In the piece — titled “Can You Fool a Self Driving Car?” — Rober found that a Tesla car on Autopilot was fooled by a Wile E. Coyote-style wall painted to look like the road ahead of it, with the electric vehicle plowing right through it instead of stopping.

The footage was damning enough, with slow-motion clips showing the car not only crashing through the styrofoam wall but also a mannequin of a child. The Tesla was also fooled by simulated rain and fog.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Does anyone else get the heebies with Mark Rober? There’s something a little off about his smile and overall presence.

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I hope some of you actually skimmed the article and got to the “disengaging” part.

    As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

    It’s a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    My 500$ robot vacuum has LiDAR, meanwhile these 50k pieces of shit don’t 😂

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      11 years ago teslas were advanced. Also how the heck are you getting a new car for only 50k the self driving adds some random amount of cost last I saw between 8-10k

    • Animal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Holy shit, I knew I’d heard this word before. My Chinese robot vacuum cleaner has more technology than a tesla hahahahaha

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      60
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Vacuum doesn’t run outdoors and accidentally running into a wall doesn’t generate lawsuits.

      But, yes, any self-driving cars should absolutely be required to have lidar. I don’t think you could find any professional in the field that would argue that lidar is the proper tool for this.

      • rmuk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        …what is your point here, exactly? The stakes might be lower for a vacuum cleaner, sure, but lidar - or a similar time-of-flight system - is the only consistent way of mapping environmental geometry. It doesn’t matter if that’s a dining room full of tables and chairs, or a pedestrian crossing full of children.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          65
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          I think you’re suffering from not knowing what you don’t know.

          Let me make it a but clearer for you to make a fair answer.

          Take a .25mw lidar sensor off a vacuum, take it outdoors and scan an intersection.

          Will that laser be visible to the sensor?

          is it spinning fast enough to track a kid moving in to an intersection when you’re traveling at 73 feet per second?

          • Forbo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            67
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            You’re mischaracterizing their point. Nobody is saying take the exact piece of equipment, put it in the vehicle and PRESTO. That’d be like asking why the vacuum battery can’t power the car. Because duh.

            The point is if such a novelty, inconsequential item that doesn’t have any kind of life safety requirements can employ a class of technology that would prevent adverse effects, why the fuck doesn’t the vehicle? This is a design flaw of Teslas, pure and simple.

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              36
              ·
              18 hours ago

              But they do, there are literally cars out there with lidar sensors.

              The question was why can’t I have a lidar sensor on my car if my $150 vacuum has one. The lidar sensor for a car is more than $150.

              You don’t have one because there are expensive at that size and update frequency. Sensors that are capable of outdoor mapping at high speed cost the price of a small car.

              The manufacturers suspect and probably rightfully so that people don’t want to pay an extra 10 - 30 grand for an array of sensors.

              The technology readily exists rober had one in his video that he used to scan a roller coaster. It’s not some conspiracy that you don’t have it on cars and it’s not like it’s not capable of being done because waymo does it all the time.

              There’s a reason why waymo doesn’t use smaller sensors they use the minimum of what works well. Which is expensive, which people looking at a mid-range car don’t want to take on the extra cost, hence it’s not available

              • Forbo@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/06/waymo-to-start-selling-standalone-lidar-sensors/

                Waymo’s top-of-range LiDAR cost about $7,500… Insiders say those costs have fallen further thanks to continuous advances by the team. And considering that this short-range LiDAR is cheaper than the top-of-range product, the price is likely under $5,000 a unit.

                This article is six years old, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re even cheaper now.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Good God it’s like you’re going out of the way to intentionally misunderstand the point.

                Nobody is saying that the lidar on a car should cost the same as a lidar on a vacuum cleaner. What everyone is saying is that if the company that makes vacuum cleaners thinks it’s important enough to put lidar on, surely you’re not the company that makes cars should think that it’s important enough to put lidar on.

                Stop being deliberately dense.

                • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 minutes ago

                  Stop being deliberately dense.

                  Its weaponized incompetence.

                  I bet they do the same shit with their partner when it comes to dishes, laundry, and the garbage.

                • rumba@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  I’m not being deliberately dense it just a seriously incomplete analogy. At worst I’m being pedantic. And if that’s the case I apologize.

                  I agree with the premise that the cars need lidar radar whatever the f*** they can get.

