[HN Gopher] Autopilot on Cars for $999
___________________________________________________________________
Autopilot on Cars for $999
Author : cbracketdash
Score : 176 points
Date : 2021-02-15 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (comma.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (comma.ai)
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| I bought my car with the express intent of getting a compatible
| car for Comma. My comma absolutely increased the utility of my
| car to me.
|
| Been on 3 huge road trips that I wouldn't have considered without
| the device. 12 hours on the road isn't something I would do
| everyday, but absolutely bearable with a comma.
| exhilaration wrote:
| Since you've done the research, what car works best with it?
| What are you driving?
| cyrux004 wrote:
| Toyota Corolla 2020 (got steering sensor with decent torque
| and the ability to do stop and go)
| betaclass wrote:
| I'm still unclear as to the benefit given that you're required
| to attend to the road and it detects distracted people in the
| driver's seat?
| mmglr wrote:
| If anything it sounds to me as if the comma provided a false
| sense of security. Drawing from experience driving 9 hours is
| already grueling. At hour 10, 11 or 12 would you have been able
| to take control during a failure of the system?
| plif wrote:
| Which car and what did you drive before? And can you quantify
| how much benefit you see over adaptive cruise / lane assist /
| etc that is standard on many cars these days?
|
| I agree with your sentiment, just unsure what your point of
| reference is and how much impact the fancy AI actually has. My
| car (2017 model) has the features I mentioned from the factory
| and is great on long trips too.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| This is a good video somebody did to compare the Toyota's
| stock system (latest one known as tss 2.0) with Comma
| Openpilot
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5-inxH92wM
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| I didn't own a car before ;) I rode a bicycle and took the
| train. Although I would rent cars when driving up to Tahoe or
| Yosemite.
|
| I would say that the lane-keep systems are pretty
| conservative. I tend to think of it that those systems help
| you steer while comma will do it for you.
|
| There's a huge difference between hands and feet off the
| steering wheel/pedals and needing to guide it every step of
| the way.
|
| In particular, I think I tried a VW and a Ford's lane assist.
| They would lessen the torque for turning the wheel, but
| wouldn't actually make a turn by itself, which has marginal
| value, but significantly less.
| moonbug wrote:
| there's no way this is being sold into the EU.
| almost_usual wrote:
| It won't be sold but it will be used, it's open source.
| tdeck wrote:
| Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?
| yannoninator wrote:
| I know for sure Tesla and Uber has.
|
| Seems like Comma's product requires your attention through
| driver monitoring whereas Tesla's product is non existent in
| this area.
|
| And with Uber the driver was distracted.
|
| edit: Downvoters, i'm a bit confused here, so Tesla and Uber
| hasn't killed anybody then?
| slg wrote:
| Tesla has something like 4 billion miles driven with
| Autopilot. This apparently has 35 million miles. (It isn't a
| direct comparison, but the overall rate in the US is around 1
| death per 100 million miles driven).
|
| Anyone who uses these numbers to even imply this is safer
| than Tesla knows nothing about statistics. It is way too
| early to draw any conclusions about Comma's safety. It is
| also probably too early to even draw statistical conclusions
| about Tesla's safety.
| yannoninator wrote:
| > It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Comma's
| safety.
|
| I definitely would not consider any car with adaptive
| cruise control without driver monitoring, especially one
| that touts self driving capabilities.
| slg wrote:
| Be my guest if you want to argue the merits of one system
| over another based on some technical specs or design
| decisions. My point is that the track records are not
| long enough to draw any statistical conclusions and the
| _Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma hasn 't_
| argument is at best wildly misleading given the large
| differences in miles driven.
| yannoninator wrote:
| > Anyone know if this has killed someone yet?
|
| > ...Tesla and Uber have killed people but Comma
| hasn't...
|
| So no then.
|
| This is the correct answer, thank you.
| slg wrote:
| I just started an aerospace company making planes in my
| garage. My company has killed less people than either
| Boeing or Airbus. Does that mean I make safer planes than
| either of those two companies?
|
| A sentence can be technically correct while also being
| actively misleading.
| easton wrote:
| Doesn't Tesla check to make sure your hands are on the wheel
| (as does Honda and I'm sure the rest of the OEM lane-assist
| products)
| [deleted]
| LegitShady wrote:
| Comma has a driver facing camera doing driver monitoring
| hbarka wrote:
| Tesla's product also requires driver monitoring. They
| explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false.
|
| Not excusing Tesla's faults but the volume of Tesla's cars on
| the road compared to Comma's would probably explain the
| difference in statistics.
