Tesla Autopilot 2.0 May Go Fully Autonomous

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Aug 12, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    While I was reading this report talking about all the new hardware going into the next version of Tesla's Autopilot, this statement about fully autonomous driving jumped out at me:

    Enter Autopilot 2.0. The next generation Autopilot will feature new hardware on which Tesla will incrementally push new features through over-the-air software updates. The new sensor suite will enable level 3 autonomous driving and potentially level 4 fully autonomous driving in a not too distant future.
     
  2. Shotglass01

    Shotglass01 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,917
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    In other news, 50,000 Tesla's were hacked in this morning's rush hour causing freeway armageddon!
     
  3. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,667
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    In other news, it still was less than the total number of accidents caused by human drivers.
     
  4. raz-0

    raz-0 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,489
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    That would be a years worth of human accidents. Also, please cite references for any autonomous vehicle being better than human drivers. I sat down and did the research, and the most favorable approach to autonomous systems, and they are about 82% as safe as the average human driver, and they aren't even really working in bad weather, the wet, don't have to deal with DUI situations, etc. They have a way to go, and the dipshit assumption that they are safer because human drivers are annoying needs to go. Also, the assumption that they will be less annoying to drive around than human drivers is probably not as safe an assumption as you'd expect.

    Hacking may be an issue, probably worse than hacking is a shitty update to X thousand copies of the same driving algorithm meaning that sometime overnight, you put X thousand copies of the same shitty driver on the road.
     
  5. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,309
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    In other news, Tesla drivers with the latest autonomous software continue to drive the car just like they did with the 0.86b version of the advanced cruise control.

    Meaning that they act like it is a fully safe and tested Total Auto Pilot from point A to point Q and all points in between.

    Nothing has changed.
     
  6. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,309
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Musk referenced radar’s capability to see through rain, snow, fog and dust, as reasons to favor the tech over lidar.

    Well at least the weather problem is fixed.
     
  7. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,503
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    50,000 accidents would equal the number that happens in the 12 seconds after the first slow flake of each winter falls on Toronto.

    I swear it's like every year people are sure this will be the year there won't be a winter...
     
  8. Shotglass01

    Shotglass01 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,917
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    I'd be one of them. I have, flat out, no idea how to drive in snow. Or, more accurately, surfaces that try very hard to resist the friction from my tires. I was making a left once in Salt Lake city while on ice and simply laughed. People were pissed at me and I was like, "what the hell am I supposed to do?" The truck didn't do anything I needed it to do. It was almost like a dog just wondering where it wanted to. It was funny to me cause I had time to burn. The 'rush hour' traffic trying to get home or appointments were not amused.

    Given the option, I absolutely would have tried the automated driving. See if the terminator can drive better than I do in those conditions. :woot:
     
  9. SLee

    SLee Gawd

    Messages:
    955
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2002
    I would place 0 chance on fully autonomous driving, considering there has yet to be any publicly demonstrated hardware and software combination capable of driving as good as an average quality human driver over all conditions.

    At best this new upgrade will improve tracking in a lane and seeing obstacles (so it won't crash into a stationary car) and pedestrians. It'll still won't have any understanding of turns, lane changes, merging, responding properly to traffic lights, etc.
     
  10. gxp500

    gxp500 Gawd

    Messages:
    867
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    You can bet that Tesla will try to go fully autonomous with just those sensors, they'll just call it "beta" again and voila... the owner is the guinea pig.
     
    Poseur likes this.
  11. Quix

    Quix 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    I hope Tesla gets sued over this, otherwise the road is going to be filled with totally unsafe "self-driving" cars. The technology is just not ready and it won't be for at least 15 years.
     
  12. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,385
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    15 years seems a bit much. I'll wager that they can get the technology to were its better than a human driver in under 5 years. And I very much hope they don't get sued, because that sort of thing has a chilling effect and only works to stifle innovation.
     
    Talyrius likes this.
  13. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    You can start by citing how many autopilot systems were hacked so far. And I don't mean it's sensors blinded by a laser, becasue you can blind a human driver just as much, it's not a vulnerability of the autopilot. So why would upgrading the system make it more susceptible to hacking? You talk down from a high horse, but all you have is your own FUD to back you up.

    There are no statistics that I could find about how many collisions occur in a year because they only keep track of fatalities and injuries. But the even the number of injuries at 2.8 million is at least a magnitude more than your "That would be a years worth of human accidents". You pulled that one out your ass didn't you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2016
    misfitsfiend likes this.
  14. misfitsfiend

    misfitsfiend [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    It amazes me how many users on this TECH website are so afraid of self driving cars.
     
