Hacker News Reader

Comment by localhost | Hacker News Reader

It seems like this is a case where the autopilot thought that the truck was a stationary object. Based on my reading of the press release, it seemed like the truck was turning across the car's path, which should look like a stationary "bridge" to the model and subsequently ignored.

This seems to be a hard problem where you don't want the model to false positive on a stationary object on the side of the road and slam on the brakes.

View on HN

> Based on my reading of the press release, it seemed like the truck was turning across the car's path, which should look like a stationary "bridge" to the model and subsequently ignored.

So if I understand you properly, an adversarial attack against Tesla autopilots would be to suspend a ladder across the road at windshield height?

"Vulnerable to being clotheslined" seems like a bit of an oversight.

How many human drivers would be able to avoid that same thing though? Most of the reason we can safely move cars is because most people follow the rules and aren't murderers. There are plenty of "attacks" you can do against human drivers too.

I agree with your general message but basically no human drivers are going to plow into the side of a a semi truck or a partial lane obstruction with no attempt to afford it.

Really? So no one ever is going to take a quick glance at their phone, not see the truck start to pull out, and do the exact same thing this Model 3 did? No one? I can say with 100% certainty that this exact same thing has happened at least once in history to a normal driver who simply got distracted.

Who cares about adversarial attacks on vehicles? There are about a million different ways to attack any vehicle if that is your objective. You could also use a spike belt, a firearm, a projectile, or just ram it with a vehicle that has more mass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com