|
blugu64 posted:Autopilot encourages driver inattentiveness and should be banned from public roads. I enjoyed trying autopilot and am a Tesla fanboy, but I can't find a good argument to counter that opinion.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
I'm convinced complete computer controlled cars on roads is best, like every car is controlled by computers and there is no human input within normal driving. Everything is quick, complete and controlled. I don't know how you get to that point with the really lovely some computer some human drivers thing that you have to go through to get there because people always gently caress it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
A few people dying is worth the feedback from real world testing. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:A few people dying is worth the feedback from real world testing*. Sorry. *caveat: This statement is only true in an environment of extremely rigorous regulatory oversight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:No, but it can say “golly gee my driver looks to be asleep let’s come to a gradual stop on the shoulder”. That's exactly what it did but then the driver started steering and pressed the throttle. atomicthumbs posted:nah having to pay attention to your car more than once every three minutes is an unneccessary inconvenience, blame here lies 100% on the driver You're a really bad poster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:A few people dying is worth the feedback from real world testing. Sorry. You and you loved ones first please
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:You and you loved ones first please Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:Three minutes to fall asleep? It's not like he got read a story and tucked in. Falling asleep happens in a literal blink of an eye and that's why so many people crash their cars while falling asleep, even if the cars don't have autopilot. That said, there are systems in other cars that are supposed to detect a driver falling asleep, no idea how well they work. For what it's worth, Cadillac's upcoming Supercruise system will use a camera to make sure your eyes are on the road (which presumably would kick in if you were to fall asleep). ilkhan posted:Him and his loved ones don't fall asleep at the wheel. Really now, if we kept throwing away new technology every time some Darwin Award contenders used it wrong, we'd still be stuck in the Stone Age. On a related note, the fine people at Mercedes apparently said "gently caress it" to all the controversy over Tesla's use of the term "Autopilot": http://jalopnik.com/possible-mercedes-self-driven-advertisement-doesnt-feat-1783761678 Yes, that's an ad using the term "self-driving car" to describe a slightly more advanced version of the lane keep assist introduced in the 2014 S-class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:For what it's worth, Cadillac's upcoming Supercruise system will use a camera to make sure your eyes are on the road (which presumably would kick in if you were to fall asleep). 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Yes, that's an ad using the term "self-driving car" to describe a slightly more advanced version of the lane keep assist introduced in the 2014 S-class. This benefits society because someone makes money earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
If you leave your hands off the wheel for too long, the car should skip the chimes and lights and just go straight to banging the seatback up and down at high speed while playing a cabin-mounted vuvuzela. Then the car should pull onto the shoulder and stop, and force you to solve a math problem before it re-enables the motor. Your account records how many times this system has engaged, and the math problems get harder with each activation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If you leave your hands off the wheel for too long, the car should skip the chimes and lights and just go straight to banging the seatback up and down at high speed while playing a cabin-mounted vuvuzela. Then the car should pull onto the shoulder and stop, and force you to solve a math problem before it re-enables the motor. Your account records how many times this system has engaged, and the math problems get harder with each activation. "Tesla wins Abel prize of mathematics, credits furious family father for solving Riemann hypothesis on the side of the road".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Aerothread x-post, Robert Llewellyn gets blown away by some electric aeronautics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1g1JrRRkY
