
New Tesla software to offer 'full' autonomy, Musk says - uptown
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tesla-software-offer-full-autonomy-musk-says-133727418.html
======
rayiner
> "To date, Autopilot resources have rightly focused entirely on safety. With
> V9, we will begin to enable full self-driving features," he said.

Running cars into medians at 70 mph is the result of "focus[ing] entirely on
safety?" Now they're going to focus on other things, besides safety?

~~~
nickik
n=1

~~~
rayiner
The sample size is irrelevant. The NTSB report reveals that the Tesla crashed
into the median not because there was a glitch, but because the _design of the
system_ fundamentally wasn't capable of avoiding it. Tesla can't stop in
response to stationary objects (likely because it can't tell the background
apart from real obstacles and enabling breaking would cause too many false
positives). That design is only safe if you have a human in the loop to do
what the computer cannot do.

~~~
simion314
What seems weird to me is that when the car would get closer to the object the
probability that a crash would happen should increase, Tesla could not get a
high enough crash probability at all, even from 1 meter or 1 millisecond
before impact and continued to accelerate.

~~~
drusepth
There was a good analysis of this elsewhere that effectively boiled down to
how the tech being used (I want to say LIDAR, but it could have been lasers or
cameras) had evolved. It's apparently really good at detecting how fast other
objects are going, and really bad (or, at least, not designed well in its
current state) at detecting stationary objects, since it's primarily been
trained to ignore the millions of stationary objects all around it throughout
a drive to be able to focus on moving objects (cars, pedestrians, bicyclists,
etc).

Apparently, moving and stationary objects are treated differently, and both
have to be intentionally trained, and that this was a case of seeing the
stationary object but ignoring it, just like it does with most other
stationary objects that aren't in the road. I'm not technical enough to go
into specifics, but that's the gist from the article I saw-but-can-no-longer-
find.

~~~
JackCh
You're mistaken, that was about radar not LIDAR. Telsa cars have no LIDAR.

The radars in use have poor angular resolution meaning they can tell if
something is moving toward or away from it, but cannot tell where that object
is. Since driving down the road will necessarily involve many objects on the
side of the road, but the radar apparently can't tell where they are because
of it's poor angular resolution, the 'solution' was apparently to filter out
everything moving towards the sensor at the car's current speed (e.g, all
stationary objects.)

It's unclear to me what if any circumstances will cause the emergency breaking
system in a Tesla to fire.

------
JackCh
When is Tesla going to bite the bullet and issue a full recall so they can
retrofit all existing Tesla cars with LIDAR?

They are still claiming on their website:

> _" All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the
> hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level
> substantially greater than that of a human driver."_

...but without LIDAR that simply isn't true. Either the accident rate is going
to accelerate, or their efforts to push out "full self-driving capability"
will stall. And from what we've seen from this company so far, I'm afraid it's
going to be the first. A recall to retrofit LIDAR is the only way they can
save themselves from their marketing lie. They need to bite the bullet and
fess up.

~~~
sushibowl
Tesla disagrees with you on this, they are still operating with the belief
that cameras will eventually be superior and cheaper compared to LIDAR.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16988628/elon-musk-
lidar-s...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16988628/elon-musk-lidar-self-
driving-car-tesla)

~~~
JackCh
I know they disagree with me, they have multiple reasons to bury their heads
in the sand. Admitting they were wrong would be a PR disaster, it would
probably hurt Elon's ego, and a recall to retrofit LIDAR would probably be
extremely costly.

But if you talk with the leading experts in the field of car automation, the
research groups who are actually making it work to some degree today, they are
all using LIDAR. Furthermore you have people like the CTO of Mobileye saying
that Tesla was trying to push Mobileye's tech beyond what it's capable of
(past tense _was_ , because Mobileye apparently dropped Tesla over this,
prompting Tesla to develop their own presumably equivalent non-LIDAR solution
in house): [https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/tesla-dropped-by-
mobile...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/tesla-dropped-by-mobileye-for-
pushing-the-envelope-in-terms-of-safety/)