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| Tesla has had "driver monitoring" in that you had to apply
| some torque to the wheel, while the comma does gaze
| detection to make sure you aren't watching a movie or
| sleeping.
|
| AFAIK Tesla is adding driver monitoring cameras.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Telsa has cameras in the cabin for all cars now, but have
| never stated that they are going to enable them for
| driver monitoring purposes. (But their code has flags
| like driver_eyes_up and drivers_eye_down, so at least
| it's on their mind...)
| pcl wrote:
| The grandparent used "driver monitoring" to mean "the car
| monitors the driver to make sure the driver is paying
| attention to the road", I believe.
| yannoninator wrote:
| > Tesla's product also requires driver monitoring. They
| explicitly say so, so your statement is clearly false.
|
| Please state your evidence on this.
|
| Do they have a powerful driver monitoring system already?
|
| Is it being used?
| odysseythrwtime wrote:
| They do. You have to touch the steering wheel everything
| couple minutes to prove you are focused. Video:
| https://youtu.be/QNadmzp_9Ag?t=292
| yannoninator wrote:
| Great, by definition a drunk or sleepy person can have
| their hands on the wheel to prove they are focused.
|
| This system is very powerful indeed.
| madamelic wrote:
| Human life is sacred. Absolutely.
|
| but.
|
| If we are concerned with cars killing people, we should get rid
| of cars. This FUD around self-driving == killing people will,
| in the long-term, cause more deaths than the handful of
| sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths.
|
| The only reason those car crashes get national attention is
| because they were self-driving. In every other way they are
| boring. Bicyclists hit by car: every day. Man killed by semi:
| every day. etc.
|
| Do you think you'd see a bunch of FUD about a 2021 manually-
| driven Chevy mystery car getting in a minor fenderbender and
| equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? No.
|
| But: https://insideevs.com/news/333516/self-driving-chevrolet-
| bol...
| handedness wrote:
| For some, it feels different because of the potential scale.
| Watching Falcon Heavy boosters return in perfect unison is
| spooky in a way watching one Falcon 9 return isn't.
|
| Put another way, consider all the IT professionals who advise
| their relatives to wait a month or two before performing a
| major OS update. When self-driving cars are the majority of
| vehicles on the road, and we get our first buggy software
| update that results in a string of crashes, how likely will
| people be to update if they're even given a choice at all?
|
| Comparing human to self-driving per-mile fatality statistics
| like that's the primary measure for people, while ignoring
| the fact that we're looking at the first mainstream
| manifestations of a coming type of threat modeling that the
| species has never before had to even consider, seems a little
| narrow a way to view the issue.
|
| For insurance companies and actuaries looking to define
| collectivized risk, spreadsheets are the right way to
| consider this kind of thing. For individuals who've driven
| their whole lives without an accident, deciding to let
| emerging tech take over for you when taking the kids to visit
| grandma is going to be a significant transition in human
| history.
|
| Consider that there are very elderly people alive today who
| will still never fly on an airplane because of their early
| safety records.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I'm concerned about being the donor of the red ink the
| subsequent regulation gets written in.
| onion2k wrote:
| Does this mean that if I build an AI controlled gun turret to
| shoot people who walk across my lawn it shouldn't be news
| when it kills someone because people get shot by other people
| quite regularly?
|
| In my opinion the application of technology, and (more
| importantly) the delegation of human responsibility to a
| computer, should be something that's part of the national
| conversation.