                  Saying if a vacuum company can see that a vacuum needs lidar (which is a flawed premise because half the f****** vacuums use vslam/cameras) then why doesn’t my car have lidar, none of the consumer car companies are using it (yet anyway). It’s great to get the rabble up and say why are vacuum companies doing it when car companies can’t but when nobody’s doing it there are reasons. Ford Chevy BMW f***, what about Audi what about Porsche? What about these luxury brands that cost an arm and three fucking legs.

                  Let’s turn this on its head, why do people think they’re not including it in cars. And let’s discount musk for the moment because we already know he’s a fucking idiot that never had an original idea in his life and answer why it isn’t in any other brand.

                  Is it just that none of these companies thought about it? Is it a conspiracy? What do people think here. If I’m being so dense tell me why the companies aren’t using it.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  It’s a cost-benefit calculation.

                  • For a vacuum at the speeds they travel and the range it needs to go, LiDAR is cheap, worth doing. Meanwhile computing power is limited.
                  • my phone is much more expensive than the robot vacuum, and its LiDAR can range to about a room, at speeds humans normally travel. It works great for almost instant autofocus and a passable measurement tool.
                  • For a car, at the speeds they travel and range it needs to go, LiDAR is expensive, large and ugly. Meanwhile the car already needs substantial computing power

                  So the question is whether they can achieve self-driving without it: humans rely on vision alone so maybe an ai can. I’m just happy someone is taking a different approach rather than the follow the pack mentality: we’re more likely to get something that works

                  Edit: everyone talks about the cost-benefit, but I imagine it makes things simpler for the ai when all sensors can be treated and weighted identically. Whether this is a benefit or disadvantage will eventually become clear

                • Miaou@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  Whether lidars are reliable enough to run on autonomous cars has nothing to do with whether they are cost efficient enough to run on vacuum cleaners though. The comparison is therefore completely irrelevant. Might as well complain that jet fighters don’t allow sharing on Instagram your location, because your much cheaper phone does.

                • rumba@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  Shit that’s pretty decent. That looks like a ready fit car part, I wonder what vehicle it’s for. Kind of sucks that it only faces One direction but at that price four them would not be a big deal

                • KlausWintergreen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  So that one sensor is $700. Waymo has 4 LIDAR sensors (all of which are physically larger and I would imagine fancier than the Alibaba ones, but that’s speculation), so just in the scanner hardware itself you’re looking at $2,800. Plus the computer to run it, plus the 6 radar receivers, and 13 cameras, I could absolutely see the price for the end user to be around $10k worth of sensors.

                  But to be clear, I don’t think camera only systems are viable or safe. They should at minimum be forced to use radar in combination with their cameras. In fact I actually trust radar more than lidar because it’s much less susceptible to heavy snow or rain.

              • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                29
                ·
                edit-2
                16 hours ago

                Only Tesla does not use radar with their control systems. Every single other manufacturer uses radar control mixed with the camera system. The Tesla system is garbage.

                • rumba@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  yeah, you’d think they’d at least use radar. That’s cheap AF. It’s like someone there said I have this hill to die on, I bet we can do it all with cameras.

          • rmuk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            39
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            I think you’re suffering from not knowing what you don’t know.

            and I think you’re suffering from being an arrogant sack of dicks who doesn’t like being called out on their poor communication skills and, through either a lack of self-awareness or an unwarranted overabundance of self-confidence, projects their own flaws on others. But for the more receptive types who want to learn more, here’s Syed Saad ul Hassan’s very well-written 2022 paper on practical applications, titled Lidar Sensor in Autonomous Vehicles which I found also serves as neat primer of lidar in general..

            • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Wow, what’s with all the hostility against him.

              It’s maybe because i also know a bit about lidars that his comment was clear to me (“ha, try putting a vacuum lidar in a car and see if it can do anything useful outside at the speeds & range a car needs”).

              Is it that much of an issue if someone is a bit snarky when pointing out the false equivalence of “my 500$ vacuum has a lidar, but a tesla doesn’t? harharhar”.

            • rumba@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              42
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Well look at you being adult and using big words instead of just insulting people. Not even going to wastime on people like you, I’m going to block you and move on and hope that everyone else does the same so you can sit in your own quiet little world wondering why no one likes you.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    18 hours ago

    It’s a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.