~~~
ageofwant
No. LIDAR has its place, but it certainly a tech that has seen its day.
Integrated sensor arrays consisting of multiple cameras and image processors
can build more accurate situational awareness pictures faster. And to imply
that Tesla's automation assist is not working is ridiculous.

~~~
JackCh
On the contrary, LIDAR is only recently coming into its own:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-08/alphabet-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-08/alphabet-
s-waymo-cuts-cost-of-key-self-driving-sensor-by-90)

[https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/01/googles-waymo-
invests-i...](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/01/googles-waymo-invests-in-
lidar-technology-cuts-costs-by-90-percent/)

What I'm 'implying' ( _saying outright I thought_ ) is that Tesla hardware is
unsuitable for the continued advance of automation functionality. What they're
doing currently is already pushing their inadequate sensors to the limit.

------
Symmetry
I'm worried he's talking about going from what the NHTSA calls level 2 to
level 3 autonomy[1], where the car is capable of navigating all the way to the
destination but the driver has to remain alert for potential dangerous
situations. That's probably an even worse idea in terms of people actually
complying than the existing level 2 autonomy and I think Waymo is absolutely
right in trying to skip straight to level 4/5 autonomy where you don't need a
human paying constant attention.

[1][https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-
vehicl...](https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-
safety)

~~~
panarky
We need to work with some real numbers.

In the US there are about 1.2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven [0].

About 19 months ago, Tesla said their cars logged 1.3 billion miles on
autopilot [1].

I'd guess that autopilot number has at least doubled by now.

So if there have been far fewer than 26 people killed by autopilot, then it's
already saving lives.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

[1] [https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-
miles...](https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles-data-
self-driving-program/)

~~~
JackCh
This is a deceptive use of statistics because it's papering over all the
nuance involved. Not all road miles are equivalent. Specifically, Tesla
Autopilot only functions (or is meant to function) in a very narrow subset of
all conceivable driving conditions. Many of the situations that Tesla
Autopilot isn't meant for are the most dangerous conditions that unassisted
humans drive in.

Furthermore the statistic doesn't break out the role of "Autopilot" features
from the role of other safety features present in Tesla cars but not present
in many other cars. More effective airbags, crumple zones, emergency
braking(?) could all be lowering the fatality rate in Tesla cars enough to
mask the "Tesla Autopilot" making driving more dangerous than if it weren't
present.

Tesla fatality rates should be compared against equivalent class cars when
driven by humans under the conditions which Tesla Autopilot are meant for.

~~~
panarky
_> Not all road miles are equivalent_

Great point.

I'm looking for numbers and found this story [0] that says the fatality rate
on rural roads is 2.5x urban highways.

How many miles are driven on highways and how many fatalities? Does one human
driver die per 100M, 200M, 300M miles?

Should the standard for autonomous driving be 100%, 50%, or 10% of the human-
driver standard before we agree that it's beneficial?

[0] [https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-
roads...](https://www.npr.org/2009/11/29/120716625/the-deadliest-roads-are-
rural)

~~~
primesplitter
Also one still needs to include the impact bad wheather conditions, where
Tesla's AP is not to be used either. Then there's the impact of "incompetent"
drivers on the statistic. As a toy example, consider a world where competent
drivers cause 1 death per 100mm miles. AP causes 2 deaths per 100mm miles.
However, 20% of all human drivers are driving while drunk and/or sleepy and
cause 10 deaths per 100mm miles. This gives an average of 2.8 deaths per 100mm
miles. Clearly, AP has a better average but you should only use it while
you're drunk.

------
ckastner
Well, _this_ is going to get interesting.

Blaming the customer might have worked for regular AutoPilot because of that
legal footnote that _AutoPilot-the-product_ is it not intended to be used as
_autopilot-the-concept_ , but good luck blaming the customer for a car that
was in "full autonomy" mode.

Edit: the timing of this announcement is so very premature, I believe there
might be another motive to it. Perhaps Tesla wants to negotiate from a
stronger position in the next financing round.

------
danielmg
"...With V9, we will begin to enable full self-driving features," he said.

"...begin to enable..." \- bit of a jump to "full autonomy"

~~~
mtgx
Begin to enable*

*Terms and conditions still apply, so it's totally your fault if your get into a crash while in the new "fully self-driving" mode.