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Him and his loved ones don't fall asleep at the wheel. Because uninvolved third parties never get hurt by a car accidents  If you want to use autopilot, do it on a private track, not recklessly in public where you can hurt people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:If you leave your hands off the wheel for too long, the car should skip the chimes and lights and just go straight to banging the seatback up and down at high speed while playing a cabin-mounted vuvuzela. Then the car should pull onto the shoulder and stop, and force you to solve a math problem before it re-enables the motor. Your account records how many times this system has engaged, and the math problems get harder with each activation. A friend of mine is better at maths when sleepwalking than when awake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Because uninvolved third parties never get hurt by a car accidents In 10 years people will be giving the same line but replacing autopilot with manual driving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:As opposed to the thousands who die to vehicle accidents when humans are driving? AP is better at some stuff, humans are better at some stuff. AP will improve, humans.... Won't. Right, and as long as you're willing to put your family up first to get killed by this irresponsible and dangerous product, I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Right, and as long as you're willing to put your family up first to get killed by this irresponsible and dangerous product, I'm fine with it. How do you answer the trolley problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Ban autopilot! All lives matter!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
The car sees the problem sooner than a person in the first place. Then the vehicle instantly applies full deceleration. If maneuvering past all obstacles is above a certain probability, do so. The whole point of the trolley problem is that it freezes humans up. We'd be so lucky if every person stopped as fast as possible when confronted with such a situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:How do you answer the trolley problem? First switch the track so the train starts up the upper track, then before the rear wheels follow, switch it back so the rear wheels head down the lower track, thereby derailing the train and saving, or possibly killing, all involved. If it works, you'd be a hero, and if not, hey at least you made an effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Elon Musk's Twitter account suggests he'll be posting some "Top Secret Tesla Masterplan, Part 2" soon (it was at first hinted that it'd be today, but recently he said he was going to wait until after tonight's SpaceX launch). Wasn't the Model 3 design supposed to have been finalized by now?blugu64 posted:Because uninvolved third parties never get hurt by a car accidents Last I checked, falling asleep at the wheel has been a rather significant cause of accidents for just about as long as people have been driving long distances. For all its limitations, you're much better off falling asleep with autopilot on than without it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Last I checked, falling asleep at the wheel has been a rather significant cause of accidents for just about as long as people have been driving long distances. For all its limitations, you're much better off falling asleep with autopilot on than without it. To be clear I'm firmly on the pro-autonomous side of things. That said, to play devil's advocate a bit what apparently happened here is a great example of the trickiness of a partially autonomous system, especially when it comes to sleeping while driving. We all know the people, probably a lot of us are them, who have to set a series of alarms and/or use alarms with a complicated process to silence them because our half-asleep subconscious is really good at making the annoying thing shut up so we can go back to sleep. I don't have any data to back this up, but I think it's pretty obvious that people are more likely to fall asleep while "driving" in an autonomous mode than not. Any time that happens could potentially end up like this, though if they fell asleep the same way in a non-autonomous vehicle a crash is much more likely. Does the increased chance of falling asleep and then being startled awake by an alert or inadvertently disabling autonomous mode outweigh the almost inevitable crash if one falls asleep in a normal car? No idea. I think the addition of an eye-tracking system would be very useful assuming it's accurate. If the vehicle thinks you fell asleep and might not be fully awake it continues to guide itself to a safe stop where it requires some kind of active acknowledgement before handing back control and allowing you to continue on for example. Maybe the vehicle will more aggressively attempt to avoid collisions if it thinks the driver isn't paying attention. Accuracy is the key here though, no one wants the opposite scenario where someone is trying to maneuver around something the car hasn't seen yet but the car doesn't think they're paying enough attention and fights it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I think the problem is on both sides. Autopilot itself is fine. But if I can fall asleep with it on, or climb into the backseat and make youtubes, that is a problem. Having a little popup say "Beta Only! Be responsible - scout's honor!" is just not really acceptable for a non-autonomous system. I mean you're talking about the general loving public here, who can't be considered responsible enough to not spill coffee on themselves. And that is just laughable from a UX perspective. Considering how advanced the autopilot system itself is, they apparently really didn't try in even a best-effort way to verify that the driver is paying attention. Also people are dumb, and the nerdy spergs (Musk included) sperging out about how "autopilot does not mean autonomous!" are absolutely correct - but that's not what people think autopilot is. People think airline pilots press a button, the plane "flies itself" and then they go to sleep. Autopilot is good. Autonomy will be great (anything to keep the average person from driving honestly). But a half-solution without some basic driver checkup is just poor design, even if autopilot is, on average, safer, there are still going to be very preventable crashes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