    So, who’s the YouTuber that’s gonna test this out? Since Elmo has pushed his way into the government in order to quash any investigation into it.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    To be fair, if you were to construct a wall and paint it exactly like the road, people will run into it as well. That being said, tesla shouldn’t rely on cameras

  • Banana@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    20 hours ago

    And the president is driving one of these?

    Maybe we should be purchasing lots of paint and cement blockades…

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      When he was in the Tesla asking if he should go for a ride I was screaming “Yes! Yes Mr. President! Please! Elon, show him full self driving on the interstate! Show him full self driving mode!”

    • Chewget@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      20 hours ago

      The president can’t drive by law unless on the grounds of the White House and maybe Camp David. At least while in office. They might be allowed to drive after leaving office…

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        This isn’t true at all. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or incredibly sarcastic, though.

        The reason presidents (and generally ex presidents, too) don’t drive themselves is because the kind of driving to escape an assassination attempt is a higher level of driving and training than what the vast majority of people ever have. There’s no law saying presidents are forbidden from driving.

        In any case, I would be perfectly happy if they let him drive a CT and it caught fire. I’d do a little jib, and I wouldn’t care who sees that.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            12 hours ago

            you’re gonna have to drop a source for that.

            because, no, they’re not. the Secret Service provides a driver specially trained for the risks a president might face, and very strongly insists, but they’re not “prohibited” from driving simply because they’re presidents.

            to be clear, the secret service cannot prohibit the president from doing anything they really want to do. Even if it’s totally stupid for them to do that. (This includes, for example, Trump’s routine weekend round of golf at Turd-o-Lardo)

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              to be clear, the secret service cannot prohibit the president from doing anything they really want to do

              Was Trump lying when he said the SS wouldn’t take him back to the capital on Jan 6?

              I could definitely see him lying about that so he doesn’t look like he abandoned his supporters during the coup, but I could also see the driver being like “I can’t endanger you, mr president” and ignoring his requests.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Was Trump lying when he said the SS wouldn’t take him back to the capital on Jan 6?

                Definitely not. There is no way in hell the secret service would have taken the president to that shit show. Doesn’t mean that they would have physically arrested him if he insisted going on his own, however.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The real question is, in a truly self-driving car, (not a tesla) are you actually driving?

  • MochiGoesMeow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you get any strong emotions on material shit when someone makes a video…you have 0 of my respect. Period.

    • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Saw a guy smash a Stradivarius on video once. definitely had strong emotions on that one.

      Really torn up about not having your respect tho…

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I think you could argue that that’s not just material stuff though. That’s historical and significant culturally.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    280
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

    This has been known.

    They do it so they can evade liability for the crash.

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That makes so little sense… It detects it’s about to crash then gives up and lets you sort it?
      That’s like the opposite of my Audi who does detect I’m about to hit something and gives me either a warning or just actively hits the brakes if I don’t have time to handle it.
      If this is true, this is so fucking evil it’s kinda amazing it could have reached anywhere near prod.

      • Red_October@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The point is that they can say “Autopilot wasn’t active during the crash.” They can leave out that autopilot was active right up until the moment before, or that autopilot directly contributed to it. They’re just purely leaning into the technical truth that it wasn’t on during the crash. Whether it’s a courtroom defense or their own next published set of data, “Autopilot was not active during any recorded Tesla crashes.”

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        even your audi is going to dump to human control if it can’t figure out what the appropriate response is. Granted, your Audi is probably smart enough to be like “yeah don’t hit the fucking wall,” but eh… it was put together by people that actually know what they’re doing, and care about safety.

        Tesla isn’t doing this for safety or because it’s the best response. The cars are doing this because they don’t want to pay out for wrongful death lawsuits.

        If this is true, this is so fucking evil it’s kinda amazing it could have reached anywhere near prod.

        It’s musk. he’s fucking vile, and this isn’t even close to the worst thing he’s doing. or has done.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Any crash within 10s of a disengagement counts as it being on so you can’t just do this.

      Edit: added the time unit.

      Edit2: it’s actually 30s not 10s. See below.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Where are you seeing that?

        There’s nothing I’m seeing as a matter of law or regulation.

        In any case liability (especially civil liability) is an absolute bitch. It’s incredibly messy and likely will not every be so cut and dry.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          Well it’s not that it was a crash caused by a level 2 system, but that they’ll investigate it.

          So you can’t hide the crash by disengaging it just before.

