Hacker News Reader

Comment by sorenjan | Hacker News Reader

I think it's weird that so many people seem to think that Tesla have made such a significant technology leap ahead of everyone else that they're comfortable with putting their lives in the hands of their Autopilot system while other manufacturers have no such thing available in production. I wonder how much of that relaxed critical thinking is down to the hype surrounding Tesla and its founder.

I also think it's strange that they're allowed to sell cars equipped with Autopilot at the moment, there's too little known about its capabilities and weaknesses.

View on HN

They shouldn't be allowed to call it 'autopilot', and it should automatically (and very visibly/audibly) disable itself the second a driver takes his or her hands off the steering wheel. Why? Because apparently there are people out there who believe this is true autopilot and will move their attention elsewhere when flying down the road at 74mph.

Yep, calling it autopilot and then having marketing videos showing Musk without his hands on the wheel comes off as disingenuous to me because whenever any incident happens, they point to the disclaimer stating that your hands are never supposed to be off the wheel.

Purchasing the car is an information intensive process, there are many opportunities to educate the consumer besides seeing a marketing video, for example: before checkout process, post-purchase communication, before you using the feature the tablet can have a mandatory information session, persistent reminders later during day-to-day use, etc, etc.

Negligence is already something the courts are well suited to handle. Tesla already has a big incentive to do this well. I don't think they are necessarily negligent here for having marketing material which doesn't 100% cover real world usage. If that was ALL the information customers received I would...but I highly doubt that's the case.

I also take issue with the autopilot name as well, but I do think it's something that can be effectively communicated elsewhere with a product like this - where it really isn't that big of a deal. It is not a large barrier to communicate the immature state of the software and the limited current use-cases to each buyer beforehand regardless of branding.

but I do think it's something that can be effectively communicated elsewhere with a product like this

If Tesla is over-promising and under delivering their relative advances in autonomous driving as a sales tactic, then there is little defense of Tesla if drivers don't read enough fine print to understand the limitations of the autonomous driving systems.

In my assessment, Tesla is not being honest about capabilities. If they were, they'd have used the naming strategy that comes up with "adaptive cruise control," not "autopilot." (Sidebar: I don't care what "autopilot" actually means, the general public thinks it means computer magic makes a plane all by itself.)

Having misleading branding and marketing materials that show the CEO operating the product in an unsafe manner convey a message to viewer on how seriously to take the warning. They're giving the impression that the disclaimer is "under-cooked meats can carry food borne illness" on restaurant menus. The "don't try this at home" cover-your-ass warning while winking to try it at home.

Some people buy them used too...

Since an autopilot in an aircraft will not avoid a mid-air collision, this doesn't seem like an inappropriate term. Tesla's autopilot maintains a heading and speed, just like an aircraft autopilot, and usually behaves better in irregular circumstances.

Tesla has significantly reduced the nudge to put your hands on the wheel. I would hate it if they forced to keep my hands on the wheel all the time. There are many situations (stop and go traffic, miles of freeway with no one around) where it doesn't make sense to continually hold your wheel.

Ok, maybe that suggestion was a bit drastic since you do make a good point about being able take your hands off while stopped, but there should be all sorts of bells/whistles/lights going off if you take your hands off the steering wheel while at speed.

The nudge is pretty prominent as the whole instrument cluster beeps. It also punishes you if you ignore the warnings by disabling autopilot (I think after 3 tries).

The real question is : does Autopilot saves more lives than it claims, as most advocates like to say?

If the answer is no, then Tesla's Autopilot shouldn't be allowed as it is.

If the answer is yes, then it means that other manufacturers are too cautious.

Real life is not a trolley problem. Not least because in real life you never have perfect information about what the actual probabilities are, and where products are concerned there is a long history of companies concealing vital information about product risks.

(have we forgotten Feynman and the Challenger investigation? Doesn't have to be for-profit for people to mislead about risk)

That is a false alternative.

One very simple example from a complicated issue:

If Autopilot saves lives when used correctly, but Tesla's marketing material implicitly encourages people to use it incorrectly (e.g. video of Musk with no hands on the wheel), then the marketing is dangerous.

There should be no "when used correctly" - the question is whether it saves (net) lives or kills people when used normally as people tend to do for whatever reasons, no ifs or buts, just count the cases. Just as people violating laws by driving drunk still is a valid argument for more automation of driving, so people violating some guidelines by using automation incorrectly is a valid argument against it. If the automation can't handle the common misuse and still be safer on average, then it's not ready yet.

But Autopilot isn't an all or nothing thing. If Tesla could save lives by changing the name, requiring constant hands on the wheel, doing a better job monitoring the person is actually in control, then they are being negligent by failing to do so.

If you invent a cure for cancer, but 1/10th of your pills have rat poison that could easily have filtered out, it doesn't matter that you overall saved lives. You still killed people through negligence.

In this situation, though, the parallel would be more closely stated as "If you invent a cure for cancer, but 1/10000000th of your pills have rat poison, did you kill people through negligence if you acknowledged that you're in a trial period and that there's a small chance they may have a reaction and die and made them sign a waiver accepting that risk?"

Every single person that uses Autopilot acknowledges the risk multiple times before they can use the system.

Thanks for saying it better than I could have.

No that is not the real or the key question. That is your assertion.

Debates about autopilot in cars have many more dimensions than simply number of deaths.

There are many effects of this technology way beyond number if deaths.

What do you think are the effects of this tech that are way beyond no. of deaths?

This is a false dichotomy, because the auto-brake system can work without autopilot, so a better of both world is possible.

Marketing is an amazing phenomenon.

The AP 1 sensor was in cars for years. No one else was foolhardy enough to try and use it for more than LKA, not because the sensor couldn't do it, but because no one wanted to market an "AP" feature that didn't work 100% of the time it was available

It displays how behind the times the NTSB (and most regulatory bodies) are. The fact that "the result was a collision that, frankly, should have never happened" is entirely their fault. Were they ever in contact/collaboration with Tesla about this kind of technology? If not, why weren't they? Are we going to continue down the same years-long path of reactionary regulations where several more people have to die before the government grows a backbone on this?

I'm all for the government keeping its nose out of places it doesn't belong, but as we've learned over the past century, companies don't give 2 shits about whether or not the products they release harm consumers; it's entirely up to government to set the boundaries. You won't find me in any car with any kind of self-driving "autopilot" feature for many, many years.

The NTSB does accident investigation, not driver assistance technology regulation.

> I think it's weird that so many people seem to think that Tesla have made such a significant technology leap ahead of everyone else that they're comfortable with putting their lives in the hands of their Autopilot system while other manufacturers have no such thing available in production.

Don't they, though?

From what I understand, Tesla's "Autopilot" doesn't do much more than lanekeeping, adaptive cruise control, and emergency braking, which you can buy on a wide range of vehicles today. For example, I drive a Honda CRV that does all of this - on the highway it really does drive itself. You don't even have to buy the top trim levels, just one up from the bottom.

Other manufacturers doesn't call their system Autopilot. The name suggest that you push a button and arrive at your destination without having to do any driving yourself. I also don't see any Youtube videos showing how their Hondas are driving themselves automatically. It's mainly a marketing issue, but too many seem to have bought it.

I think it's weird that so many people seem to think that Tesla have made such a significant technology leap ahead of everyone else

The marketing worked. What so weird about that?

The most effective tool of marketing, is that people think humanity is so smart that marketing isn't effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com