| Traster wrote:
| This ridiculous assertion any self-driving == better than
| humna is just ridiculous too. This is a website selling a
| self-driving devkit with a big "buy it now" sign that also
| has a disclaimer saying "Well you're not really buying it, if
| you kill someone, we've never met".
|
| Sure, self-driving cars that were better than humans would be
| good, but what we have right now is self-driving cars that
| are _maybe_ better than humans in normal conditions
| (controlling for type of car, conditions etc), and completely
| break down in bad conditions and often fail unsafe in
| between.
|
| >Do you think you'd see a bunch of FUD about a 2021 manually-
| driven Chevy mystery car getting in a minor fenderbender and
| equating it with the safety of the entire car industry? No.
|
| Well of course not, because we all moved to self-driving cars
| in 2017 as Elon Musk told us we would.
|
| There's a very simple reason we aren't worried if Bob down
| the road crashes his car, it's because we're not binary
| identical bob, and people haven't been systematically lying
| about bob's capabilities for the last decade.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths.
|
| I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems
| are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up
| making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's
| appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems.
|
| > is because they were self-driving.
|
| Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we
| know that the mobility that cars provide end up offering far
| more value to the world than the occasional accidents that we
| end up tolerating.
|
| What's the trade with self-driving cars? What is the
| technology enabling that is worth the possible additional
| risks?
|
| > car getting in a minor fenderbender and equating it with
| the safety of the entire car industry?
|
| I don't think that comparison offers anything interesting,
| and it ignores the long and storied history of improving
| automobile safety. Look into Ralph Naders "Unsafe At Any
| Speed" if you really want to see people looking at "regular"
| accidents and deciding there was something to be fixed.
| stjo wrote:
| > human drivers _wouldn't_ make
|
| But human drivers make a lot of mistakes that computer
| drivers _wouldn't_.
|
| If it is safER than humans - it is better. No need to be
| perfect.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Citation needed. So far, they have mostly driven into
| static obstacles on highways, the only environment where
| the vendors even allow to use their "self-driving" system
| because of the overwhelmingly favorable conditions.
| henrikschroder wrote:
| Yes, self-driving systems will have fewer deaths/distance
| driven and therefore be _statistically_ safer than human
| drivers.
|
| But human drivers make human errors, understandable,
| explainable, common errors that we are used to, and
| therefore we underestimate their severity.
|
| Self-driving cars will make space-alien machine-logic
| crazy weird and _definitely not human_ errors, they will
| cause fatalities in situations where any reasonable human
| wouldn 't, and that is much scarier than human errors,
| and therefore we overestimate their severity.
|
| And that makes self-driving a very, very hard sell, it's
| simply not enough to be statistically better on just the
| numbers, you have to be psychologically better, and
| that's a huge hurdle.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| And the way you establish safety is by doing a lot of
| miles with trained employees and clearly established
| liability, not by releasing alpha software to the
| untrained public with complete liability disclaimers.
| blub wrote:
| Like I've said before, I don't have any problem if those that
| want to accelerate humanity's progress in this area volunteer
| themselves and their families to be self-driving test
| dummies.
|
| I'd even support the idea of building them statues, should
| they meet an unfortunate hero's end.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Another way to think about it is to ask how many lives could
| have been saved with this (or any other) system.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| You mean the car gets in crashes when Toyota Lane tracing
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVyRsdILbRw) or honda lane
| assist(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgYCC8zG84) or the
| nissan propilot system
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJ_4uEG6Og) is enabled. I am
| sure there are a lot of cases. Just have to ask these car
| companies to release data
| jordache wrote:
| I just youtubed this guy and found a 10hr video of him
| programming for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hlb8YX2-W8
| yalogin wrote:
| I don't know well the system works but do they plug into the
| cruise control mechanism? How are they able to provide the
| automatic braking functionality?
