Autopilot literally switched ITSELF off less than half a second from the moment of impact. it didn’t try to stop the car, it just shut itself off so it couldn’t be blamed.
Imagine if someone whipped throwing knives at your back and then tried to argue “but your honor I was not holding any knives at the time of the stabbing”
Fuck Tesla, fuck Elon, fuck every simp who shits excuses out their mouths for him
(I mean, not YOU, you aren’t doing any of those things; I’m just saying, those people. In general.)
AP is supposed to disable itself if a fault or abnormality is detected. Pretty much all advanced cruise control systems do this.
I don’t think it’s fair to say the car was hiding evidence of AP being used unless it was intentionally logging the data in shady way. We’d need to see the logs of the car, and there are some roundabout ways for a consumer to pull those. That would probably be an interesting test for someone on YouTube to run.
These systems disable right before a crash because the national traffic safety org in the US requires manufacturers to report if these systems were engaged during an accident.
It is not for safety or because of a malfunction, it’s for marketing. Car companies dont want the features that they sell for 3-8k coming up all the time in crash statistics.
Tesla is the biggest offender here, likely due to vehicles sold, but also due to their camera only system and their aggressively false “full self driving” and “autopilot” marketing that far over promises.
Mark did an interview with Philip Defranco and posted raw footage showing/explaining that Autopilot turned itself off instead of hitting the brakes.
They also did two takes, it did the same thing both times. The first time, they just used a poster instead of a full foam wall. They decided to add the foam for a better visual once they realized it would just happily plow through it.
Finally there’s some argument of Autopilot vs FSD; but both rely on the same cameras and should have at least tried to brake. The LIDAR car braked and it was just using emergency braking, no self driving at all.
Why would it? It sees a road in front of itself, the whole car is built + programmed to go by what it sees, as an image.
The car is doing exactly what it is built to do. It just so happens that “safety of road traffic” is not among the things it is built for, and explicitly so.
I think it’s a good example of how vastly over hyped a lot of AI stuff is though. Any person could tell that that was a wall from hundreds of feet away. You can even tell in the video and it would be more obvious in real life with actual depth perception.
The entire problem with AI are corner cases. This is just taking that corner case to an absurd level. But it’s not much different than the real world case of a Tesla vehicle getting confused on a highway if a billboard ad has a stop sign on it.
Of course they didn’t. Musk fanboys are an echo chamber of morons worshipping a Nazi oligarch. They’re quick to react, and they dismiss evidence and facts if it doesn’t suit their narrative.
I watched some Tesla-sympathetic youtuber for balance and here are the key points brought up:
He had a death grip on the wheel (because y’know, he knew he was going to crash). Exerting enough force over time on the steering wheel disables autopilot, because the system assumes you want to manually override what it’s doing.
FSD apparently is much more capable, but this Tesla only had the common AutoPilot turned on. Despite having FSD available (Mark apparently claimed he didn’t know he could turn it on without adding a destination)
Mark might have some sort of sponsorship deal with the LIDAR company featured in the video, which is why LIDAR was shown in a much better light (e.g it was shown stopping for a dummy behind the water spray, but in reality a LIDAR based system would just brake for the water spray itself)
Now all of those might be true, but you’re also correct in that the emergency braking system should be operational even when AP is disabled. Unless the system malfunctioned (just having a dirty camera is enough). I know my Subaru throws out the adaptive cruise ALL the time. Stupid camera based system. You’d think it’s better off because the cameras are at the top of the windshield, compared to most cars front grille mounted radars, but nah, it just keeps turning off.
They are free to peer review the test and do it with all the stuff enabled.
That is how science works.
But I doubt they will, since this is an inherent problem with using camera vision only. Not with the software of the car. And they most likely know it.
I will point out, I don’t think “peer review” means repeating the test, it means more generally pointing out issues with the science, right? By that definition, sounds like that’s what they’re doing. That doesn’t make the criticisms inherently valid, but to dismiss it as “they’re free to do their own tests” because “that is how science works” seems dishonest.
Peer review usually means repeating the test and comparing results with the original paper. If peer review can’t get the same results, it means that the first study was faulty or wasn’t described accurately.
Humans also operate on “camera vision” only in that we see visible light and that’s it. Adding lidar to the system should improve performance over human capability, but camera vision with good enough software (and this is way easier said than done) ought to be able to match human capability. Whether Tesla’s is good enough in FSD mode I have no idea because I have no intention to ever buy one and testing this in a rental is uh… risky, given that they tend to have onboard cameras.