wolrah posted:To be clear I'm firmly on the pro-autonomous side of things. It's an interesting thing. The guy crashed because he interrupted the "driver is asleep" process. You see the same thing in aircraft, where pilots take control of an otherwise operational (though experiencing a non-terminal system failure) aircraft and crash it into the ocean. Personally, I'd actually prefer an autonomous car that has detected no driver interaction (I am asleep) to pull over and put the hazard lights on and give me 40 winks instead of rudely awakening me where I'm liable to make a badly informed reaction and crash the car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Here's a shocking concept: We could actually require a modicum of driver training, particularly for vehicles with advanced drivers aids like Tesla autopilot. Encourage people to operate in a safety conscious fash- BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sorry I couldn't finish that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Here's a shocking concept: We could actually require a modicum of driver training, particularly for vehicles with advanced drivers aids like Tesla autopilot. Encourage people to operate in a safety conscious fash- BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sorry I couldn't finish that. we could require a level of certain standard of medical fitness to obtain a driver's licAahahahahahha
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Personally, I'd actually prefer an autonomous car that has detected no driver interaction (I am asleep) to pull over and put the hazard lights on and give me 40 winks instead of rudely awakening me where I'm liable to make a badly informed reaction and crash the car. I totally agree, at least as the systems currently in drivers' hands, that if it hits its timeout where it's still fully capable of driving but doesn't think the driver is awake/attentive/there it should try to make its way to the shoulder and four-way it, requiring that the vehicle come to a complete stop before allowing the driver to retake control. That said, that still leaves some pretty big unknowns like what does it do if it's in traffic and can't make it over? What does it do if there is no shoulder? Let's say it decides the driver's not responding just as it enters the Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. One lane in each direction, shoulders that can not fit a full car, and then nothing a jersey barrier between you and the water. Or hell, even just a construction zone where it's down to one lane. Does it just stop in the middle of the road and hope for the best? Does it keep driving until it finds somewhere with room to safely pull off? Does it try more aggressively to get the driver's attention? That's the fun thing with developing technologies, especially those that are potentially dangerous. Almost every answer leads to more questions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Let's say it decides the driver's not responding just as it enters the Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. One lane in each direction, shoulders that can not fit a full car, and then nothing a jersey barrier between you and the water. Drive the full length of the bridge autonomously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
What happens in all of those situations where an otherwise attentive and skilled driver has a stroke or heart attack or seizure? A semi autonomic car is at least physically capable of guiding itself to a controlled stop in that case, but a regular car can still only obey whatever inputs the driver is able to give it. I'm not saying those scenarios don't need to be solved but most of those are awful even with perfect drivers, let alone the very imperfect ones we have now. The target of "perfection" will take a long time to reach, but "better than average human" will be attainable much sooner, and is a necessary stop along the way to perfection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Drive the full length of the bridge autonomously. Having driven through the Florida keys and seen the state of drivers there, there's no way this wouldn't be an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Drive the full length of the bridge autonomously. IOwnCalculus posted:What happens in all of those situations where an otherwise attentive and skilled driver has a stroke or heart attack or seizure? A semi autonomic car is at least physically capable of guiding itself to a controlled stop in that case, but a regular car can still only obey whatever inputs the driver is able to give it. Humans are allowed to be imperfect, machines are expected to always get it right. It's not right but it's reality. quote:I'm not saying those scenarios don't need to be solved but most of those are awful even with perfect drivers, let alone the very imperfect ones we have now. The target of "perfection" will take a long time to reach, but "better than average human" will be attainable much sooner, and is a necessary stop along the way to perfection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