| cyrux004 wrote:
| For supported cars, the car's stock AEB system still works as
| intended FOr some cars, openpilot only does lateral (steering)
| and doesnt do longitudinal (gas/brake), so the car's stock
| dynamic cruise control is in control which includes AEB
| bri3d wrote:
| Yes, they intercept whichever CAN bus in the target vehicle is
| used to send Adaptive Cruise Control and Automatic Lane Keeping
| messages, and send their own instead. On many target cars, they
| actually simply use the stock Adaptive Cruise Control and
| openpilot provides only the steering (ALK).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Seems like it could have disastrous results if the OEM
| components start talking on the bus, sharing a completely
| different state.
| samfisher83 wrote:
| This was like 600 bucks a few years ago and they are using leco
| phone from about 4 years ago.
| tekromancr wrote:
| Wait, founded by George Hotz? As in GeoHot? The PS3 jailbreak
| guy?
| nayeem-rahman wrote:
| and the iphone guy
| miguelrochefort wrote:
| Yes. He's pretty famous for iOS jailbreaking as well.
| keskadale wrote:
| Yes. The very same. He does coding streams (sometimes comma
| related work) on his Twitch channel (twitch.tv/georgehotz). You
| can find the archive here
| (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwgKmJM4ZJQRJ-U5NjvR2dg)
| cbracketdash wrote:
| Exactly.
| sj4nz wrote:
| Recent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwcYp-
| XT7UI&list=PLrAXtmErZg...
| djitz wrote:
| He was on again a couple of months ago.
|
| https://youtu.be/_L3gNaAVjQ4
| maxyme wrote:
| And iPhone jailbreak guy back in the day!
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Yes, same person:
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17561484/george-hotz-comm...
| vimy wrote:
| Yes. He has a youtube channel where he does live coding
| sometimes. He also seems a bit eccentric. An interesting and
| gifted man for sure.
|
| https://youtu.be/9LaIezgiUmw
| rvz wrote:
| yes.
| bri3d wrote:
| Yes, this has been his project for many years now - he threw a
| fit and fled to China in 2016 when the NHTSA sent him a Special
| Order requesting test data for the Comma One product, which he
| then cancelled and released as pseudo open-source (the ML model
| is still a closed black box).
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Can you point me to the part that is closed? Last time I
| looked, there were just a bunch of weights.
| bri3d wrote:
| Isn't any ML model "just a bunch of weights," if you look
| at it right?
|
| So, where does "modelV2" come from here, in the part that
| plans the lateral steering action? https://github.com/comma
| ai/openpilot/blob/4ace476f14bb73c354... . It's a model. A
| video frame goes into the model, and somehow the desired
| path comes back out. That's the core of the driving system!
|
| Here's an analysis of one of the closed parts:
| https://medium.com/@chengyao.shen/decoding-comma-ai-
| openpilo...
| db374837 wrote:
| Yours is the very essence of a HackerNews comment. Comma is
| everything a startup should be. They are not wrapping a lame
| business model in CRUD and living off of malinvestment. They
| are solving ridiculously hard problem with a small team of
| very smart people. Their competition has burnt billions.
| Meanwhile, Comma is profitable, has a better safety model
| than anyone.
|
| Hotz is a legend and is not running from anyone.
| yannoninator wrote:
| > pseudo open-source (the ML model is still a closed black
| box).
|
| ?
|
| I am confused with this statement. Sure the ML model is a
| black box, but it's better than closed source completely with
| no model. It's more realistic to build the software yourself
| than training your own self driving ML system.
|
| I would still class this as still 'open source'.
| bri3d wrote:
| The most fundamental part of the system, the one which
| makes driving decisions, is not open. I did not say
| anything about whether or not this was "better" than the
| product being fully closed source, only that it is not
| truly open, and I fully believe this. "Open source
| autopilot" implies to me that the autopilot is open - that
| an end-user can inspect, audit, and attempt to understand
| the decisions their vehicle is making. This is not the case
| for Comma - rather, it is an open-source CANbus translation
| layer attached to a closed source autopilot.
| jeremycarter wrote:
| Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. I've looked
| through some of the code and I think for me to buy into the
| safety the quality of the code would need to be improved, well
| commented, and audited.
| crazypython wrote:
| > Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car.