------
Fricken
"full self-driving features"

What does that mean? The statement reads like it was carefully crafted to mean
whatever Elon needs it to mean when it's time for it to mean something.

------
Tolika
What's the point? Even if it were to be true, there's no regulation and
approval for it to be used on public roads. Seems like another PR stunt from
tesla to induce hype.

~~~
Piskvorrr
And it's working. I've seen so many tweets _and articles_ "Tesla announces
fully autonomous cars" that I'm genuinely worried about what would happen if
this announcement is actually fulfilled.

------
dandare
If it is true that Tesla will - by design - not try to stop in front of a
stationary obstacle that should not be on the road, I don't understand how
come Tesla autopilot and similar self-driving techniques are not immediately
banned. Every driver knows stationary obstacles can and will appear on the
road.

------
SmellyGeekBoy
I'm a big Tesla fan (I have a Model 3 preorder) but this seems like a _really_
dumb move in light of recent press coverage.

------
_ph_
To make it clear: the headline is completely wrong. Musk only announced a step
towards autonomy which could be anything, but certainly not full autonomy.

It could be as simple as extended self parking.

From a software engineering perspective it is an interesting announcement.
With all the obvious limitations of the current autopilot, Tesla must have
been working on a very different package for full autonomy - we might see a
first glimpse of it with that release.

~~~
manyoso
Exactly! It is absurd how people hear Elon Musk say, "we will begin to enable
_full_ self-driving features..." and then conclude that Elon Musk was talking
about _full_ self-driving features. They are all just Tesla haters!

~~~
_ph_
He said “full self driving features”, not “full self driving”. With the word
“features” he refers to components of a system that will offer self driving,
but not the whole system yet. These features could be better self parking, or
traffic sign recognition, or the long talked about feature of changing between
freeways autonomous.

~~~
manyoso
Exactly! Only Tesla Haters would think that "full self-driving features" would
refer to features that enable fully autonomous driving... every common sense
consumer out there will clearly understand that when Elon Musk says full self-
driving features he clearly is referring to parallel parking helpers and such.
All these Tesla Haters would have us think that Elon has a habit of going
around raising unreasonable expectations through grand pronouncements when
he's clearly just trying to tell consumers that soon they won't have to worry
about parallel parking their cars!

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
When does this level of rhetoric approach criminal negligence? From the
previous HN discussions about Tesla’s,s running into stationary objects, the
problem seems like a fundamental design issue not likely to be fixed with
software. This has already killed people. What happens when some poor person
relies on Musk’s ‘full autonomy’ and gets killed?

Elon Musk is the Elizabeth Holmes of self driving cars.

~~~
_ph_
The headline misquotes Musk. He did not announce full autonomy.

~~~
rayiner
That's exactly what he announced:

> With V9, we will begin to enable _full self-driving features_

The caveat ("begin to enable") doesn't change things. You might be at the
beginning of pregnancy, but you're fully pregnant.

~~~
piker
> The caveat ("begin to enable") doesn't change things. You might be at the
> beginning of pregnancy, but you're fully pregnant.

That would be correct if the Musk quote said they would "begin to enable"
_full autonomy_. That assertion is distinguishable from beginning to enable
_features_ related to autonomy.

~~~
rayiner
You're changing the meaning by adding the word "related." Say Microsoft stated
it would "will begin to enable full 8K features" on the XBox One. That would
mean that _something_ would be in 8K--maybe just for movies but not games. It
wouldn't mean "features related to 8K" but not a actually being able to
display 8K video anywhere.

~~~
piker
Your interpretation seems to be that if the car is ever in a "fully
autonomous" state, then it's "fully autonomous". Thus if a "fully autonomous
feature" is enabled (such as on the highway), that's full autonomy even if
that feature is disabled automatically in other situations (such as in the
city). Some people would interpret "fully autonomous" to mean end-to-end
autonomy, sort of like enabling a "full encryption" feature on a chat
application doesn't make chats on that application "fully encrypted".

[EDIT: Given the medium and proposition, the appropriate interpretation seems
to be the narrower one.]

