Tesla 'autosteer' update will make electric cars self-driving on highways - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BigBadWilly;48342412]That bleeping would be very annoying ;( , Secondly If they're falling asleep I would prefer it to drive me home rather than autopilot on forever and ever till I wake up or run out of gas[/QUOTE] No reason why it wouldn't be able to drive you home. Doesn't need to beep more than once, either. Maybe every other minute as being asleep behind even an autonomous wheel could be dangerous.

[QUOTE=OvB;48342468]No reason why it wouldn't be able to drive you home. Doesn't need to beep more than once, either. Maybe every other minute as being asleep behind even an autonomous wheel could be dangerous.[/QUOTE] True, I would say best bet is people put there address in the car and if anything were to happen as in drunk or passed out and it picks up on it, It will directly go to home

It should be mentioned though current luxury cars have been able to do most of this for a while. See: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFexBfE72Rw[/media] Though the tesla seems a bit more automatic, and can handle lane changes (while this one does not). I also assume that lane assist auto disables if making sharper turns.

[QUOTE=Levelog;48342329]Computers have far faster reaction times. Have you never dealt with an aimbot?[/QUOTE] Computers are way worse at analyzing unstructured data, that's why people are worried about autonomous cars. It's not about the reaction time, it's about unstructured data being ignored or misinterpreted. Aimbots reach directly into the memory of a virtual world and extract coordinates, that's extremely reliable. Cars are analyzing using equipment that interfaces with the real world. It's a totally different ball game.

I don't know how safe or practical this is, but it feels like the future.

[QUOTE=KorJax;48342595]It should be mentioned though current luxury cars have been able to do most of this for a while. See: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFexBfE72Rw[/media] Though the tesla seems a bit more automatic, and can handle lane changes (while this one does not). I also assume that lane assist auto disables if making sharper turns.[/QUOTE]That's only adaptive cruise control which follows the car in front of you, that does not steer the car in any way.

[QUOTE=TestECull;48340826]No thanks. I prefer *not* handing control of my car over to a computer that can fail, be hacked, or just randomly glitch.[/QUOTE] Do we need one of these shitposts every thread? The point of self driving systems in general is that humans have a much higher failure rate and "random glitch rate" than them, in addition to slower reaction times and limited perception. These systems are made so that they dont have blind spots, can look in every direction at once, and take far greater safety margins than most humans. Furthermore, any auto manufacturer with sense will just airgap the driving control system, suddenly it's nigh unhackable. Unless you manage to somehow write code through an overflow bug by flashing a laser at one of the car's cameras, its not going to be hacked.

I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] It isn't so much the "don't like" part so much as the convenience factor. There are a huge number of people who drive purely because they have to, rather than want to. That makes it viewed more as a chore that must be done to get to a result.

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] Because not everyone likes what you like?

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] It really isn't a matter of like. I love driving. I also make my living driving right now. But the FACT of the matter is that automatic driving cars are so much safer than any person could be. I'm a good driver, but a computer will be better. It isn't what I like, it's about what the reality is.

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] For most people, it's a convenient machine designed to move you, other people, and stuff around. The past century has seen these machines become steadily more convenient and better at moving things around. Self-driving cars are just one step of a continual process that has been going on for a long time.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48341701]Computers "think" millions of times a second (and that's just the slow ones!), receiving input is down to the polling rate of the devices, but even then that's usually pretty quick considering the scenario we're talking about. They are more than capable of reacting faster than a human being. For one they simply apply electrical signals to components to trigger them. A human on average takes 250ms to respond to a visual stimulus. That's a long ass time in processor clock (even a 100MHz processor has performed 1.25 million operations in this time, assuming my maths is right). Add in the time required for a human to then actually press on a pedal, turn a wheel, etc. and that time increases quite a bit. "Humans react faster" isn't exactly correct. Even embedded processors are faster than you when programmed correctly and focused on their small set of tasks compared to our abstract thought process. [editline]31st July 2015[/editline] Also I'm fairly sure the Google self-driving car has so far taken actions that make sense in every scenario it was presented and encountered in it's multiple million collective miles of driving. Don't assume these things actually need hard coded responses to situations, we can teach them. In fact that's something Elon himself mentions.[/QUOTE] Of course I'm not talking about reaction [I]times[/I], I'm aware that computers will always be able to react way faster than humans. I'm talking about [I]how[/I] they react. The computer will be limited in how it can respond to a situation because it can only do the things it was programmed to do; it won't be able to handle unpredictable situations effectively. Whereas a computer is limited (by its programming) in the scope of how it can respond to a volatile situation, a human will always be able to actively think about what is happening and make a decision that a computer might simply not even consider.