|
| It uses CPython, which is reference counted, letting them
| ensure predictable timing/hard real-time system.
| teraflop wrote:
| CPython includes both reference counting and a stop-the-world
| tracing garbage collector. You can turn off the GC -- and
| openpilot appears to do so[1] -- but the tradeoff is that any
| objects that are part of reference cycles will be leaked, and
| will not be deallocated until the program exits.
|
| Anybody want to place bets on how many of these
| dependencies[2] have been audited to determine whether they
| can create cyclic references?
|
| [1]: https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/master/common/
| real... [2]:
| https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/master/Pipfile
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > hard real-time system
|
| It's running on Android.
| leesec wrote:
| AFAIK, The safety controls are done in the Connector piece
| to the car, which uses C/C++.
| gkop wrote:
| You're replying to a joke I think.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Haha I just had a horrifying throught about troubleshooting
| broken virtualenv installs and deadlocked dependencies, while
| on the side of the road with a car that refuses to start.
| sosodev wrote:
| That actually sounds like a software developer horror story.
| Like goosebumps for devs.
| madamelic wrote:
| The real Goosebumps for devs is cars willing to take
| driving inputs over their built-in networks from outside
| the car.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0SrxBC1xs
| tomcam wrote:
| Username noted
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| To be honest, the driver assist can be removed with a single
| connection, it just uses your car's automated parking system.
| bri3d wrote:
| Plus, the actual driving model is a black box, so there's
| really not a lot here that's any more reassuring than any other
| black box lane-keep-assist system on the market, and there's
| been an active resistance to apply any form of rigor to the
| system or produce any actual test data from the Comma company
| for many years (with the argument being that the system is
| simply an augmented lane keeping system and is just a
| supplement to the driver etc. etc. and thus does not need to be
| held to any sort of standard of safety or compliance - where
| have we heard that one before?)
| wpietri wrote:
| It's not python I'm worried about here.
| focusgroup0 wrote:
| Would you drive to Tahoe in the snow with this?
| matthewowen wrote:
| Not sure that's the right question to ask. It takes two hours
| to get from San Francisco to Auburn, and it's highly unusual to
| have snow there.
|
| Setting aside that I80 is generally cleared of snow very
| quickly, two hours of lane assist seems nice before tackling
| the remainder. And in most cases, it's more like "use this all
| the way to truckee and then drive the last 30 mins to squaw
| valley"
| [deleted]
| almost_usual wrote:
| If I can use it with my 4x4 that has a winch.
| Gys wrote:
| https://comma.ai/faq
|
| Why even ask?
|
| Long trips means spending a lot of time boringly driving on the
| highway with clear weather. I do not care for help in the more
| difficult first 15 min or last 15 min. I care about having help
| during the many hours in between.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| It's still a perfectly valid question, how will this system
| work in the snow? Even flat featureless highways get covered
| in snow and ice.
| Gys wrote:
| You clearly missed my ref to their faq:
| https://comma.ai/faq
| betaclass wrote:
| But if you still need to keep your attention on the road,
| what is the actual gain?
|
| What else can you be doing that gets past the distraction
| detection?
| naebother wrote:
| That's interesting. I'm the complete opposite. Highway
| driving is the least taxing -- I can do it subconsciously.
| It's the more difficult first/last 15 mins of stop and go
| that I want automated. I could care less about the highway in
| clear weather. I might even enjoy that bit occasionally.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I generally agree, but heading north on I-5 from LA to SF
| is bumper to bumper traffic constantly swinging between 50
| MPH and 75 MPH. Normal cruise control is worthless here
| because you're never going the same speed long enough to be
| a net benefit. I would absolutely love adaptive cruise
| control plus semi-automatic steering in that one scenario.
|
| Stick me out in the middle of nowhere and I'm perfectly
| content driving for hundreds of miles straight. I don't
| find myself in that too often now, though.
| chairmanwow1 wrote:
| I thought the same until I tried a good L2 system. ACC and
| LKA are pure value adds. Lower the number of moments where
| your focus snaps back in as you are meandering out of the
| lane or creeping up on the person in front of you.
