5 ms·

Autopilot tech in general should be open and shared among ccompanies and universities. The more brains we can put on this the better imho. If these things happe

by fairpx 8y ago

Autopilot tech in general should be open and shared among ccompanies and universities. The more brains we can put on this the better imho. If these things happen too often, Im afraid regulators will start making laws that prevent the use of this tech, which I believe has the potential to really make life better for all... one day.

maxerickson 8y ago
I think (at least in the US), the relationship the automakers have with regulators is such that if the automakers think they can make money by selling a feature, they will be able to get the regulators to come up with a way to allow it. Not necessarily one as simple as OTA updates whenever the manufacturer feels like it. As far as regulations preventing use of the tech, if level 2/3 systems end up causing more crashes than human drivers, we shouldn't allow use of them.
- quest88 8y ago
  I would guess people would just stop using it
fma 8y ago
I have always wondered why each company is developing their own software and algorithms... How will NTSB certify the software? Or will they? I mean, they certify car safety features now through crash tests, roll over tests, etc... Why is Tesla, or anyone manufacturer, allowed to modify vehicle safety features through OTA updates without recertification? I realize it adds more regulation...and I'm sure there can be a middle ground. But I foresee a scenario where an OTA update is pushed and the next morning there are car crashes everywhere.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Patents and the ability to earn money by licensing out technology. That, or hoping they are the best and get more customers through it - I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomously driving car ATM.
  - lukeschlather 8y ago
    All manufacturers sell semi-autonomously driving cars. At a minimum cruise control, but more advanced features like e.g. https://www.toyota.com/safety-sense/ https://www.toyota.com/safety-sense/ Tesla sells a feature set that sounds slightly more advanced on paper, but in practice the benefits are pretty comparable.
  - sah2ed 8y ago
    > I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomously driving car ATM. "I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomous [electric] car ATM." FTFY
  - 51Cards 8y ago
    Cadillac has a similar system out in production.
- ataturk 8y ago
  The modern collusion between private corporations and government is seriously unnerving, isn't it? It's like they brought out the worst in each other when they got together.
DisruptiveDave 8y ago
Serious question: how will it make life better for all? I haven't given that question a lot of thought, and I haven't heard legit answers from others yet.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Fewer dead people sounds good.
  - DisruptiveDave 8y ago
    I don't know about that. Let's talk unemotionally about it. People die. Not all of them live until natural death. That's ok. That's how life works. There is plenty of good that comes from this. Is a goal of keeping every person alive until X# (90? 100?) a good one? I'm not sure it is. Simply saying "people dying is bad" isn't a very reasoned thought if you take away the assumption that everyone agrees with this.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Sure, fewer people dying is a bit undifferentiated if you want to go for ethical discourse. I would probably be okay with a few extra dead people if that increased the overall happiness of the remaining people. I'm not sure that having people die in traffic is a good way to achieve that.
      - DisruptiveDave 8y ago
        I get that, but this product development aimed at prolonging life, comfort, and safety through technology should not be taken lightly without this discussion right here (ethical discourse, as you call it). I can't divorce the two in my mind.
- fairpx 8y ago
  If done well (long way to go still) there will be less traffic accidents, less traffic jams, etc.
- 8y ago
rayiner 8y ago
The regulators have been really easygoing so far with automated cars. I strongly suspect its because they take the optimistic comments of the tech industry at face value that these technologies are road ready. Meanwhile, I think Tesla and Uber perceive this as more of an open alpha. This will not end well.
- notlob 8y ago
  For someone in the medtech space, it's been interesting to see how loosely (not at all?) marketing is regulated in automotive and tech in general. Were the FDA regulating automotive, there is absolutely no way that Tesla's driving assist package could be marketed with the name "Autopilot", for one. More broadly than just marketing, it's also amazing to me that Tesla could have released a feature (I know they've revised it since) that was designed for human supervision but did not require hands on the wheel for long stretches of time. What did the risk management look like there?

by fairpx 8y ago

maxerickson 8y ago

I think (at least in the US), the relationship the automakers have with regulators is such that if the automakers think they can make money by selling a feature, they will be able to get the regulators to come up with a way to allow it. Not necessarily one as simple as OTA updates whenever the manufacturer feels like it. As far as regulations preventing use of the tech, if level 2/3 systems end up causing more crashes than human drivers, we shouldn't allow use of them.

quest88 8y ago
I would guess people would just stop using it

fma 8y ago

I have always wondered why each company is developing their own software and algorithms... How will NTSB certify the software? Or will they? I mean, they certify car safety features now through crash tests, roll over tests, etc... Why is Tesla, or anyone manufacturer, allowed to modify vehicle safety features through OTA updates without recertification? I realize it adds more regulation...and I'm sure there can be a middle ground. But I foresee a scenario where an OTA update is pushed and the next morning there are car crashes everywhere.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Patents and the ability to earn money by licensing out technology. That, or hoping they are the best and get more customers through it - I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomously driving car ATM.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  All manufacturers sell semi-autonomously driving cars. At a minimum cruise control, but more advanced features like e.g. https://www.toyota.com/safety-sense/ https://www.toyota.com/safety-sense/ Tesla sells a feature set that sounds slightly more advanced on paper, but in practice the benefits are pretty comparable.
- sah2ed 8y ago
  > I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomously driving car ATM. "I think that's currently the case for Tesla, selling the only commercially available semi-autonomous [electric] car ATM." FTFY
- 51Cards 8y ago
  Cadillac has a similar system out in production.
ataturk 8y ago
The modern collusion between private corporations and government is seriously unnerving, isn't it? It's like they brought out the worst in each other when they got together.

DisruptiveDave 8y ago

Serious question: how will it make life better for all? I haven't given that question a lot of thought, and I haven't heard legit answers from others yet.

adrianN 8y ago
Fewer dead people sounds good.
- DisruptiveDave 8y ago
  I don't know about that. Let's talk unemotionally about it. People die. Not all of them live until natural death. That's ok. That's how life works. There is plenty of good that comes from this. Is a goal of keeping every person alive until X# (90? 100?) a good one? I'm not sure it is. Simply saying "people dying is bad" isn't a very reasoned thought if you take away the assumption that everyone agrees with this.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Sure, fewer people dying is a bit undifferentiated if you want to go for ethical discourse. I would probably be okay with a few extra dead people if that increased the overall happiness of the remaining people. I'm not sure that having people die in traffic is a good way to achieve that.
    - DisruptiveDave 8y ago
      I get that, but this product development aimed at prolonging life, comfort, and safety through technology should not be taken lightly without this discussion right here (ethical discourse, as you call it). I can't divorce the two in my mind.
fairpx 8y ago
If done well (long way to go still) there will be less traffic accidents, less traffic jams, etc.
8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

The regulators have been really easygoing so far with automated cars. I strongly suspect its because they take the optimistic comments of the tech industry at face value that these technologies are road ready. Meanwhile, I think Tesla and Uber perceive this as more of an open alpha. This will not end well.

notlob 8y ago
For someone in the medtech space, it's been interesting to see how loosely (not at all?) marketing is regulated in automotive and tech in general. Were the FDA regulating automotive, there is absolutely no way that Tesla's driving assist package could be marketed with the name "Autopilot", for one. More broadly than just marketing, it's also amazing to me that Tesla could have released a feature (I know they've revised it since) that was designed for human supervision but did not require hands on the wheel for long stretches of time. What did the risk management look like there?