[QUOTE=TestECull;48340826]No thanks. I prefer *not* handing control of my car over to a computer that can fail, be hacked, or just randomly glitch.[/QUOTE] we already know that you don't like technology and that anything without 8 cylinders of powerrr does not possess the testicle seal of approval seriously, your reaction time to a thread about cars and technology combined is anything but unexpected.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;48344441]we already know that you don't like technology and that anything without 8 cylinders of powerrr does not possess the testicle seal of approval[/QUOTE] Computers ain't testi[I]cool[/I]

[QUOTE=Aide;48341217]Heck even non electric cars can be hacked.[/QUOTE] I don't think mine can. What is there to hack anyway? The ecu?

[QUOTE=Beetle179;48344272]Of course I'm not talking about reaction [I]times[/I], I'm aware that computers will always be able to react way faster than humans. I'm talking about [I]how[/I] they react. The computer will be limited in how it can respond to a situation because it can only do the things it was programmed to do; it won't be able to handle unpredictable situations effectively. Whereas a computer is limited (by its programming) in the scope of how it can respond to a volatile situation, a human will always be able to actively think about what is happening and make a decision that a computer might simply not even consider.[/QUOTE] What exactly are these complex situations? Avoiding collisions is just math and awareness of surroundings; attempt to stop while moving to avoid the obstacle. Driving isn't really that complex; the biggest issue is the need to remain constantly aware of your surroundings so as to react to unexpected obstacles as quickly as possible, and computers are perfect for that task. Not to mention, who's to say humans will handle these "unpredictable situations" effectively? All self-driving cars can learn from the experience of each other; every situation that one car encounters where it fails to perform the optimal input can be used to teach every other car how to better handle with situations of those types. Humans can't pass on knowledge nearly as effectively.

it amazes me that we live in a day where you can update your car

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] I enjoy driving, but I also don't enjoy getting stuck in stop-and-go traffic during the daily slog between my home and the university. So I'd let my car drive while I'm doing the routine boring shit during the week, and on the weekends I'd be driving myself. It's also nice to have something watching you if your attention slips. I like to think of myself as a pretty decent and aware driver, but nobody is perfect and can I make slip ups that a good computer with properly calibrated sensors won't miss.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;48343841]Do we need one of these shitposts every thread?[/QUOTE]Not a shitpost at all actually. [QUOTE=Mattk50;48343841]The point of self driving systems in general is that humans have a much higher failure rate and "random glitch rate" than them, in addition to slower reaction times and limited perception. These systems are made so that they dont have blind spots, can look in every direction at once, and take far greater safety margins than most humans.[/QUOTE]Not necessarily, people certainly make more mistakes but a [i]competent[/i] driver is going to be just as effective as a self-driving vehicle. I'd totally enable autopilot on my car so I could use my phone, eat what I got at the drive through, or whatever else other people do while they drive but I don't because that's not safe. I wouldn't, however, totally ignore the road because at the drop of a hat something can happen that the autopilot would be completely unprepared to deal with. I'd also never, ever use it during adverse weather because unlike the computer, I can think up a unique path that may or may not include the ditch. It's a tool for convenience, and I think it's highly dangerous to think it's anything other than that. Calling it a "safer alternative" to drivers is horribly irresponsible, and then going "YA WELL UR PROLLY UNSAFE THO WAY UNSAFER THAN A ~COMPUTER~ SO SHUT IT" (not that you did this, but it's a common retort) is unnecessary and inappropriate. Personally I think [i]everyone[/i] in the vehicle is at least partially responsible to be aware of what's around the vehicle, so for me I see "self-driving cars" as merely an additional layer of safety to what already is there. (should be there) [QUOTE=Mattk50;48343841]Furthermore, any auto manufacturer with sense will just airgap the driving control system, suddenly it's nigh unhackable. Unless you manage to somehow write code through an overflow bug by flashing a laser at one of the car's cameras, its not going to be hacked.[/QUOTE]Yeah people said connecting a car to the fucking internet wouldn't happen because, "any manufacturer with sense would realize they're vulnerable," but we both know that's not even remotely true. I'd trust Tesla to think ahead, but I wouldn't trust any of the others to not make such an absolutely fucking ridiculous design decision. Likely it would be done "for convenience," which is one of two main reasons why security vulnerabilities even happen, the other being lazy or bad code. I'll never get in a completely automated vehicle either, or a vehicle that is drive-by-wire, because that's too much to lose in a system failure and I'd have no way to correct it. Unlike a car or a computer, I don't run on gasoline or electricity, so in the absence of both of those (for whatever reason) it makes no sense to remove the final level of redundancy: the driver.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;48344272]Of course I'm not talking about reaction [I]times[/I], I'm aware that computers will always be able to react way faster than humans. I'm talking about [I]how[/I] they react. The computer will be limited in how it can respond to a situation because [B]it can only do the things it was programmed to do[/B]; it won't be able to handle unpredictable situations effectively. Whereas a computer is limited (by its programming) in the scope of how it can respond to a volatile situation, a human will always be able to actively think about what is happening and make a decision that a computer might simply not even consider.[/QUOTE] That is not as true as you think. Here is a very simple example video with a basic system. [video=youtube;qv6UVOQ0F44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44[/video] This is pretty much a rng for inputs and determining what outputs from those are good. In between part and what the inputs do are not defined. It learns from what output is good compared to the goal. A pure example of a program doing more than it's defined actions. A self driving car will have a guided version of something like this with more examples of less predictable environments as well as many other systems to determine and monitor the best way to deal with situations it encounters.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;48344815]What exactly are these complex situations? Avoiding collisions is just math and awareness of surroundings; attempt to stop while moving to avoid the obstacle. Driving isn't really that complex; the biggest issue is the need to remain constantly aware of your surroundings so as to react to unexpected obstacles as quickly as possible, and computers are perfect for that task. Not to mention, who's to say humans will handle these "unpredictable situations" effectively? All self-driving cars can learn from the experience of each other; every situation that one car encounters where it fails to perform the optimal input can be used to teach every other car how to better handle with situations of those types. Humans can't pass on knowledge nearly as effectively.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree, a computer would almost certainly be better for simple collision avoidance and really most things that lead to accidents. But there are factors that a computer can't account for, directly, especially other people. Like, if you're dying for an example, something like a person on road rage, or a drunk driver. Their behavior could well be beyond what the computer is capable of understanding and could cause computer judgment error. [editline]1st August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;48345175]That is not as true as you think. Here is a very simple example video with a basic system. [video=youtube;qv6UVOQ0F44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44[/video] This is pretty much a rng for inputs and determining what outputs from those are good. In between part and what the inputs do are not defined. It learns from what output is good compared to the goal. A pure example of a program doing more than it's defined actions. A self driving car will have a guided version of something like this with more examples of less predictable environments as well as many other systems to determine and monitor the best way to deal with situations it encounters.[/QUOTE] I'm familiar with the concept of genetic algorithms, but this is the real world -- genetic algorithms rely on well-defined "success" and "failure" flags, and that doesn't mean much in the context of a self-driving vehicle.