| [deleted]
| crazypython wrote:
| If self-driving companies really believed in their product, they
| would bundle car insurance that only works when self-driving is
| on with the product, and it would be cheaper than normal car
| insurance.
| gkop wrote:
| In fact we have the opposite, where MetroMile advertises lower
| premiums, while conveniently occupying your ODB2 port, without
| providing pass-through, preventing the use of Comma's product
| (this honestly makes me consider switching from Geico to
| MetroMile, so I'm not subsidizing Comma customers, but there
| are other issues with MetroMile...).
| Black101 wrote:
| Too bad they don't support Mazda
| rvz wrote:
| Their business is not only taken less capital, but they have also
| just become profitable even with selling hardware which I find
| that impressive, unlike their other competitors who have either
| shutdown or have been acquired. As for their autopilot system,
| they are self-hosting their deep learning training systems (Not
| in the cloud but in-house) and their competition is literally off
| road and non-existent (expect for Tesla).
|
| The consumer report on comma.ai is also very interesting and
| outstanding: [0]
|
| One of the rare startups I've seen that are able to do this with
| less funding and still profitable with hardware. That's how you
| do it. Well done.
|
| EDIT: So the above is not true about comma.ai? As for the report,
| it shows the overall results of the design of assisted driving
| systems and the test results for comma.ai overall is that it is
| ranked 1st. For a startup with less capital than its competition
| it is very rare to see this especially with its own hardware.
|
| [0] https://data.consumerreports.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/11/...
| exhilaration wrote:
| For the lazy, jump to page 7 of the above PDF (labeled page 6
| in the doc), the section is called "Overall Ratings Results".
| The 3 highest scores are:
|
| 78 - Comma Two Open Pilot
|
| 69 - Cadillac Super Cruise
|
| 57 - Tesla Autopilot
|
| Well done indeed.
| mmglr wrote:
| Is the device running Android or something else?
|
| I understand this is marketed as a "dev kit". And I understand
| the cost benefit for shipping a COTS OnePlus phone to provide the
| camera and UI. But I wouldn't buy one of these due to how much
| windshield visibility is blocked by the device and the wire
| dangling from the headliner.
|
| It would be better to have the camera and wiring hidden away next
| to the rear view mirror similar to how other driver assist
| cameras are packaged, with a CAN connected processing box in the
| glovebox (so audible chimes can be made), and infotainment screen
| integration for the UI (perhaps as an Android or CarPlay app).
| delightful wrote:
| Is it correct Comma.AI sees this as the following statement below
| appears to say, or am I missing something? If so, why would
| anyone be using this product outside of a test environment that's
| fully controlled?
|
| --
|
| "Any user of this software shall indemnify and hold harmless
| comma.ai, Inc. and its directors, officers, employees, agents,
| stockholders, affiliates, subcontractors and customers from and
| against all allegations, claims, actions, suits, demands,
| damages, liabilities, obligations, losses, settlements,
| judgments, costs and expenses (including without limitation
| attorneys' fees and costs) which arise out of, relate to or
| result from any use of this software by user. THIS IS ALPHA
| QUALITY SOFTWARE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A
| PRODUCT. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH LOCAL LAWS AND
| REGULATIONS. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED."
|
| SOURCE:
| https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/devel/README.md#su...
|
| --
|
| EDIT: Here is the terms of use too, which appears to align to the
| prior legal clause above:
|
| https://my.comma.ai/terms
| derision wrote:
| it's pretty cleared being sold as a devkit. would you buy a PS5
| devkit and expect it to be exactly the same as the retail PS5?
| I don't understand the issue here
| grenoire wrote:
| No, I would expect the devkit to be superior to the retail
| product. That's not the word you're looking for.
| slg wrote:
| "Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks
| down, the pirates don't eat the tourists." ~ Ian Malcolm
| serf wrote:
| it's interesting to read Jeff Goldblum's characteristic
| staccato translated to text.
|
| I hadn't thought about how I would have written it out.
