A more mainstream paradigm was 'disrupt!' as in disrupt old industries, by applying the rules in ways that they couldn't aided by technology that they are disinclined to use. For instance Uber used 'disrupt!' as the centerpiece of their business, by acting as contracting service for limo companies, before finally expanding the definition of 'limo' to include any Toyota made after 2015.
You are right though, it may look as a PR campaign but I can be sure, it could be just a misinformed fanboy
The first car with Teetor's system was the 1958 Imperial (called "Auto-pilot") using a speed dial on the dashboard.
More details here:
http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1958/58AutoPilot/index.htm
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles/58AutoPilot/index.htm
How ironic. I wonder how many drivers using that system crashed, thinking it would do everything for them...
The state of the art in computers at the time was the RAMAC 305, a vacuum tube computer which featured IBM's first disc drive. The computer itself was meant to be installed in a room 30'x50'. The disk drive itself was 4' across, weighed about a ton, and held 5 million characters (6 bits each). All this could be yours for only $300k/year (in current dollars).
Given that, and given that the transistor radio was introduced only a few years before, I doubt anybody expected the sort of magic we see as commonplace today. And if they did, they would let go of the wheel and find out in about 2 seconds that it was not staying on course.
> [1995] This guy saves up his money and finally gets the van he always wanted. Fridge and tv in the back, all the works. He starts driving out on a country road that leads to his home. He sets the van on cruise control and gets out of the drivers seat and goes into the back to get a beer. The van of course goes off the road, and when the paramedics ask him what happened, he said he thought he had auto-pilot.
> [1993] An old china man was driving along in his motor home. He turned on his ‘cruise control’. Apparently misunderstanding the function of ‘cruise control’, he then went into the back of the motor home. The motor home drove off the road and crashed. Apparently he did not realize that ‘cruise control’ is not ‘autopilot.’
But nobody in 1958 would have the slightest expectation that the car would actually drive itself. Tesla has been using the terms "self driving" and "autopilot" together since they started markting the car.
A commercial pilot doesn't flip on autopilot and start browsing the internet on a phone or take a nap. And that's at 30k feet where there's little traffic to worry about.
It seems like a misunderstanding of what the technology does, by consumers and the media. I'm no expert on Tesla's marketing history, but I'm of the opinion that these crashes are due to drivers misunderstanding that the system does and what its capabilities are.
CAT-III landings are automatic, but the pilot needs some visibility to decide if the plane is going to touch down in the landing zone. If they are totally blind they will divert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...
Some commercial aircraft are equipped with automatic landing systems that allow the aircraft to land without transitioning from instruments to visual conditions for a normal landing. Such autoland operations require specialized equipment, procedures and training, and involve the aircraft, airport, and the crew. Autoland is the only way some major airports such as Paris–Charles de Gaulle Airport remain operational every day of the year. Some modern aircraft are equipped with Enhanced flight vision systems based on infrared sensors, that provide a day-like visual environment and allow operations in conditions and at airports that would otherwise not be suitable for a landing. Commercial aircraft also frequently use such equipment for takeoffs when takeoff minima are not met.
It's extremely likely it happens more often than we think and that most pilots simply just aren't going to voluntarily give up that information.
And that seems to be “I don’t have to care while this is on“.
And that’s a big problem.
See Tesla's page on "autopilot" here: https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
The first (and only) thing you see at first is "Full Self Driving hardware on all cars", and a blurb about how all Tesla's have the ability to be self-driven. It does not mention here, nor anywhere else on the page that the current implementation of autopilot in Tesla cars is not fully self-driving. The video just underneath the headline is a video that shows a car using self-driving capabilities, not autopilot.
The entire rest of the page is like this as well. It talks at length about how Tesla's have the capability to drive themselves, and hardly ever mentions that self-driving and "autopilot" are not the same thing. There is only one single sentence, buried in the middle of the page, that mentions that drivers must remain alert and ready to take control.
And again, this is on Tesla's home page for their autopilot function. This is the first page that comes up when you Google "Tesla Autopilot". It's really shameful for Tesla to have marketing materials like this.
Perhaps the name "autopilot" has something to do with that misunderstanding.
She was adamant that a safety was infallible, and any damage from failure was the manufacturer's responsibility. As someone who grew up with guns, I realized that only an idiot would put someone's life in the hands of a 'safety' mechanism.
If people have dumb, uninformed ideas about what words mean in context, they should probably educate themselves. Based on videos and articles I've seen, people are doing extremely stupid things that are clearly warned against by Tesla, like driving down a winding country road, or assuming it's going to somehow know about road work.
If everyone misunderstands you, you may have a problem.
That's rich, you may want to actually do some research into what commercial pilots do when flying before making such claims.
