Tesla’s approach to automotive autonomy is a unique one: Rather than using pesky sensors, which cost money, the company has instead decided to rely only on the output from the car’s cameras. Its computers analyze every pixel, crunch through tons of data, and then apparently decide to just plow into deer and keep on trucking.
Only keeping the regular cameras was a genius move to hold back their full autonomy plans
The day he said that "ReGULAr CAmErAs aRe ALl YoU NeEd" was the day I lost all trust in their implementation. And I'm someone who's completely ready to turn over all my driving to an autopilot lol
I roll my eyes at the dishonest bad faith takes people have in the comments about how people do the same thing behind the wheel. Like that's going to make autopiloting self-driving cars an exception. Least a person can react, can slow down or do anything that an unthinking, going-by-the-pixels computer can't do at a whim.
How come human drivers have more fatalities and injuries per mile driven?
Musk can die in a fire, but self driving car tech seems to be vastly safer than human drivers when you do apples to apples comparisons. It's like wearing a seatbelt, you certainly don't need to have one to go from point A to point B, but you're definitely safer with it - even if you are giving up a little control. Like a seatbelt, you can always take it off.
I honestly think it shouldn't be called "self driving" or "autopilot" but should work more like the safety systems in Airbusses by simply not allowing the human to make a decision that would create a dangerous situation.
People are well known for never ever running over anything or anyone.
Why does this read like an ad for cybertrucks for people who would want to run over deer
It was an illegal deer immigrant, it recognised it, added it to the database on Tesla servers, and mowed it down before it took any jobs or whatever the hate-concern was.
/s
... but some actual technically human people do the same when they see an animal, don't they?
:(
I hate Tesla as much as the next guy in here.
But I learned at my driving lessons that you shouldn't hit the breaks for animals running into your lane, because it can result in a car crash that's way worse. (think truck behind you with a much longer break length.)
Don't know if there's different rules.
You absolutely need to hit the brakes, but don't swerve. A deer weighs over 200lbs and will likely crash into your windshield if you hit it head on. You need to safely loose as much speed as you can because even a side hit on the deer is likely to wreck your axel and prevent you from driving.
If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.
The point here isn't actually "should it have stopped for the deer" , it's "if the system can't even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?"
The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.
You learned wrong if you think that is a universal rule for all animals.
You might have been told that for small animals like squirrels, but that is more about not overreacting. You should absolutely brake for a deer, whether or not you are being tailgated, just like you would brake for any large object on the road.
Hitting a deer at speed is going to cause far more problems for you AND the people behind you than trying to not hit the deer.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