    NeoNemesis, Talyrius and Wierdo like this.
  15. Poseur

    Poseur Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    353
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    They're more aware of how poorly defined the real world is compared to computing. The lines on the side of the road are faded. The other drivers stop in the MIDDLE of the intersection to try and make it through the light, because they're more important than everyone else. People change lanes THREE times without signaling to pass other drivers going slightly slower, rather than getting in line in the proper lane. Weather is extremely unpredictable. ABS is FAR from perfect in snow, ice, sand and gravel and it's been out since the 1980s. Strong cross winds will certainly throw an autonomous car for a loop. So many unpredictable variables you know they're not testing for. Even sunlight and dirt are going to mess with optical sensors. They can't even wash cars in California because of the drought. It's not a simple problem to solve. People speed and drive way too slow. You can't assume they're all driving the same speed or you'll end up with a motorcycle stuck in your bumper. I got pulled over not too long ago for changing lanes in an intersection, but you can't tell because the lines are totally worn away. Are the police going to side with the AI, issue a ticket to you or Google/Tesla/Chevy? I know there's nothing in the laws about how that's handled. It will take years for them to even think of changing the laws around here. So many variables that a human still chokes and misses stuff. Yes, we're better at driving than computers.
     
    Flogger23m likes this.
  16. LFaWolf

    LFaWolf Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    407
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    I believe changing lanes in the intersection is not illegal in California. Did you find out or fight it?
     
  17. Poseur

    Poseur Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    353
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    I was warned. He wanted to pull me over to check out my cool car. :cool:;)
    It is illegal here and I wasn't trying to change lanes; I was trying to stay in my lane. Which is probably why I didn't get a ticket. He could tell I wanted to obey the law.
     
  18. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    That's a whole lot of fud cramped into one post. Basically you cite situations that you think it couldn't handle then take the leap and make that proof of autonomous vehicles inadequacy. Now I'm not saying that the current Tesla feature can cope with all those situations. But it's not an autonomous car yet. It's like you're dismissing the usability of a current smartphone because you once saw a nokia 3310.
     
    Talyrius likes this.
  19. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,601
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    I'm amazed you stated an equivalence here that doesnt exist.
    What does this being a tech website and joining it have to do with the safety of current autopilots?
    One does not make the other safe.

    If it was safe it would not need a driver to remain in control and it would be enabled by default.
    Some of us understand at least some of the pitfalls, we are in a position to advise caution.
    Its not about being afraid, its being wise, especially where life is at risk.
    And it is in the hands of the none tech savvy, which you appear to be part of.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  20. Poseur

    Poseur Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    353
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    It will get better. Roads should be setup to help autonomous cars navigate eventually, after they fix all of the stuff that makes them bad for conventional human drivers. They should never put BETA software into production where the safety of random people are at risk of death or crippling injuries. They can test it all they want on their own dime. Leave that crap in the lab or a controlled course until they're ready to take full responsibility for it. That includes going to prison for killing someone.
     
    misfitsfiend likes this.
  21. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    It's the stupid user that thinks they can read a book and don't pay any attention to the road. If they advertise it accordingly there is no problem with it. The biggest sin of tesla is that they mixed the word "autopilot" in there somewhere. That's misleading. But the car manual refers to the autopilot features as "driver assistance" Implying that they never fully control the vehicle. I don't know if it is urban legend of not, but I've heard stories about idiots driving into ditches when the first cruise controls started appearing on vehicles. It's the same story now. But thanks to the information age everyone knows about everything all over the world.
     
  22. misfitsfiend

    misfitsfiend [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Uhm auto-pilot on airplanes has been around for how many years and it still requires human control...? Also, BMW, Infiniti, and Mercedes all have some version of auto-pilot implemented in their cars. Audi has had traffic jam assist since 2011. Computer intervention is present in so many of a modern car's systems, and will only proliferate further.

    I do suggest you stay indoors with your technological fears, due to all the self-driving cars that kill thousands each year.
     
  23. misfitsfiend

    misfitsfiend [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    ..and now cruise control is a feature on almost every car currently in production.

    “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”
     
  24. FearTheCow

    FearTheCow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,648
    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Funny, I didn't realize there were 100's of thousands of airplanes flying in just the US every day, planes which only operate at a single altitude and have to stay in lanes barely bigger than they are, thanks for teaching !e so!ething new!
     
  25. Extra-Titanian

    Extra-Titanian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Planes where a "near miss" means passing within 5 miles of another. Never mind the fact that a plane requires a fraction of the input a car does to safely navigate.
     