Commercial pilots are trained professionals; Tesla drivers are not.
I don't think you are aware of how much traffic on the "air roads" really is....
I drove around five miles to my friend's house and back today. I'd estimate that I was in near proximity with potential for collision with around 1,000 cars on that trip.
During the portion of a flight where traditional autopilot is used, how many planes are on a potential collision course? They're traveling at specified altitudes, along specified paths through 3D space. So tell me, how many planes is a jet airliner likely to collide with at cruising altitude when operating on autopilot?
Idiots are using as if Tesla is Level 5.
^ I wouldn't have bothered to read the article. BUT it is the exact same thing. [Just a system to help you drive]
Not just the model/UI but the actual sensor suite. Remember, the Tesla that resulted in a decapitation had over-saturated cameras that couldn't see a tractor trailer. Of course, that's where the UI comes into play, because if the driver hadn't been watching Harry Potter, he would have seen the tractor trailer as well.
This was proven to not be true: https://jalopnik.com/the-ntsb-to-partially-blame-teslas-auto...
Maybe with AR the car could highlight the objects detected so that the driver can brake if the car doesn't see an object it knows about, but a head mounted display seems pretty clunky.
It doesn't learn anything about the environment from that, so to me it doesn't change anything.
So there's no need for a UI. If there's something ahead of you, you must stop or you will hit it full speed without braking.
The avoidance feature is designed to stop the car in the event of an unavoidable obstacle directly ahead. It doesn't guarantee a stop but it will still apply the brakes faster and more fully than a human can react and thus shed more speed from the impact. Pre-crash safety will also tighten the seatbelts, move seat positions, close windows, and inflate auxiliary airbags in preparation, and these are all well-tested and proven features.
See page 93 of this owner's manual, for example: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_s_owners_man...
(What it won't do is steer around obstructions in a lane, either full or partial.)
Autopilot is not designed to steer around obstructions.
Autopilot is designed to brake for obstructions.
It sometimes fails to brake for obstructions. But it sometimes succeeds in braking for obstructions. It never steers around obstructions, even if it senses them perfectly.
Reports at the time said he was watching it on a portable DVD player, not the Tesla screen. Not sure about the NTSB report someone just cited though. If that report really said he wasn't watching anything, I wonder how that rumor started?
It seems pretty clear to me that Volvo only has Pilot Assist in the first place as a method to gather data via telemetry for the next generation of self-driving vehicles, because it otherwise doesn't seem to add anything useful to the driving experience. Consequently, I haven't heard of any notable incidents where Pilot Assist caused an accident.
I haven't test driven Enhanced Autopilot but I see people on YouTube taking their hands off the wheel completely for much longer than the Volvo let me do. Tesla seems like they're pushing something half-baked out and representing it as something it isn't.
It’s not going to drive for you. But it does an amazing job of basically canceling out crosswinds when you find yourself driving down the highway. It makes a huge difference, it makes it much less tiring/frustrating.
Going slow on a windless day? Straight street? Not that useful.
For helping with very gentle curves or very annoying crosswinds it’s quite nice.
It may be, but is not necessarily “consequently”. That Volvo is not cool to write about plays a role. You don’t read about boring daily crashes either.
Weird, the tweet was dated 2018-05-22 but the Youtube video shows easter eggs already deployed by 2018-05-23. I know all Tesla vehicles have automatic over-the-air updates but that's still surprisingly quick. Must be Musk playing around with his time machine again.
I guess you don't consider that a video game, which is a perfectly valid opinion. But I'd just wish you had made your first comment "I don't consider Tesla's interactive easter eggs to be video games" instead. That way you clearly communicate your intent and this whole needless bikeshed could have been avoided in the first place.
No you don't. The Mars map is exactly like the Earth map, with a Mars texture instead of the map, and a rover instead of an arrow. Technically you control where the rover goes by using the steering wheel, because the steering wheel controls where your car goes, and the rover's movements come from your car's GPS. But it's not the sort of video game you describe. There's no way it could possibly work as you describe. The steering wheel is mechanically connected to the front wheels and still steers the car even when Autopilot is engaged, so it could not possibly be used as a video game control.
The problem isn't my failure to disclose my opinion of the easter eggs, it's your misunderstanding of what they actually are.
Self-driving tech has been there for decades. Convoy driving of trucks (one human-driven truck in front, several trucks following its lead) on highways was developed in the 90s.
On well-maintained infrastructures, automated driving is a problem that was solved before deep learning. The fact that we don't have an automatic lane-driving mode for highways as a standard feature in new cars is a political failure.
