Hacker News Reader

Comment by npizzolato | Hacker News Reader

> The autopilot doesn't drive the car, the driver does. The autopilot is a help just like cruise control. Tesla are very clear (apart from the naming of the feature) that the driver must still drive the car.

I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist? You can't say "autopilot is safer than normal humans" (heavily implied by the blog post) and then turn around and say "but it's really the driver who's responsible for everything!" anytime there's an accident.

Unlike autopilot, cruise control has very limited functionality. No driver expects it to do anything other than keep their speed, so they are still actively engaged with the road to respond to anything that takes place.

View on HN

> I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. What's the point of an autopilot if you have to avoid every single obstacle and react to every single thing as if the auto-pilot didn't exist?

You don't have to react - you have to supervise it though. It lets the driver monitor a system that micromanages steering, brakes and throttle, instead of doing that micromanagement himself. It requires the same attention but is less work.

> Unlike autopilot, cruise control has very limited functionality. No driver expects it to do anything other than keep their speed,

Well, these days you can often set it with a distance to the car in front using a radar. You then let the cruise control do something more than just keep constant speed, it will slow down if the car in front does etc. The driver has to pay full attention though for anything the cruise control can't handle.

You seem to imply "what's the point of an autopilot if I can't take a nap". - well the issue is that it's a little too good to be called a cruise control, but not good enough for a nap. We're simply not there quite yet. At least not legally.

The problem to me seems to be: at highway speeds, you have to decide very quickly whether or not it's something that the system can't handle.

If you're constantly responding to every change in conditions, what's the point of the autopilot? So you don't respond every time, and then something comes up that the autopilot doesn't recognize, and you don't know that until it's too late.

> If you're constantly responding to every change in conditions, what's the point of the autopilot?

The same as a cruise control - you are supervising rather than micromanaging because micromanagement is more work than supervision. A distance-keeping cruisecontrol may be changing the throttle level dozens of times per minute. A driver supervising that system can keep an eye out for stalled cars on the side of the road, wildlife etc., withput using most of the attention on keeping a constant distance to the vehicle ahead. This complements the driver and increases safety because the drivers cognition can be used to what it's best at, and simple tasks like keeping a constant speed or constant distance can be done by a computer.

The problem with this "Level 2.5" autopilot is twofold:

1) It's called "AutoPilot", even though that shouldn't be the name of it until it's feature complete (level 4 autonomy) simply because people seem to assume that AutoPilot means something that drives by itself.

2) It appears good enough to allow the driver to not pay attention, while still requiring the driver to pay attention. The disclaimers that the driver can never be distracted for a short momet (i.e. use it like a pilot uses an autopilot) don't seem to help.

A lot of the comments here seem to indicate "if I can't text/sleep/whatever then what's the point of an AutoPilot" - clearly misunderstanding the current capability of the system!

I think we're in agreement. My point is that you can't supervise something you don't understand so I don't know how a driver can reasonably be expected to switch from supervision to reaction quickly enough every time that is needed.

I know what my cruise control will do (effectively nothing). I don't know how to anticipate what Tesla's sensors and "AI" can't handle.

Calling it 'autopilot' is a very bad thing, then, because 'autopilot' means 'runs automatically' to the general public.

And even though actual autopilots in planes are monitored by meatpilots, meatpilots can still take their attention away for a short time. The autopilot keeps the plane flying straight and level, and doesn't take on any navigational role (in most cases). Unless your roads are dead straight and there's no traffic, driving requires a constant navigational role.

> Calling it 'autopilot' is a very bad thing, then, because 'autopilot' means 'runs automatically' to the general public.

Indeed. Tesla wanted to use that name now even though it's the proper name for a feature not yet complete. They have to use a ton of warnings and disclaimers to do it. We'll see if authorities find that sufficient. If I were tesla I'd rename it to something with "assist" for the time being.

> And even though actual autopilots in planes are monitored by meatpilots, meatpilots can still take their attention away for a short time.

So does Teslas autopilot, but the time you can safeley take your attention away on a highway may be perhaps a second or two if you are on a clear straight with wildlife barriers. The autopilot will ensure the car runs straight while you fiddle with the radio.

The same time in an airplane may be ten minutes. THAT is the difference. In an airplane theare are controllers making sure there is no traffic one in front, and there is no risk of a deer or a child stepping in front of the plane. Basically the AutoPilot will have the meatpilot respond to anything it can't handle too - which in an airplane is mostly tecnical issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com