[QUOTE=Beetle179;48345481]I don't disagree, a computer would almost certainly be better for simple collision avoidance and really most things that lead to accidents. But there are factors that a computer can't account for, directly, especially other people. Like, if you're dying for an example, something like a person on road rage, or a drunk driver. Their behavior could well be beyond what the computer is capable of understanding and could cause computer judgment error.[/QUOTE] In all fairness, very few people appropriately react to those sort of situations anyway. I think we are really overthinking what is essentially an improved cruise control. This is intended for use on highways, where there are not many variables related to driving conditions. Its meant to make an otherwise monotonous, but tiring task, not so. Because let's be honest. Holding 75 mph and making sure the car doesn't drift out of its lane or hit the car in front of you for 6 hours isn't exactly engaging. But it sure as shit is something a computer could do with flying colors.

Theres a fake city that car companies use to test every scenario for self driving cars. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/07/20/inside-the-fake-town-in-michigan-where-self-driving-cars-are-being-tested/[/url]

[QUOTE=Melnek;48343892]I really dont understand why people dont like driving so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of driving unto computers and robots with all these recent advances with self driving cars.[/QUOTE] I really don't understand why people don't like evaluating integrals so much that they try to shift the responsibilities of doing maths onto computers and robots with all these recent advances in processing power.

I like driving. I don't like sitting in traffic. I'd like a robot to drive in traffic for me.

[QUOTE=Demache;48345685]In all fairness, very few people appropriately react to those sort of situations anyway. I think we are really overthinking what is essentially an improved cruise control. This is intended for use on highways, where there are not many variables related to driving conditions. Its meant to make an otherwise monotonous, but tiring task, not so. Because let's be honest. Holding 75 mph and making sure the car doesn't drift out of its lane or hit the car in front of you for 6 hours isn't exactly engaging.[/QUOTE] It's hard to say if most people would react appropriately, but personally I think a human's judgment will generally be better than a computer's. It really depends on the circumstance. But you're right, I don't think most of this discussion even applies here. Still, it's something that's bothered me, that people are trying to shut down any anti-autonomy arguments. I'm very excited for the future of self-driving vehicles, and I recognize their reputation for being safe and reliable, but it's not fair to ignore why people might be apprehensive of the new technology. There are valid concerns and there's nothing wrong with that.

