Technology

59323 readers

5183 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

571

Tesla Whistleblower Says 'Autopilot' System Is Not Safe Enough To Be Used On Public Roads (jalopnik.com)

submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tesla Whistleblower Says 'Autopilot' System Is Not Safe Enough To Be Used On Public Roads::"It affects all of us because we are essentially experiments in public roads."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes the solution is fairly simple in theory, implementing this is significantly harder, which is why it is not a trivial issue to solve in robotics.

I'm not saying their decision was the right one, just that his argument with multiple sensors creating noise in the decision-making is a completely valid argument.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't seem too complicated... if ANY of the sensors see something in the way that the system can't resolve then it should stop the vehicle/force the driver to take over

[–] DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Then you have a very unreliable system, stopping without actual reason all the time, causing immense frustration for the user. Is it safe? I guess, cars that don't move generally are. Is it functional? No, not at all.

I'm not advocating unsafe implementations here, I'm just pointing out that your suggestion doesn't actually solve the issue, as it leaves a solution that's not functional.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they're using such unreliable sensors that they're getting false positives all the time the system isn't going to be functional in the first place.

[–] DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

All sensors throw a shitload of false positives (or negatives) when used in the real world, that's why the filtering and unification between sensors is so important, but also really hard to solve, while still getting a consistent and reliable solution.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago

"seeing an obstacle" is a high level abstraction. Sensor fusion is a lower level problem. It's fundamentally kinda tricky to get coherent information out of multiple sensors looking partially at the same thing in different ways. Not impossible, but the basic model is less "just check each camera" and more sheafs