          Looks like it’s actually 30s seconds not 10s, or maybe it was 10s once upon a time and they changed it to 30?

          The General Order requires that reporting entities file incident reports for crashes involving ADS-equipped vehicles that occur on publicly accessible roads in the United States and its territories. Crashes involving an ADS-equipped vehicle are reportable if the ADS was in use at any time within 30 seconds of the crash and the crash resulted in property damage or injury

          https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-06/ADAS-L2-SGO-Report-June-2022.pdf

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Thanks for that.

            The thing is, though the NHTSA generally doesn’t make a determination on criminal or civil liability. They’ll make the report about what happened and keep it to the facts, and let the courts sort it out whose at fault. they might not even actually investigate a crash unless it comes to it. It’s just saying “when your car crashes, you need to tell us about it.” and they kinda assume they comply.

            Which, Tesla doesn’t want to comply, and is one of the reasons Musk/DOGE is going after them.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              I knew they wouldn’t necessarily investigate it, that’s always their discretion, but I had no idea there was no actual bite to the rule if they didn’t comply. That’s stupid.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                58 minutes ago

                Generally things like that are meant more to identify a pattern. It may not be useful to an individual, but very useful to determine a recall or support a class action

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        So, as others have said, it takes time to brake. But also, generally speaking autonomous cars are programmed to dump control back to the human if there’s a situation it can’t see an ‘appropriate’ response to.

        what’s happening here is the ‘oh shit, there’s no action that can stop the crash’, because braking takes time (hell, even coming to that decision takes time, activating the whoseitwhatsits that activate the brakes takes time.) the normal thought is, if there’s something it can’t figure out on it’s own, it’s best to let the human take over. It’s supposed to make that decision well before, though.

        However, as for why tesla is doing that when there’s not enough time to actually take control?

        It’s because liability is a bitch. Given how many teslas are on the road, even a single ruling of “yup it was tesla’s fault” is going to start creating precedent, and that gets very expensive, very fast. especially for something that can’t really be fixed.

        for some technical perspective, I pulled up the frame rates on the camera system (I’m not seeing frame rate on the cabin camera specifically, but it seems to either be 36 in older models or 24 in newer.)

        14 frames @ 24 fps is about 0.6 seconds@36 fps, it’s about 0.4 seconds. For comparison, average human reaction to just see a change and click a mouse is about .3 seconds. If you add in needing to assess situation… that’s going to be significantly more time.

      • GoodLuckToFriends@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Because even braking can’t avoid the crash. Unavoidable crash means bad juju if the ‘self driving’ car image is meant to stick around.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Breaks require a sufficient stopping distance given the current speed, driving surface conditions, tire condition, and the amount of momentum at play. This is why trains can’t stop quickly despite having breaks (and very good ones at that, with air breaks on every wheel) as there’s so much momentum at play.

        If autopilot is being criticized for disengaging immediately before the crash, it’s pretty safe to assume its too late to stop the vehicle and avoid the collision

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          19 hours ago

          This autopilot shit needs regulated audit log in a black box, like what planes or ships have.
          In no way should this kind of manipulation be legal.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        AEB braking was originally designed to not prevent a crash, but to slow the car when a unavoidable crash was detected.

        It’s since gotten better and can also prevent crashes now, but slowing the speed of the crash was the original important piece. It’s a lot easier to predict an unavoidable crash, than to detect a potential crash and stop in time.

        Insurance companies offer a discount for having any type of AEB as even just slowing will reduce damages and their cost out of pocket.

        Not all AEB systems are created equal though.

        Maybe disengaging AP if an unavoidable crash is detected triggers the AEB system? Like maybe for AEB to take over which should always be running, AP has to be off?

    • bazzzzzzz@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not sure how that helps in evading liability.

      Every Tesla driver would need super human reaction speeds to respond in 17 frames, 680ms(I didn’t check the recording framerate, but 25fps is the slowest reasonable), less than a second.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        They’re talking about avoiding legal liability, not about actually doing the right thing. And of course you can see how it would help them avoid legal liability. The lawyers will walk into court and honestly say that at the time of the accident the human driver was in control of the vehicle.

        And then that creates a discussion about how much time the human driver has to have in order to actually solve the problem, or gray areas about who exactly controls what when, and it complicates the situation enough where maybe Tesla can pay less money for the deaths that they are obviously responsible for.

        • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          They’re talking about avoiding legal liability, not about actually doing the right thing. And of course you can see how it would help them avoid legal liability. The lawyers will walk into court and honestly say that at the time of the accident the human driver was in control of the vehicle.

          The plaintiff’s lawyers would say, the autopilot was engaged, made the decision to run into the wall, and turned off 0.1 seconds before impact. Liability is not going disappear when there were 4.9 seconds of making dangerous decisions and peacing out in the last 0.1.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The plaintiff’s lawyers would say, the autopilot was engaged, made the decision to run into the wall, and turned off 0.1 seconds before impact. Liability is not going disappear when there were 4.9 seconds of making dangerous decisions and peacing out in the last 0.1.

            these strategies aren’t about actually winning the argument, it’s about making it excessively expensive to have the argument in the first place. Every motion requires a response by the counterparty, which requires billable time from the counterparty’s lawyers, and delays the trial. it’s just another variation on “defend, depose, deny”.

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            23 hours ago

            They can also claim with a straight face that autopilot has a crash rate that is artificially lowered without it being technically a lie in public, in ads, etc

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Defense lawyers can make a lot of hay with details like that. Nothing that gets the lawsuit dismissed but turning the question into “how much is each party responsible” when it was previously “Tesla drove me into a wall” can help reduce settlement amounts (as these things rarely go to trial).

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s not likely to work, but them swapping to human control after it determined a crash is going to happen isn’t accidental.

        Anything they can do to mire the proceedings they will do. It’s like how corporations file stupid junk motions to force plaintiffs to give up.

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If the disengage to avoid legal consequences feature does exist, then you would think there would be some false positive incidences where it turns off for no apparent reason. I found some with a search, which are attributed to bad software. Owners are discussing new patches fixing some problems and introducing new ones. None of the incidences caused an accident, so maybe the owners never hit the malicious code.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        47 minutes ago

        The given reason is simply that it will return control to the driver if it can’t figure out what to do, and all evidence is consistent with that. All self-driving cars have some variation of this. However yes it’s suspicious when it disengages right when you need it most. I also don’t know of data to support whether this is a pattern or just a feature of certain well-published cases.

        Even in those false positives, it’s entirely consistent with the ai being confused, especially since many of these scenarios get addressed by software updates. I’m not trying to deny it, just say the evidence is not as clear as people here are claiming

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        if it randomly turns off for unapparent reasons, people are going to be like ‘oh that’s weird’ and leave it at that. Tesla certainly isn’t going to admit that their code is malicious like that. at least not until the FBI is digging through their memos to show it was. and maybe not even then.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          When I tried it, the only unexpected disengagement was on the highway, but it just slowed and stayed in lane giving me lots of time to take over.

          Thinking about it afterwards, possible reasons include

          • I had cars on both sides, blocking me in. Perhaps it decided that was risky or it occluded vision, or perhaps one moved toward me and there was no room to avoid
          • it was a little over a mile from my exit. Perhaps it decided it had no way to switch lanes while being blocked in
      • Dultas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I think Mark (who made the OG video) speculated it might be the ultrasonic parking sensors detecting something and disengaging.

    • thistleboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I believe the outrage is that the video showed that autopilot was off when they crashed into the wall. That’s what the red circle in the thumbnail is highlighting. The whole thing apparently being a setup for views like Top Gear faking the Model S breaking down.

      • octopus_ink@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I am not going to click a link to X, but this article covers that, and links this raw footage video on X which supposedly proves this claim to be false.

        In addition to the folks pointing out it likes to shut itself off (which I can neither confirm nor deny)

        https://www.pcmag.com/news/tesla-on-autopilot-runs-over-mannequin-hits-wall-in-viral-video-but-is

        Some skeptical viewers claim Autopilot was not engaged when the vehicle ran into the wall. These allegations prompted Rober to release the “raw footage” in a X post, which shows the characteristic signs of Autopilot being engaged, such as a rainbow road appearing on the dash.

        https://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898

      • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Autopilot shuts itself off just before a crash so Tesla can deny liability. It’s been observed in many real-world accidents before this. Others have said much the same, with sources, in this very thread.

        • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          well yes but as long as there’s deniability built into my toy, then YOU’RE JUST A BIG DUMB MEANIE-PANTS WHO HATES MY COOL TOYS BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE ONE because there’s no other possible reason to hate a toy this cool.