[QUOTE=TestECull;48340826]No thanks. I prefer *not* handing control of my car over to a computer that can fail, be hacked, or just randomly glitch.[/QUOTE] Opposed to bio-computers with emotions? How about do a little research on what exactly the features are before you start complain. Are you worried about traffic infrastructure like traffic lights being hacked too?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48345059]Not a shitpost at all actually. Not necessarily, people certainly make more mistakes but a [i]competent[/i] driver is going to be just as effective as a self-driving vehicle. I'd totally enable autopilot on my car so I could use my phone, eat what I got at the drive through, or whatever else other people do while they drive but I don't because that's not safe. I wouldn't, however, totally ignore the road because at the drop of a hat something can happen that the autopilot would be completely unprepared to deal with. I'd also never, ever use it during adverse weather because unlike the computer, I can think up a unique path that may or may not include the ditch.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify i was referring to the broader idea of self driving systems and cars as a whole, not just this limited lane control system. I think you were as well but im not certain. Why would a competent driver be just as effective? Computers have faster reaction times and can look in every direction at once. Millions of dollars of research is going into this field to ensure that they are designed to deal with many things, its very unlikely you would find something they are unprepared for on the street, if it comes to a dangerous looking ditch the car will just stop and if you must, you can manually navigate the damaged road. However, short of a natural disaster or a gunman in the street shooting at you, humans won't be able to compete with this technology as it matures, the average human is already more than well beaten by this tech just based on the accident statistics. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48345059]It's a tool for convenience, and I think it's highly dangerous to think it's anything other than that. Calling it a "safer alternative" to drivers is horribly irresponsible, and then going "YA WELL UR PROLLY UNSAFE THO WAY UNSAFER THAN A ~COMPUTER~ SO SHUT IT" (not that you did this, but it's a common retort) is unnecessary and inappropriate. Personally I think [i]everyone[/i] in the vehicle is at least partially responsible to be aware of what's around the vehicle, so for me I see "self-driving cars" as merely an additional layer of safety to what already is there. (should be there)[/QUOTE] In the case of fully automated vehicles its not a matter of "prolly". You are a less safe driver because you are a sack of meat that can get sick, sleepy, stupid, and there are a ton of other meatbags on the road. Road accidents can be caused by a single party, and because the trials have already verified a high level of safety in self driving cars, it is disgustingly irresponsible not to be in favor of, if not a complete rollout, continued development and progress in this area. The less unreliable meatbags on the road the better it is for me and for everyone else, regardless of my driving skill. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48345059]Yeah people said connecting a car to the fucking internet wouldn't happen because, "any manufacturer with sense would realize they're vulnerable," but we both know that's not even remotely true. I'd trust Tesla to think ahead, but I wouldn't trust any of the others to not make such an absolutely fucking ridiculous design decision. Likely it would be done "for convenience," which is one of two main reasons why security vulnerabilities even happen, the other being lazy or bad code. I'll never get in a completely automated vehicle either, or a vehicle that is drive-by-wire, because that's too much to lose in a system failure and I'd have no way to correct it. Unlike a car or a computer, I don't run on gasoline or electricity, so in the absence of both of those (for whatever reason) it makes no sense to remove the final level of redundancy: the driver.[/QUOTE] Yeah Chrysler and jeep have already fucked up like this, manual non-electric cars you can hack into and disable the brakes on. The car manufactures responded to this discovery by doing fuck all except criticizing the white-hats who figured it out. more details on this are going to be released at the upcoming defcon. Car companies are simply not used to securing their tech yet, and also not used to hotfix type solutions for software flaws. Instead, they like long, slow, multi year development cycles where every year's model is barely different from the last but has been being worked on for half a decade. There will likely be some tragedy in this area before many of the less saavy companies get the picture. I should point out though how absurdly unlikely it is for someone to hack your car vs how likely it is for someone to ram into you and kill you because they were in a manual car while drunk/stupid/sleepy/sick. It's worth the low risk, without question. People should stick to reputable car manufacturers though who know what the fuck theyre going to mess up as the tech develops.

I think the biggest issue with programming self driving cars is making them figure out where and how to park, the "employee parking" near the building I work at is just a fuckin patch of dirt with no signs or parking spaces, there's no way a self driving car would know it's supposed to park there.