~~~
JackCh
Whether or not rayiner is correct in his interpretation, I think it's pretty
clear his interpretation is not an outlandish one. By that I mean many other
people in the general public will share his interpretation, and unlike rayiner
many of those people will be blissfully unaware of the problems with
automation Tesla has been having.

What this means is that a large number of people are going to be deceived by
statements like this from Musk, even if you think what Musk is saying is
_technically_ true, because they interpreted/misinterpreted Musk's statement
the same way rayiner did.

------
sunstone
It seems like there's quite a difference in self driving technology between
highspeed and lowspeed ability. Generally low speed seems to be pretty safe.
But apparently all high speed systems have the "blind spot" of having to
disregard stationary objects in front of them due to false positives from
overhead highway signs, flyovers etc.

So when there's a broken car in your lane on the freeway the autodriver will
just slam right into it.

I doubt the public will accept any system that has this kind of inherent flaw
because it seems just insane to a human driver. This will probably have to be
fixed before highway driving is approved but city driving, with a speed limit,
might happen much sooner.

------
throw7
Wake me up when I can tell my car to go get serviced and come back by 5 so _I_
can drive home.

------
italophil
Does he mean full-autonomy as in: "enter a destination and be done with it"?
That would be an amazing jump forward from the current system.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Maybe in the event of a crash it can automatically issue a press release
blaming the driver?

------
ummonk
It will probably be catching up to the Audi A8's traffic jam pilot. I.e. full
self driving under certain limited situations.

~~~
Piskvorrr
"Full self-driving in limited situations" \- do you even see the
contradiction?

~~~
ummonk
I don't think that is a contradiction. It means that there are some situations
(probably traffic jams) where the car can fully drive itself, instead of
merely assisting you as you drive the car.

~~~
Piskvorrr
If there's a need for a human to take over (e.g. traffic jam dispersed and the
car can no longer drive autonomously), that's not _full_ autonomy (Level 5),
that's weasel-autonomy (or, more charitably, Level 4): "autonomous,
autonomous, auton-gotcha, not autonomous, that block straight ahead is _your_
problem now." That does sound familiar, doesn't it.

------
ggg9990
In the last 12 months it’s become clear that Musk relies on the same defensive
self-aggrandizing bluster that makes Trump so ridiculous. Quite a quick trip
down from demigod for him.

~~~
sunstone
Given that Musk and his companies have accomplished some amazing things. Did
you see the simultaneous rocket landings?

So 'self aggrandizing bluster' may not be the phrase the you're looking for.
How about 'low cost, highly effective guerilla marketing' based on past
performance?

~~~
JackCh
> _" low cost, highly effective guerilla marketing' based on past
> performance?"_

I'm not sure that quite covers it either, since at least in the case of SpaceX
he had a sizable number people rooting for him back when his rockets were
still blowing up every time. Back in the Falcon 1 days.

I was one of them. I think rockets are _really fucking cool._ I think a lot of
the leeway and fandom Elon has gotten comes from a hardcore contingent of
rocket enthusiasts and electric car enthusiasts who really want to see him
succeed because they were already passionate about that domain before Elon
entered the picture.

~~~
Piskvorrr
In other words, wishful thinking > actual dead people, because they're not
supposed to have died, therefore did not happen. Great Kool-Aid, mmmm.

------
BloodyHands
>New Tesla software to offer 'full' suicide, Musk says

------
matte_black
Why bother with autonomy crap? Just focus on making cheap electric cars that
can save the planet.

~~~
avs733
because, as history has shown, that isn't a core competency of Tesla.

------
isostatic
How Odd

Yahoo insist that for me to read this page they must store cookies on my
machine [0]

However when I load the page in lynx and choose "neVer accept cookies", the
content loads just fine [1]

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/OIcmAby.png](https://i.imgur.com/OIcmAby.png) [1]
[https://i.imgur.com/ZdtpCxC.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZdtpCxC.png)

~~~
JackCh
Noscript and/or umatrix kills that kind of crap.

