-fault accidents or more, something like that.

I hear you on irobot, it definitely brings doubt about the safety of this tech. As far as hackers, the general way that software prevents those incidents is to not expose any of the commands that control critical safety (like steering wheel control, brakes, cameras) to wireless communication systems (Bluetooth, wifi, satellite, telephone etc) and have them strictly controlled by onboard computers. It is not perfect, but it is an important aspect giving some people confidence. It is the reason that Tesla confidently conducts hackathons with the reward for finding bugs - because they have reviewed that they have internalized the critical safety systems. It will definitely take awhile to convince the masses that this is sufficient, no doubt

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by freakystyly

Can't wait for a blue screen of death into a concrete wall of death.

Redundant systems! Computer A blue screens while computer B takes over! Seriously though, thats how airplanes work

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Redundant systems! Computer A blue screens while computer B takes over! Seriously though, thats how airplanes work

Airplanes fly at mandated separation distances, are constantly under surveillance depending upon what Class of airspace, and have 3 dimensions to move in to avoid contact with another plane.

And Autopilot doesn't mean the plane flies itself...

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Airplanes fly at mandated separation distances, are constantly under surveillance depending upon what Class of airspace, and have 3 dimensions to move in to avoid contact with another plane.

And Autopilot doesn't mean the plane flies itself...

My comment is only regarding computer failure. It doesnt imply that the redundant systems is the only mitigation needed (or smarts needed). I agree that the autonomous car is a much more difficult problem

[jimbobiggens]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

By this reasoning a 3 Series should be doing the 1/4 mile in the 6s. :bs:

My point was that things progress, it's a natural part of automotive history. As computers get more powerful, something as complex as FSD will become a taken-for-granted part of life someday. Hopefully in my lifetime.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

My comment is only regarding computer failure. It doesnt imply that the redundant systems is the only mitigation needed (or smarts needed). I agree that the autonomous car is a much more difficult problem

Yes, I was reinforcing your point. People connect airplanes and automobiles together via the "autopilot" link. Airplanes are not flown autonomously under autopilot. People equate the fantastic safety record of air travel to autonomous driving because there is a commonly misunderstood purpose of aviation autopilot systems. The main reason air travel is safe is because of mandated separation standards. Humans keep airplanes separated by design with large margins of safety. Automobiles have virtually zero separation standards. They will get introduced with autonomy, and people will not like it.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by jimbobiggens

My point was that things progress, it's a natural part of automotive history. As computers get more powerful, something as complex as FSD will become a taken-for-granted part of life someday. Hopefully in my lifetime.

You hope until you learn the unforeseen downsides of such an aspiration. It's foolhardy to assume only an upside.

[freakystyly]

I still think the infrastructure (roads) will always be the weak point, no matter how good self driving tech gets. There's too many inconsistencies and variables for a simple computer to deal with. This is far from a perfect world (or California ) where the roads are paved like butter, or so I hear. That's not even taking into consideration outside factors like weather (snow), suicidal animals, pedestrians, random debris, etc.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yes, I was reinforcing your point. People connect airplanes and automobiles together via the "autopilot" link. Airplanes are not flown autonomously under autopilot. People equate the fantastic safety record of air travel to autonomous driving because there is a commonly misunderstood purpose of aviation autopilot systems. The main reason air travel is safe is because of mandated separation standards. Humans keep airplanes separated by design with large margins of safety. Automobiles have virtually zero separation standards. They will get introduced with autonomy, and people will not like it.

I get you. I can see a natural implementation of smart driving as one in which highway driving is autonomous and entering and exiting highways is human controlled. In that way it would be very similar to airplane methods. Even the highway self driving would be extremely risky with other normal drivers (unless they control he situation with dedicated lanes etc). But lets take that for a second, if one dedicated lane, how do you handle a flat tire or a breakdown? Add a breakdown lane to it? Its hard enough to build the infrastructure and get approvals for extra lanes. Maybe thats why Elon is digging tunnels...

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

I hear you on irobot, it definitely brings doubt about the safety of this tech. As far as hackers, the general way that software prevents those incidents is to not expose any of the commands that control critical safety (like steering wheel control, brakes, cameras) to wireless communication systems (Bluetooth, wifi, satellite, telephone etc) and have them strictly controlled by onboard computers. It is not perfect, but it is an important aspect giving some people confidence. It is the reason that Tesla confidently conducts hackathons with the reward for finding bugs - because they have reviewed that they have internalized the critical safety systems. It will definitely take awhile to convince the masses that this is sufficient, no doubt

Won't convince me, the infrastructure's still there, all they have to do is tamper w your car and hook it up for remote control.