528
Full speed in the dark, I think most people would failed to avoid that. What's concerning is it does not stop afterwards
I watched the whole video.. Mowed down like 90 deer in a row.
- Vehicle needed lidar
- Vehicle should have a collision detection indicator for anomalous collisions and random mechanical problems
don't most cars have proximity and collision detectors now?
Not Tesla though, it relies on cameras only.
Friendly reminder that tesla auto pilot is an AI training on live data. If it hasn't seen something enough times then it won't know to stop. This is how you have a tesla running full speed into an overturned semi and many, many other accidents.
I wonder how much recognition it has on non-white people. we've seen these models not having enough people of color in their samples before.
So, a kid on a bicycle or scooter is an edge case? Fuck the Muskrat and strip him of US citizenship for illegally working in the USA. Another question. WTF was the driver doing?
Filming, duh.
In regards to the deer, it looks like it might have been hard to see for the driver. I remember learning in driversED that it is better to hit the animal instead of swerving to miss it as it might hit a car to your side, so maybe that is what they were thinking?
You just need to buy the North America Animal Recognition AI subscription and this wouldn't be an issue plebs, it will stop for 28 out of 139 mammals!
Deer aren’t edge cases. If you are in a rural community or the suburbs, deer are a daily way of life.
As more and more of their forests are destroyed, deer are a daily part of city life. I live in the middle of a large midwestern city; in neighborhood with houses crowded together. I see deer in my lawn regularly.
I notice nobody has commented on the fact that the driver should've reacted to the deer. It's not Tesla's responsibility to emergency brake, even if that is a feature in the system. Drivers are responsible for their vehicle's movements at the end of the day.
True but if Tesla keeps acting like they're on the verge of an unsupervised, steering wheel-free system...this is more evidence that they're not. I doubt we'll see a cybercab with no controls for the next 10 years if the current tech is still ignoring large, highly predictable objects in the road.
That would be lovely if it wasn't called and marketed as Full Self-Driving.
You sell vaporware/incomplete functionality software and release it into the wild, then you are responsible for all the chaos it brings.
Then it's not "Full self driving". It's at best lane assistance, but I wouldn't trust that either.
Elon needs to shut the fuck up about self driving and maybe issue a full recall, because he's going to get people killed.
"there was no Danger to my Chasis"
I hit a deer on the highway in the middle of the night going about 80mph. I smelled the failed airbag charge and proceeded to drive home without stopping. By the time I stopped, I would never have been able to find the deer. If your vehicle isn't disabled, what's the big deal about stopping?
I've stuck two deer and my car wasn't disabled either time. My daughter hit one and totaled our van. She stopped.
That said, fuck Musk.
Maybe drive a little slower at night. If you can't spot and react to animals on your path, you won't able to react when it's a human
It was an expressway. There were no lights other than cars. You're not wrong, had a human sprinted at 20mph across the expressway in the dark, I'd have hit them, too. That being said, you're not supposed to swerve and I had less than a second to react from when I saw it. It was getting hit and there was nothing I could've done.
My point was more about what happened after. The deer was gone and by the time I got to the side of the road I was probably about 1/4 mile away from where I struck it. I had no flashlight to hunt around for it in the bushes and even if I did I had no way of killing it if it was still alive.
Once I confirmed my car was drivable I proceeded home and called my insurance company on the way.
The second deer I hit was in broad daylight at lunch time going about 10mph. It wasn't injured. I had some damage to my sunroof. I went to lunch and called my insurance when I was back at the office.
It was an expressway. There were no lights other than cars. You're not wrong, had a human sprinted at 20mph across the expressway in the dark, I'd have hit them, too. That being said, you're not supposed to swerve and I had less than a second to react from when I saw it. It was getting hit and there was nothing I could've done.
I am neither blaming you nor critiquing your actions. In fact I agree that we should not swerve. I was just making an observation that driving slightly slower in low visibility might help by giving you more time to notice an obstruction and brake while provide also providing more time for the obstruction to react and clear the road. At least very least, people might slow down enough so that the crash is no longer fatal to the person or animal being crashed into
Great on paper but literally not okay to slow down to 35 mph on the freeway ... Where most wild animals are hit at night.
Nobody is asking you to go at 35 mph. But going 60 mph instead of 80 mph means that your stopping distance will be nearly half and you will have almost twice the amount of time to react.
https://www.automotive-fleet.com/driver-care/239402/driver-care-know-your-stopping-distance
Have you hit a deer before or almost hit them in the dark? Yes absolutely 60mph will shorten your stopping distance and reaction time but not nearly enough. Even at 35mph people hit deer all the time because they typically jump out in front. But much faster than 35mph and even standing still in the middle of the road they're tough to see and stop for. 60mph, not a chance.
I haven't hit a deer, not even come close since they aren't a problem in my country. You are most probably right and i have seen videos of deer just jumping onto the road at the last second which causes an unavoidable accident. My viewpoint is that when you hit a creature(animal or human) at 80mph, they are most certainly dead. If you hit them at 60, they might survive but be gravely wounded. If are able to react and slow down before contact to about 30, they will be hurt but at least they have a much better chance of the survival. Somehow going at same speeds during the day and during the night seems very risky
Whether or not a human should stop seems beside the point. Autopilot should immediately get the driver to take back control if something unexpected happens, and stop if the driver doesn't take over. Getting into an actual collision and just continuing to drive is absolutely the wrong behavior for a self-driving car.