Of course, if Tesla’s “FSD” branded driver assist suite is actually good enough to beat this test, I reckon Tesla would be quick to prove it to save their own reputation. It’s not that hard to reproduce.
These are extremely EXTREMELY reliable at detecting physical obstructions. There is no reason but stupidity or being cheap to not implement redundancy into a safety system. This isn’t about implementing “good enough” software. This is about a design choice forced on Tesla engineers by a complete idiot that doubles down on his stupidity when faced with criticism by actually intelligent people.
Not just good enough software. Also good enough cameras and good enough processing power. None of which curenty match humans so this is not a valid argument.
The camera only system is just worse at everything.
Even without the fanboys justifications, what did this test prove that the others didn’t, since it didn’t mimic a real world scenario like the tests where the tesla demolished the kid? I’ve driven through fog and lights and heavy rain, but have yet to encounter an unexpected Wile E Cayote wall in the road.
The absurd test was mostly for the spectacle/views. Sometimes science is doing wacky things because we’re curious to find the limits.
Someone else mentioned a blue truck at the crest of hill was invisible to the system, resulting in a crash. That’s probably the closest to Wile E scenerio you’re going to get.
If nothing else, Mark did say that the company LiDAR supplied the car, but that’s it, they had no say in the test, didn’t give him any money, apparently they did put the video up on their site for a bit, but took it down either because it looked bad given the backlash, or because Mark told them to take it down as it did go against their agreement.
Of course he could have lied about the spo sponsorship, but he said he’s fine with a lawsuit, so that would be a bold strategy.
People are arguing about autopilot being disabled during the drive, but even if it was, the emergency braking system should tried to do something.
Autopilot literally switched ITSELF off less than half a second from the moment of impact. it didn’t try to stop the car, it just shut itself off so it couldn’t be blamed.
Imagine if someone whipped throwing knives at your back and then tried to argue “but your honor I was not holding any knives at the time of the stabbing”
Fuck Tesla, fuck Elon, fuck every simp who shits excuses out their mouths for him
(I mean, not YOU, you aren’t doing any of those things; I’m just saying, those people. In general.)
It’s like a pilot bailing out of a plane and then claiming he was not responsible for the crash because he was in Vegas at the time the plane crashed.
it’s always been doing this. it’s so that they claim AP wasn’t active during the crash and evade liability
I think elon made sure that it switches off so he doesnt get liability that the autopilot is at fault.
AP is supposed to disable itself if a fault or abnormality is detected. Pretty much all advanced cruise control systems do this.
I don’t think it’s fair to say the car was hiding evidence of AP being used unless it was intentionally logging the data in shady way. We’d need to see the logs of the car, and there are some roundabout ways for a consumer to pull those. That would probably be an interesting test for someone on YouTube to run.
These systems disable right before a crash because the national traffic safety org in the US requires manufacturers to report if these systems were engaged during an accident.
It is not for safety or because of a malfunction, it’s for marketing. Car companies dont want the features that they sell for 3-8k coming up all the time in crash statistics.
Tesla is the biggest offender here, likely due to vehicles sold, but also due to their camera only system and their aggressively false “full self driving” and “autopilot” marketing that far over promises.
Just saying I’d like to see some more data. I get that Musk is not someone who should be trusted. Especially if it’s around complying with regulators.
That said, I could see that system being disengaged by some intended safety triggers.
At the very least the system should initiate an emergency break when it disengages like that and there is no conflicting human input.
100% agree. My stupid Volvo does that, and it doesn’t have lidar or a million cameras around it.
Mark did an interview with Philip Defranco and posted raw footage showing/explaining that Autopilot turned itself off instead of hitting the brakes.
They also did two takes, it did the same thing both times. The first time, they just used a poster instead of a full foam wall. They decided to add the foam for a better visual once they realized it would just happily plow through it.
Finally there’s some argument of Autopilot vs FSD; but both rely on the same cameras and should have at least tried to brake. The LIDAR car braked and it was just using emergency braking, no self driving at all.
Why would it? It sees a road in front of itself, the whole car is built + programmed to go by what it sees, as an image.
The car is doing exactly what it is built to do. It just so happens that “safety of road traffic” is not among the things it is built for, and explicitly so.
I think it’s a good example of how vastly over hyped a lot of AI stuff is though. Any person could tell that that was a wall from hundreds of feet away. You can even tell in the video and it would be more obvious in real life with actual depth perception.
The entire problem with AI are corner cases. This is just taking that corner case to an absurd level. But it’s not much different than the real world case of a Tesla vehicle getting confused on a highway if a billboard ad has a stop sign on it.
It shows they didn’t even watch the video. The only reason Mark used autopilot was because without it the car failed the simplest test.
The test was with a kid being in the middle of the street and Tesla didn’t even stop in time.
https://youtu.be/IQJL3htsDyQ?t=9m38s
Of course they didn’t. Musk fanboys are an echo chamber of morons worshipping a Nazi oligarch. They’re quick to react, and they dismiss evidence and facts if it doesn’t suit their narrative.
I watched some Tesla-sympathetic youtuber for balance and here are the key points brought up:
He had a death grip on the wheel (because y’know, he knew he was going to crash). Exerting enough force over time on the steering wheel disables autopilot, because the system assumes you want to manually override what it’s doing.
FSD apparently is much more capable, but this Tesla only had the common AutoPilot turned on. Despite having FSD available (Mark apparently claimed he didn’t know he could turn it on without adding a destination)
Mark might have some sort of sponsorship deal with the LIDAR company featured in the video, which is why LIDAR was shown in a much better light (e.g it was shown stopping for a dummy behind the water spray, but in reality a LIDAR based system would just brake for the water spray itself)
Now all of those might be true, but you’re also correct in that the emergency braking system should be operational even when AP is disabled. Unless the system malfunctioned (just having a dirty camera is enough). I know my Subaru throws out the adaptive cruise ALL the time. Stupid camera based system. You’d think it’s better off because the cameras are at the top of the windshield, compared to most cars front grille mounted radars, but nah, it just keeps turning off.
They are free to peer review the test and do it with all the stuff enabled.
That is how science works.
But I doubt they will, since this is an inherent problem with using camera vision only. Not with the software of the car. And they most likely know it.
I will point out, I don’t think “peer review” means repeating the test, it means more generally pointing out issues with the science, right? By that definition, sounds like that’s what they’re doing. That doesn’t make the criticisms inherently valid, but to dismiss it as “they’re free to do their own tests” because “that is how science works” seems dishonest.
Peer review usually means repeating the test and comparing results with the original paper. If peer review can’t get the same results, it means that the first study was faulty or wasn’t described accurately.
Humans also operate on “camera vision” only in that we see visible light and that’s it. Adding lidar to the system should improve performance over human capability, but camera vision with good enough software (and this is way easier said than done) ought to be able to match human capability. Whether Tesla’s is good enough in FSD mode I have no idea because I have no intention to ever buy one and testing this in a rental is uh… risky, given that they tend to have onboard cameras.
Of course, if Tesla’s “FSD” branded driver assist suite is actually good enough to beat this test, I reckon Tesla would be quick to prove it to save their own reputation. It’s not that hard to reproduce.
https://www.adafruit.com/product/4058?gQT=1
These are extremely EXTREMELY reliable at detecting physical obstructions. There is no reason but stupidity or being cheap to not implement redundancy into a safety system. This isn’t about implementing “good enough” software. This is about a design choice forced on Tesla engineers by a complete idiot that doubles down on his stupidity when faced with criticism by actually intelligent people.
Not just good enough software. Also good enough cameras and good enough processing power. None of which curenty match humans so this is not a valid argument.
The camera only system is just worse at everything.
Even without the fanboys justifications, what did this test prove that the others didn’t, since it didn’t mimic a real world scenario like the tests where the tesla demolished the kid? I’ve driven through fog and lights and heavy rain, but have yet to encounter an unexpected Wile E Cayote wall in the road.
The absurd test was mostly for the spectacle/views. Sometimes science is doing wacky things because we’re curious to find the limits.
Someone else mentioned a blue truck at the crest of hill was invisible to the system, resulting in a crash. That’s probably the closest to Wile E scenerio you’re going to get.
If nothing else, Mark did say that the company LiDAR supplied the car, but that’s it, they had no say in the test, didn’t give him any money, apparently they did put the video up on their site for a bit, but took it down either because it looked bad given the backlash, or because Mark told them to take it down as it did go against their agreement.
Of course he could have lied about the spo sponsorship, but he said he’s fine with a lawsuit, so that would be a bold strategy.
on a tesla, no way.