In 1997 a huge and successful demonstrator for an automated highway system was made. And legislator did not follow up by allowing on the road the systems they spent more than 10 billions to develop. [1]
In my opinion, a technology should be considered ready/safe enough if it is x times safer than the average driver. Zero accident is a crazy requirement. 10 times safer as human is much more reasonable but no politician will accept that.
And obviously it is easier to develop a safe system on some well known and well maintained road segments (e.g. highways) than on 100% of the roads and dirt roads on the North American continent.
So yes, the only way for an economic actor to get into there is to bend the existing rules, as rules for automated vehicles were never made. You can't sell a car saying "no need to look at the road, I'll drive for you" so you put a disclaimer, while making sure people understand that you actually made a self-driving car.
You can't sell a self-driving car and argue that your rate of accident is acceptable because the laws for such a notions are not there. A single accident in your self-driving car (that may be 10 times safer than a manual car) and you will be considered responsible.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-national-automate...
If you want to fix the problem, just charge him with attempted murder of a cop.
It is not really surprising when our whole system of existence has the stupidity and weakness of its inhabitants at its foundation. Point is, this will only get worse. Because any "progress" along the current lines asks the common man to be more stupid...
Outrageously false. These incidents are so rare that they have whole news stories written about every single one. How many crashes were there in Laguna Beach yesterday?
Tesla accident rates in aggregate are quite good. Under autopilot the data is noisy but still underneath the level of an average car (not as low as luxury vehicles in the same price range, though).
Claiming that it "isn't ready" is innumerate nonsense. It could clearly be better, sure. So could you. And no one is demanding to revoke your license, because you aren't a scary AI.
So we get to the problem of "if it can't do handle the specific obvious case where it should be absolutely superior" (I would argue an automated system should not have ever been able to make either the police cruiser or the 280 crash in any circumstances. Those were both in perfect conditions - clear weather, etc, etc), how can we trust it to handle any of the complex situations that a self driving car necessarily must handle?
The Tesla system solves this by simply saying "the driver is still driving, we're merely assisting", but that assistance leads to inattentiveness - that's human nature, you have to design around it - which should be fine, if the systems were able to handle that, but that clearly are not.
I would argue that given the configuration of the Tesla system they are less safe, not necessarily due to net accidents, but rather because of the failure modes of the accidents. Bumper to bumper accidents on a freeway happen all the time, even driving perfectly you can end up in them because not everyone else is driving perfectly. The problem with things like the Tesla system is that it's generally fine, except in those cases where it drives at speed into objects because it gets confused.
If your vision or mental state leaves you unable to safely account for large obstructions you aren't allowed to drive. Because it isn't safe.
Seems to me that it's premature to me making bold claims like this. Of cars costing over $100k, what's the accident rate?
And the "bold claims" bit is exactly backward. You are the one claiming that the technology "isn't ready" based on sensationalist local news story and not actual numbers.
What data are you basing this statement on? Or is this just your vague gut feeling based on reading about a few accidents in the news? I thought statistical data showed otherwise, that the technology was safe enough (ie. better than humans).
Edit: removed "debunked stats".
US interstate deaths are about 1 per 183 million miles, so while Autopilot may be safer, it's not as clear depending on the uncertainty of the 320 million mile figure. Also, German drivers on the autobahn have roughly half the fatality rate, which is better than the claim for Autopilot. All in all, I think an honest assessment would be that it's probably as good as an average driver in good conditions who isn't drunk. But rhetoric about saving 900K lives raises my hackles - I do not want to trust the source of this sort of PR with my life.
What I do know is that the Autopilot system will never be distracted, will never fall asleep, will never drive intoxicated or recklessly, will never disobey traffic laws like humans do. Tesla also has a financial incentive to improve their technology to prevent this from happening. Unlike humans who, for the most part, have far less incentive to drive more carefully.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pedestrian+killed&prmd=nvi&s...
That said, the reality is that the types of self driving systems currently deployed - Tesla or whomever - are all fundamentally flawed because they do two things:
* Require attention from the human driver at all times * Cause driver inattention
The first is fairly clear, literally every one of these products is prefaced with "the driver is still in control of the vehicle and must remain attentive", and the latter is clearly demonstrated because of all of the different mechanisms that the manufacturers are deploying to try and deal with the fact that if you tell a human to pay attention to a specific task, but they aren't doing that specific task, they will not pay attention. Every system tried just increases the time required for a human driver to adapt to unconsciously managing the various "pay attention" alarms.
The solution is fully self driving cars. We don't have that yet. I fully expect them to be safer once we get there.
He's been promising "self-driving" for years, except the damn technology isn't ready/safe enough for what people are clearly using this from. The manufacturer puts a warning label, but the usage model/UI is clearly flawed.
His engineers know this, which is why Tesla's self-driving group has had such a high turnover rate over the last few years. Musk keeps overriding them.