You're supposed to stop and report it so they can come and get it so no one hits it and ends up more squishy then intended.
No one was hitting it. It ran into the tall weeds (not far, I'll wager). I couldn't have found it. Had it been in the road I'd have called it in.
Is there video that actually shows it "keeps going"? The way that video loops I know I can't tell what happens immediately after.
The driver's tweet says it kept going, but I didn't find the full video.
Inb4 it actually stopped with hazards like I've seen in other videos. Fuck elon and fuck teslas marketing of self driving but I've seen people reach far for karma hate posts on tesla sooooooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For the 1000th time Tesla: don't call it "autopilot" when it's nothing more than a cruise control that needs constant attention.
Real Autopilot also needs constant attention, the term comes from aviation and it's not fully autonomous. It maintains heading, altitude, and can do minor course correction.
It's the "full self driving" wording they use that needs shit on.
It is autopilot (a poor one but still one) that legally calls itself cruise control so Tesla wouldn't have to take responsibility when it inevitably breaks the law.
The poster, who pays Tesla CEO Elon Musk for a subscription to the increasingly far-right social media site, claimed that the FSD software “works awesome” and that a deer in the road is an “edge case.” One might argue that edge cases are actually very important parts of any claimed autonomy suite, given how drivers check out when they feel the car is doing the work, but this owner remains “insanely grateful” to Tesla regardless.
How are these people always such pathetic suckers.
Yeah this Tesla owner is dumb. wdym "we just need to train the AI to know what deer butts look like"? Tesla had radar and sonar, it didn't need to know what a deer's butt looks like because radar would've told it something was there! But they took it away because Musk had the genius idea of only using cameras for whatever reason.
I’d go even farther and say most driving is an edge case. I used 30 day trial of full self-driving and the results were eye opening. Not how it did: it was pretty much as expected, but looking at where it went wrong.
Full self driving did very well in “normal” cases, but I never realized just how much of driving was an “edge” case. Lane markers faded? No road edge but the ditch? Construction? Pothole? Debris? Other car does something they shouldn’t have? Traffic lights not aligned in front of you so it’s not clear what lane? Intersection not aligned so you can’t just go straight across? People intruding? Contradictory signs? Signs covered by tree branches? No sight line when turning?
After that experiment, it seems like “edge” cases are more common than “normal” cases when driving. Humans just handle it without thinking about it, but the car needs more work here
load more comments
(44 replies)
It doesn't have to not kill people to be an improvement, it just has to kill less people than people do
That's a low bar when you consider how stringent airline safety is in comparison, and that kills way less people than driving does. If sensors can save people's lives, then knowingly not including them for profit is intentionally malicious.
True in a purely logical sense, but assigning liability is a huge issue for self-driving vehicles.
Driving is full of edge cases. Humans are also bad drivers who get edge cases wrong all the time.
The real question isn't is Tesla better/worse in anyone in particular, but overall how does Tesla compare. If a Tesla is better in some situations and worse in others and so overall just as bad as a human I can accept it. Is Tesla is overall worse then they shouldn't be driving at all (If they can identify those situations they can stop and make a human take over). If a Tesla is overall better then I'll accept a few edge cases where they are worse.
Tesla claims overall they are better, but they may not be telling the truth. One would think regulators have data for the above - but they are not talking about it.
Yes. The question is if the Tesla is better than a anyone in particular. People are given the benefit of the doubt once they pass the drivers test. Companies and AI should not get that. The AI needs to be as good or better than a GOOD human driver. There is no valid justification to allow a poorly driving AI because it's better than the average human. If we are going to allow these on the road they need to be good.
The video above is HORRID. The weather was clear, there was no opposing traffic , the deer was standing still. The auto drive absolutely failed.
If a human was driving in these conditions plowed through a deer at 60 mph and didn't even attempt to swerve or stop they shouldn't be driving.
Being safer than humans is a decent starting point, but safety should be maximized to the best of a machine's capability, even if it means adding a sensor or two. Keeping screws loose on a Boeing airplane still makes the plane safer than driving, so Boeing should not be made to take responsibility.
Humans are also bad drivers who get edge cases wrong all the time.
It would be so awesome if humans only got the edge cases wrong.
I've been able to get demos of autopilot in one of my friend's cars, and I'll always remember autopilot correctly stopping at a red light, followed by someone in the next lane over blowing right through it several seconds later at full speed.
Unfortunately "better than the worst human driver" is a bar we passed a long time ago. From recent demos I'd say we're getting close to the "average driver", at least for clear visibility conditions, but I don't think even that's enough to have actually driverless cars driving around.
There were over 9M car crashes with almost 40k deaths in the US in 2020, and that would be insane to just decide that's acceptable for self driving cars as well. No company is going to want that blood on their hands.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
528 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58976 readers
3291 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS