this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
787 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

60126 readers
3105 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rsuri 60 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Musk has said that humans drive with only eyesight, so cars should be able to drive with just cameras.

This of course assumes 1) that cameras are just as good as eyes (they're not) and 2) that the processing of visual data that the human brain does can be replicated by a machine, which seems highly dubious given that we only partially understand how humans process visual data to make decisions.

Finally, it assumes that the current rate of human-caused crashes is acceptable. Which it isn't. We tolerate crashes because we can't improve people without unrealistic expense. In an automated system, if a bit of additional hardware can significantly reduce crashes it's irrational not to do it.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Also, on a final note...

Why the fuck would you limit yourself to only human senses when you have the capability to add more of any sense you want??

If you have the option to add something that humans don't have, why wouldn't you? As an example, humans don't have gps either, but it's very useful to have in a car

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the answer to that is: Elon's cheap and Radar is expensive. Not so expensive that you can't get it in a base model Civic though, which just makes it that much more absurd.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Lidar isn't that expensive, it's more expensive than the cameras but it's probably more useful than the cameras so perhaps you could install less cameras and more Lidar. Also the cost will go down as production rates go up, currently it's high price has a lot to do with its limited applications and thus limited customer base. The more cars that have lidar, the more customers there will be, and the less each individual unit will cost.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

Because a global pandemic broke your sensor supply chain and you still want to sell cars with FSD anyway, so cameras-only it is!

[–] blady_blah 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is directly a result of Elon's edict that Tesla cars don't use lidar. If you aren't aware Elon set that as a requirement at the beginning of Tesla's self driving project because he didn't want to spend the money on lidar for all Tesla cars.

His "first principles" logic is that humans don't use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools. While this statement has some modicum of truth, it's obviously going to trade off safely in situations where vision is compromised. Think fog or sunlight shining in your cameras / eyes or a person running across the street at night wearing all black. There are obvious scenarios where lidar is a massive safety advantage, but Elon made a decision for $$ to not have that. This sounds like a direct and obvious outcome of that edict.

[–] WoodScientist 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

His “first principles” logic is that humans don’t use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools.

This kind of idiocy is why people tried to build airplanes with flapping wings. Way too many people thought that the best way to create a plane was to just copy what nature did with birds. Nature showed it was possible, so just copy nature.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

To be fair, we achieved flight by copying nature. Once we realized the important part was the shape of a wing more than the flapping.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My vacuum robot uses lidar. How expensive could it be??

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

You need slightly more advanced lidar for cars because you need to be able to see further ahead then 10 ft, and you need to be able to see in adverse weather conditions (rain, fog, snow), that I assume you don't experience indoors. That said, it really isn't as expensive as he is making it out to be.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Humans move with only feet so cars should be limited to using feet. And only 2 of them.

[–] rsuri 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well building battlemechs does seem like the obvious next step on Elon's progression

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You mean promising to build battlemechs, and fucking around for 5 years while grifting his stock valuation sky-high, then coming forward with a cheap robot that can't even walk?

[–] Buddahriffic 3 points 2 months ago

Not only that, specifically doing it to fuck the momentum of another project that would have competed with his entire market but would have been better for pretty much everyone (including those who stayed in the market he was targeting).

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Regarding point number 2, I have no doubt we'll be able to develop systems that process visual/video data as well as or better than people. I just know we aren't there yet, and Tesla certainly isn't.

I like to come at the argument from the other direction though; humans drive with eyesight because that's all we have. If I could be equipped with sonar or radar or lidar, of fucking course I'd use it, wouldn't you?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If the camera system + software results in being 1% safer than a human, and a given human can't afford the lidar version, society is still better off with the human using the camera-based FSD than driving manually. Elon being a piece of shit doesn't detract from this fact.

But, yes, a lot of "ifs" in there, and obviously he did this to cut costs or supply chain or blahblah

Lidar or other tech will be more relevant once we've raised the floor (everyone getting the additional safety over manual driving) and other FSDs become more mainstream (competition)

[–] skyspydude1 1 points 2 months ago

The thing is that you don't need FSD to do that. Having a really good AEB system massively improves safety, far more than a convenience feature like FSD does, but they fucked that up by taking the radar out so now it performs far worse at night, hence running over pedestrians and other VRUs far more often.

But you can't grift billions out of investors by having a really good safety feature, so you hack together a system from hardware only ever originally only meant for adaptive cruise and lane keeping, and tech bros can show off on YouTube and hopefully not run over a cyclist, all to keep that grift rolling