wolrah posted:This is in a situation where the vehicle has decided the driver isn't participating anymore and it's unsafe to proceed because of that. If the answer is just to drive on then why not do that in all cases where the driver is not responding but the car is still comfortable with the situation? The safety of continuing across the bridge is absolute, but it’s safer than the other available options. When turnouts exist, they are preferable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
https://www.tesla.com/no_NO/blog/master-plan-part-deuxquote:So, in short, Master Plan, Part Deux is: Confirmed compact SUV, pickup, working on semi and new bus concept. Interesting!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
Saint Elon posted:As of 2016, the number of American car companies that haven't gone bankrupt is a grand total of two: Ford and Tesla. Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy squared.  I'm extremely skeptical of a Tesla semi; I just don't think the tech is there for the long-haul applications, yet. His vision for an interconnected transit system is extremely appealing, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Electric long-haul trucking doesn't make any sense. An 18-wheeler carries about 300 gallons of fuel and gets maybe 6mpg, giving it a range of 1800 miles. A P90D has a range of about 250 miles at 65mph with a 90-kilowatt battery pack. The Tesla would need a 650kWh pack to go 1800 miles, and that's for a modern sedan with heavy streamlining. We can estimate how much energy the truck would need by comparing it to a car that's similar to a Tesla, but gas-powered; let's say a BMW 5-series with the V8, making 25mpg. So the truck consumes about 4 times as much fuel as the sedan. To match the current range of a diesel-powered 18-wheeler, an electric truck needs 2.6 megawatt-hours of battery capacity. Let's assume that Tesla can hit the magic number they keep talking about of $100 per kWh, and the battery stays about the same weight per kWh as the Tesla unit. The truck now contains 38,000 pounds of batteries (equal to the usual cargo weight) worth a quarter of a million dollars. Let's also talk about charging. 1800 miles at 60 miles per hour is about 2 days of driving for a trucker working legal hours. So you need to recharge half the battery pack per day, on average, while the driver is asleep. In the absolute best case, that means putting in 1300kWh in roughly 8 hours. That's 162 kilowatts, plus charging inefficiency, so let's say 180 kilowatts total required to charge each truck sleeping at every podunk truck stop across the nation. Even a small truck stop is going to need to bring in high-tension lines, and a big one with hundreds of trucks overnighting would need a dedicated power plant. Oh, and try to charge any faster than that, and you'll start drawing enough current to melt down the power lines. TL;DR: 19 tons of batteries $250,000 with Tesla's best projections (closer to $750k today) 8 hours of charging every day at a rate 50% higher than a Tesla Supercharger It's ridiculous. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That will depend on how cheap and how durable they can get the batteries. Trucks are inherently slower and heavier, adding 10k pounds of batteries isn't that big of a change if it gets them a similar range to trucks get today. It's not great because trucks are weight rated on GVWR so an extra 10,000lb of batteries is 10,000lb of cargo you can't be carrying. Of course, if you can cut out the cost of the driver and HoS regulations, there's quite a bit of benefit in terms of asset utilization and your trip cost might be lower. I think the best application isn't semi trucks, it's the 20" cabovers used for local delivery, and refuse trucks. Local, short haul applications - similar to where Cummins has been successful with the CNG Westport engines, which have similar limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
electrifying of heavy trucks is a cool idea, and even if figuring out implementation will take a while, anything to get lovely noisy diesels off the road is a win. What would be even cooler though, is fully autonomous trucking. Just think, a convoy of trucks, all driving themselves, never once trying to overtake each other up a hill at 0.5mph speed differential on a two lane highway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
Linedance posted:electrifying of heavy trucks is a cool idea, and even if figuring out implementation will take a while, anything to get lovely noisy diesels off the road is a win. What would be even cooler though, is fully autonomous trucking. Just think, a convoy of trucks, all driving themselves, never once trying to overtake each other up a hill at 0.5mph speed differential on a two lane highway. They could even separate the cargo boxes from the wheelie parts, and have some kind of infrastructure to allow chaining up hundreds of cargo boxes in a big linkage that runs on special separated roads, and only need to share streets for runs from endpoints to local depots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