| db374837 wrote:
| Comma's driver monitoring is the best in the industry. It
| is not at all unsafe.
| mikeryan wrote:
| I have a PS5 devkit and develop apps for it. Yes I expect it
| to be exactly like the retail PS5 - or what's the point?
| stunt wrote:
| They are selling this product as a dashcam for obvious reasons.
| The autopilot feature is an experimental feature that you have
| to enable yourself on your own risk.
| coddle-hark wrote:
| The latest commit in the repo [0] right now is "should work"
| (34ff295). Filtering by "bug" in the issue tracker gives:
|
| _Comma two freeze and reboot while engaged_. I recently had an
| incident on the interstate where my comma two froze completely
| (while engaged) and rebooted. The video froze, Comma 's
| steering torque turned off, then after about five seconds in
| this state, the device rebooted.
|
| _Zygote restarting while OP active_. So for the past couple
| months, after a couple days of uptime, the comma two offroad UI
| will glitch out. The buttons respond with highlighting upon
| touch, but everything else stops working. ... This time, I left
| the comma two to bask in its glitched state and this ended up
| happening; the comma two had the spinning logo, while ALSO
| still driving my car. In the video below, I nudge the wheel to
| cause on purpose ping pong to prove it was still steering.
|
| _Spontaneous disengagement /reboot_. Cruising on expressway
| and OP spontaneously disengaged and the comma2 rebooted
|
| _Hard braking while following the lead car_. Was following the
| lead car on a highway traffic jam, that car was going without
| lights so might be a reason. Braking was really hard when he
| stopped, almost hit him ) I had a feeling that C2 don 't see it
| at all.
|
| What's more worrying is that Comma's response is often either
| a) declare it a hardware failure or b) basically a WONTFIX:
|
| _Comma support 's response is to return/exchange the unit due
| to presumed hardware failure. It would be nice to know what
| exactly happened but I get you can't thoroughly investigate
| every anomaly. Folks at @commma feel free to close this issue._
|
| _@Torq_boi said that it is not a model bug, but old known
| problem with no time to brake as lead car accelerated and
| braked fast. (So could INDI tuning fix that problem?)_
|
| _Closing this issue since it probably was hardware failure._
|
| _If it happens a lot it 's usually a hardware failure. But try
| running openpilot release instead of dragonpilot before drawing
| any conclusions._
|
| [0] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot
|
| Edit: Formatting.
| bko wrote:
| Cool. Now do Volvo Pilot Assist.
|
| Comma.ai is trying to do big things and I hope they succeed.
| No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with a
| car and I have little faith in auto manufacturers to deliver.
|
| Lane assist technology exists. Look at consumer reports for a
| comprehensive review [0] (comma.ai was #1 in lane assist,
| above even tesla). They are open about their mistakes, issues
| and tradeoffs, much more so than other companies. I don't
| think its right for engineers use this as a cudgel to beat
| them over the head.
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-
| ranks-t...
| Miraste wrote:
| > No reason self-driving technology should be bundled with
| a car
|
| It seems to me that there are many reasons it should be
| bundled, and I'll bet that in the long run all self-driving
| cars will be integrated systems. It's not a good place for
| inconsistent installations or a modding mentality--imagine
| multiplying Uber and Tesla's programs a thousandfold with
| fewer resources and less accountability.
| gkop wrote:
| The difference is that Volvo does not disclaim liability.
| bko wrote:
| Oh I didn't know that.
|
| Can you point me to their liability policy?
|
| [EDIT] this was the best I could find
|
| > You are always ultimately responsible for driving in a
| safe manner, even when using Pilot Assist.
|
| https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/topics/use-your-
| car/car...
|
| I don't think comma.ai should be faulted for being open.
| I have trouble finding any statements on liability on any
| other lane assist technology. Would love to be proven
| wrong with an actual policy.
| mrtksn wrote:
| So it's like Tesla?
