Testing Autopilot

Very exciting to hear the details from the hardware and software team. Excited to track the developments.

 

Very positive about the new computer. Sadly, that's about all I can say about the presentation that's positive. Elon is still adamant about trying to depend on cameras for almost everything.

They emphasized many times that the software still needs much development; I'm glad to see that they were being realistic about that, at least.

I don't regard Elon's timeline of true Level 4/5 self-driving within 12 months, to at most 15 months, as being even remotely realistic. There's no question he really does mean full self-driving, as he described it as being good enough that you could safely fall asleep and let the car drive itself.

I think it was about 2-3/4 years ago that Elon predicted they would have a demonstration of coast-to-coast driving by the end of that year; we're two years behind schedule on that, and counting. I consider Elon's latest prediction to be similarly over-optimistic.

The only subject on which the presentation persuaded me to change my mind, was regarding the economics of ride-sharing. In the past, I've dismissed that partly because if several people are using the car instead of just one, then the car will wear out that much faster. But Elon pointed out that objectively this would be a better use of resources; currently, automobiles typically spend about 90-95% of their time parked, doing nothing. He also claimed that the average lifespan of a car used in Tesla's ride-sharing service would be 11 years. That's much better than I expected, so if true, that would certainly make the economic case a lot more attractive.

I'm still not convinced that ride-sharing will ever be that popular. The more people use your car during a day, the greater the chance it won't be available when you need it.

I'm also utterly unconvinced that Tesla can enforce its policy of not letting anyone use a Tesla car for any ride-sharing service other than Tesla's official service, despite Elon getting rather huffy about that when challenged during a Q&A session. How would Tesla stop that? Even if they could enforce it by suing everyone who *gasp* dared to use their car with another service, how about those who buy used Tesla cars? Even if Tesla does have it in the fine print when you buy one of their cars that you agree to never join any competitor to Tesla's (hypothetical) ride-sharing service, that surely won't be enforceable against those who buy a used Tesla car. The contract with Tesla would only apply to the original buyer, not any subsequent owner.

As I see it, the worst Tesla could do would be to void the warranty for such cars, and possibly refuse to service them. And I'm not sure they could legally do even that, under some or perhaps many State laws.

​

 

It's things like this which leave me very doubtful of Elon's claim that production Tesla cars will be capable of real, actual full self driving (Level 4 autonomy) within 12-15 months. I'd bet money that's not going to happen.

​

 

You can use WYAMO to get a taxi ride in my local area. Caveat is that you cannot discuss, blog or share your experiences with others. You pay for it i.e. it is not free any more. It is a pretty busy service given the number of vans I see with passengers in the back seat. Not sure how much money they are making out of it, but people have signed up and and are using it. I know that @Pushmi-Pullyu keeps saying that Waymo should license technology and they do have a few partnerships (FCA, JLR etc.) but at this stage they are keeping everything very close to their chest. Lot of people want to go into the autonomous taxi service (Uber, Lfyt, Tesla, GM/Cruise) but the only who is actually doing it now is Waymo (albeit on a pilot scale in one market). Maybe Wyamo believes this is a viable business and wants to be in it. Maybe they do not consider that taxi in itself is not a viable business but they get so much of information on habits and preferences of people, that could not be otherwise obtained and this can be monetized. Information is money to Google. Maybe it just to prove the technology and sell it to others. Maybe it is all of them. They are holding their cards close to their chest. I would be very surprised if they do not have a fairly elaborate game plan, given that they have invested billions in this effort and appear to very deliberate and methodical.

 

Well said.

My first reaction to the news was "This is just what happened with the first documented fatality in a car under control of Tesla Autopilot, suggesting the tech hasn't improved in three years."

My second reaction was "I doubt this would have received any news coverage if the car was literally any car other than a Tesla."

Altho to be fair, it's Tesla's (that is, Elon Musk's) own claims which have raised expectations about the limited self-driving capabilities of the cars beyond what is reasonable or justifiable. I still think Tesla should not have used the name "Autopilot"; it suggests more functionality than is present. In fact, at one point the German government asked Tesla to change the name, but obviously Tesla hasn't complied.