  26. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,601
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    You made my point, thanks :)
    I suggest not posting in tech forums.
     
    misfitsfiend likes this.
  27. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Most seem to be in all out attack mode about it. They're not advising caution. They're yelling with foaming mouths "Don't take muh wheeel!!!". I suspect they don't even understand the technology, and outright dismiss the idea as "it will never work". That's not being wise, that's the exact opposite.
     
    misfitsfiend and Nenu like this.
  28. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Actually planes need more input. They don't just have to worry about direction and speed, but yaw, roll, and pitch too. What I suspect you were trying to say is that they have a bigger safety margin as there are no obstacles to avoid near a plane within a few feet. But that doesn't mean it needs no precision control to maintain a level flight and a hundredth of a degree accuracy in direction. So the controls of a plane are actually much more intricate than that of a car. What is less complex is the sensors involved, as they don't need to detect obstacles that are only a few inches in diameter in a distance within a few feet.
     
  29. Extra-Titanian

    Extra-Titanian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    No, planes need far less input to auto navigate. Assuming the plane has touched off, it merely has to get to the desired altitude, look up the needed TACAN/VOR frequencies, and run them one by one until it gets to it's desired destination, (unless it's flying GPS, in which case, it just follows waypoints). Then it uses the localizer/glideslope to put itself on the ground (ProTip: You can land a plane with a radio and a pair of headphones without looking out of the windshield if you needed to). The hardest part is making sure all the frequencies are accurate and applicable NOTAM's are heeded. Which is why, even with full automation, a human should always be at the helm. Aviation auto navigation is stupid simple, and has been for decades. They generally don't have to worry about weather as much as a car autopilot does, runways are plowed/salted when needed (I've seen it done on an hourly basis). They generally don't have to worry about road conditions like a car does, runways are maintained to a point above and beyond anything that a road can be kept at (never seen a pothole, or faded lines). There's generally no danger of some idiot running out in front of it, as runways are restricted areas. And of course, you don't have a cluster of them traveling at 70 mph, 12 inches away from each other like you do with cars. Nevermind the fact that if cars were built and maintained to aircraft standards, they'd be unaffordable to basically everyone, although we'd also probably be able to go more than a month or so without a major recall happening.

    Manufacturers can't even get human controlled cars right, what makes you think they can handle computerized ones? Supporters of automotive autopilots are trying to fix a human problem by replacing it with a litany of computer problems. It's going to be an over complicated nightmare, doomed to fail because of many of the aforementioned human problems. And the myriad of environmental ones too.
     
  30. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    You're missing the point. I'm not talking about navigation, but the controls that you take so granted that you completely forgot that just now. Flying a plane is not just about inputting a coordinate, but the controls that need to be coordinated. aileron, rudder, elevator, flaps, throttle, prop angle. etc. Yes you can land a plane withoout looking out the window, so what? You act as if you just issues some major relevation to the stupid masses, but that's quite common knowledge.

    That doesn't change the fact that planes have more controls, therefore necessarily need more input to fly.
    What do you even mean by that?

    Just because you don't know the technology, doesn't mean it is doomed to fail. That's just your own insecurities talking.
     
    misfitsfiend likes this.
  31. Extra-Titanian

    Extra-Titanian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Now you're just being obtuse. I'm talking about navigation. I've explicitly said it, multiple times. Just because you keep trying to move the goal posts away from the issue that the rest of us are trying to raise about this technology. It works in a highly controlled sanitized setting, applying it to real world traffic levels and neighborhoods, combined with idiots who will actually slack off and watch Harry Potter while the car "autopilots" for them, is not a good idea.
    Vehicles that automatically shut off in motion because they keychain is too heavy, vehicles that roll away while in park, vehicles that burst into flames when hit from behind, vehicles with airbags that spray shrapnel at the occupants, Cadillac had one where the driveshaft could set off the roof airbags. Have you not been paying attention to the crap that get produced these days? Like I said, they can't even get normal vehicles right these days, and you want them to build cars that can fully control themselves? You can be as snide and dismissive as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that we have far bigger fish to fry before we should be even considering jumping in a bunch of self controlled tin cans.
     
  32. misfitsfiend

    misfitsfiend [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,293
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Wow you're implying incidents that occur on 0.0001% of new vehicles shows car manufacturers have no idea what they're doing. I'm assuming you walk to work and ride a bike everywhere? Definitely no risks involved there.

    Maybe you shouldn't use a cell phone because its battery will explode in your pocket? Let's all just go back into our caves because technology is going to kill us all!
     
  33. Extra-Titanian

    Extra-Titanian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    10's of millions of cars are recalled every year for these issues. I'm fairly certain that's more than .0001% Still waiting on an actual argument in support of accepting even more unnecessary risk factors.
     
  34. dave99

    dave99 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,129
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    I'd agree that it's not fully ready yet, but I'd say the partial system we have now is still better than the average potato who is yelling at their kids, putting on makeup, eating, shaving or texting. Is it as good as non-distracted driver giving 100% attention? No. But most drivers aren't doing that anyway.

    And I'd say 5 years before a 99% solution is out & rolling.
     
    misfitsfiend likes this.
  35. Wierdo

    Wierdo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Can't come to big cities soon enough...