Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by tomp, Jul 14, 2016.
Didn't see this posted here yet.
See article here:
Tesla's Autopilot: Too Much Autonomy Too Soon
Don't underestimate the dumb.
I saw it on Yahoo News here:
Consumer Reports says Tesla should drop Autopilot name
I also commented:
What does CR think an autopilot should do? This is the definition I found on wikipedia as quoted from a chapter of an FAA manual entitled "Automated Flight Controls":
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
This is exactly what the Tesla system does. I own a Tesla and have driven with the autopilot. It is not an autonomous driving system, it is an aid.
Autopilot's problems aren't all Tesla's fault, they're our own - Roadshow
This is what's absurd about modern media, everyone likes to pile on if they think it'll generate more clicks... CR is simply being opportunistic and it's just ridiculous...
Consumer Reports calls for Tesla to disable Autopilot, Tesla says no
Tesla's response is spot-on. Kudos to them.
Consumer Report is now total *sugar* to me. Just jumping in with the boat of sensationalist lying media. Ignoring logic!
Defiance has a cost. CR will be releasing their Model X review soon.
I also wrote a long comment on CR's post (I am a long-time member of CR). My point was essentially that the features that seem to be under investigation in the Florida crash are those for TACC, not autosteering. No one that I have read has suggested that the car should have steered itself out of that crash. And I said that TACC is a technology in wide use on many makes and models, not only Tesla. But CR has not suggested any limitations on TACC-like systems on other makes.
I think the various media outlets, in this case including CR, have failed to understand the distinctions among the various aspects of the Autopilot suite of features and have made rather sweeping conclusions about the whole system. I only hope the investigating agencies and the regulators are more careful to make those distinctions.
Issue clearer guidance to owners on how the system should be used and its limitations
No evidence is presented that the existing guidance is insufficiently clear. CR should cite specifics.
Test all safety-critical systems fully before public deployment; no more beta releases
CR is assuming, again without evidence, that it is (at least) the safety aspects of these systems that is "beta" and not merely
I'm not familiar with all the other systems. Some have commented that other systems are more aggressive at ensuring hands are on the wheel. Would you still use the system if it required hand on the wheel at all times?
You people all LOVED Consumer Reports when they rated the Model S "Best Car Ever!", and when they rated it off the charts ("highest score ever") for performance everyone was raving about CR and their unbiased credibility. Lots of people bought cars based on those CR ratings. Then last year they dropped their rating due to reliability issues and people jumped all over them, said you can't trust their evaluation. Now we have this. You can't have it both ways.
See my post here for an explanation. CR is certainly jumping on the "omg, beta" bandwagon.
Excellent point. Although I think the gist of it all is:
a) Yes the trucker cut across into incoming traffic.
b) Autosteering enabled the driver to not pay attention to the road, and this resulted in the accident.
c) Without autosteering the driver would have seen the truck and could have reacted, potentially avoiding the accident.
So, while autosteering could not have avoided the accident, it partially enabled a situation that led to it, but without including a secondary system that was fully capable of preventing it.
A few things:
1) Their reviews were based on their actual experience with the car.
2) The reliability ratings I believe to be accurate, but misleading as they were skewed toward early builds. Having said that, the data is the data.
3) Their autopilot recommendations are based on nothing but speculation and misunderstanding of both events and the system. As are most of the media articles.
It is possible for me to pick and choose where I think CR is being thorough, where they are falling down in their analysis, and where they are being hyperbolic. So yeah, I don't think it's necessarily bias when critical thought is applied.
But I want my sycophant media and I want it NOW!
Good points, that's fair.
This is contrary to claims that neither the car nor the driver could see the white truck against the light sky background.
I'm not sure I believe that, but that's the claim.
I think the claim is the driver "didn't" see it, not he "couldn't". In this case he "didn't" because he was likely doing something else at the time. Even if you "couldn't" see it initially you'd likely have seen it at least several seconds before impact.