Just my opinion of course, but my opinion is that this latest accident really underscores the need for a reliable SLAM system. That is, 3D scanning all around the car in real-time. Quite obviously Tesla's limited self-driving capabilities can't do that. Even during the recent "Full Self Driving" presentation, the few attempts at 3D mapping they showed were sparse and incomplete, and showed only stationary obstacles -- no moving obstacles, such as vehicles or pedestrians, at all. Still pretty far from a fully developed SLAM system, which I think (I'm fairly sure about this) is what will be required -- not just nice to have, but mandatory -- for Level 4/5 autonomy.

Active scanners are needed for real-time 3D mapping of moving obstacles. Using cameras and optical object recognition software in an attempt to "see" everything is slow (in terms of electronic speed), involves far too much computer processing, and isn't reliable enough for people to trust it with their lives.

 

An excellent summary, and I entirely agree!

It's amazing how many people insist that we shouldn't allow self-driving cars until they've been perfected. Semi-self-driving systems are already saving lives right now! It is unfortunate, of course, that two people have lost their lives when Tesla Autopilot failed to recognize a semi trailer in the path of the car, but that doesn't erase the fact that Autopilot has doubtless already saved many, many lives, and saved untold numbers of people from serious accidents.

Demanding no fatal accidents at all is not only an impossible goal, it's an absurd one. We don't even demand that level of perfection in commercial airline flight! We do of course expect airliner manufacturers and airlines to make great efforts to reduce the number of accidents, and in fact air travel has gotten a lot safer over the past 20 years or so. But when you have people moving at high speed in relation to the ground, then sometimes fatal accidents will occur, in cars as well as airplanes. Perfect safety in high-speed travel is only possible in computer simulations; it's not possible in the real world. As the video points out, there are far too many random factors happening all the time, in the real world, for perfect safety. (Not to mention the risk of human drivers of other cars doing stupid things; something over which no self-driving car has any control!)

 

To clarify, I meant I think that when Waymo thinks their system is sufficiently developed, then they should license it for use in existing auto makers' cars.

My impression -- and I could be mistaken, but I see a lot of evidence pointing in this direction -- my impression is that Waymo's self-driving tech is further advanced than anyone else's. However, it seems it isn't yet "ready for prime time". If it was, then passengers for Waymo's robotaxi fleet wouldn't have to sign NDAs.

I think it's a huge waste of time, resources, and money for different auto makers and other companies to be independently working toward fully functional self-driving cars. This should be treated like a Manhattan Project: A nationwide effort with many people and many companies contributing to advancement toward the goal. And once reasonably safe, reasonably well functioning autonomy is available, then all auto makers should be offered the chance to put that system into their cars.

I think the idea of having multiple competing attempts to develop self-driving automobiles is crazy. One thing that will help greatly with safety is for one autonomous car to be able to predict what another will be doing. If all autonomous cars are controlled by the same system, then not only will they be far more predictable to other autonomous cars, they will be able to share data wirelessly and seamlessly to make driving even safer, and sort out priority for lane-changing and entering intersections. That would eliminate the need for stopping at intersections; just continue to drive through, speeding up or slowing as necessary to avoid colliding with other vehicles. Similarly, vehicle-to-vehicle communications will facilitate traffic flow, helping cooperative driving rather than the stupidly competitive driving humans engage in, which should make most traffic jams a thing of the past... but only when nearly all cars are self-driving.

Vehicle-to-vehicle communications will work much better if they're all using the same system. If they are using different and incompatible systems, then the value of sharing information drops significantly, and the chance for errors in interpreting shared data increases enormously.

Human drivers are gonna continue to clog up traffic flow by foolishly fighting for the advantage of a second here and a half-second there, which inevitably results in the entire flow of traffic being slowed to very, very little faster than the slowest vehicle in the entire flow! This is one area where I think that there's a crying need for better driver education. We could teach people the advantages of driving cooperatively, rather than competitively, on multi-lane roads... but we don't.

 

While the name "Autopilot" may be misleading, the bigger issue is that Elon's penchant for the hyperbole. He has belittled his competition, told NIVDIA that they do not cut it, denigrated LIDAR. Now if he had set lower realistic expectations, it would less of a magnifying glass. He has been getting away with all of this for a very long time, one day his luck will run out.

 

Sadly, I agree. Elon Musk is one of my heroes, and I think he's one of the most important innovators alive today. But his penchant for hype/ hyperbole is definitely not one of his virtues. A couple of his assertions during Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" presentation were cringe-worthy. One of those was his assertion "It is fundamentally insane to buy anything other than a Tesla."

​