| brianwawok wrote:
| Like 20% of the features only for certain cars. Pretty bold
| claim ;P
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's for 1/10th of the price, so twice better then? Just
| kidding, my point is that Tesla is selling it in about the
| same terms. Beta software for extra money, no guarantees.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Not sure that is true, you are comparing apples to
| oranges. Beta on Tesla is for FSD.
|
| Autopilot = lane keep on the highway, it's as mature as
| lane keep is on Toyota or Honda. It's also included for
| no additional cost in all tesla, so it's actually 100%
| cheaper.
| cbracketdash wrote:
| It is still very early in its development stage so they do not
| want much liability.
| agumonkey wrote:
| did they ever ?
| 23iofj wrote:
| Most software developers have mostly operated in largely
| unregulated domains, so there's a _MIS_ understanding of how
| manufacturer responsibility works in industries like
| automotive. Saying "I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING" in the
| automotive software space is the product liability equivalent
| of Michael Scott screaming "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY" in The
| Office.
| Closi wrote:
| Well, their legal technique is a little more nuanced.
|
| They are selling a product which is a legal and legitimate
| driver assistance tool which does not have autopilot.
|
| You, as a user, can then modify the device by flashing
| unregulated code onto it to give it autopilot code, which
| is not advised by comma.ai *wink wink*
| 23iofj wrote:
| I expect this to end about as well as it did last time.
|
| 35 million miles is statistically meaningless.
| database_lost wrote:
| 2021 best comment so far :))
| ta8645 wrote:
| Nobody ever wants any liability if they can help it. But they
| shouldn't be marketing a product if they can't stand behind
| it.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| This. I could understand an early access game "it can shut
| down any time" but this is kind of my/family/friends lives
| on the line.
| 3327 wrote:
| I remember the founder interviewed me to be CEO, when he hit
| the investment and publicly insulted Papa Elon for kudos and
| bad assness. The guy was a jerk on the phone and 10 mins in I
| told Him to piss off and thought to myself "wow - who would
| work with this guy" he's been at it since 2016 so glad it
| didn't flop, but looks like he ate his words to Papa Musk.
|
| Nothin' like some good old humble startup pie.
| slg wrote:
| >THIS IS ALPHA QUALITY SOFTWARE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY.
| THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT.
|
| It is weird that one of the only things I see above the fold on
| the company's home page is a "Buy Now" button considering they
| don't actually sell "a product".
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really
| have it both ways.
|
| Either you're selling something and taking some
| responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that
| you don't want people to use on the road.
|
| This comes across as them selling a product they know could
| fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible
| for any of it.
|
| Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we
| have millions of miles driven on it and obviously expect you
| to do so.
|
| I'd think they'd be better off with some sort of honest
| policy around this that they could actually defend, but I am
| not a lawyer.
| Closi wrote:
| It's because the standard product doesn't have autopilot,
| they sell a driver assistance tool. The tool they sell does
| not have autopilot.
|
| The device is open, and you can flash with their open
| source code from GitHub to give you hacky autopilot. This
| is how they get around the legal issue.
|
| It's like a "we sell you a legal product. We advise you
| don't flash this code on it which we are hosting on GitHub
| _wink wink_ "
| cortesoft wrote:
| Curious to see if a court would buy that argument.
| Pasorrijer wrote:
| Reminds me of university. "No officer, we weren't selling
| tickets to the keg, we'd need a license to sell booze.
| We're only selling cups for $5, the beer is free!"
| almost_usual wrote:
| Welcome to the world of aftermarket vehicle modifications.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| I think their distinction is that they're selling the
| hardware, which is capable of controlling the car just
| fine. So the thing you're paying for is delivering as
| promised. The software is a separate project, and you could
| theoretically load whatever software on the hardware you
| wanted. So the fact that the software is glitchy is not (in
| the view of the company) something you can hold them
| responsible for. You paid for hardware, you got hardware.
| What you do with it is up to you.
|
| This is at least what I remember from a years old Wired
| article when the comma one was being developed.
|
| Whether that will actually hold up in court is TBD,
| considering how closely coupled the software is to the
| company and hardware.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| I think its just them trying to fend off those people that
| are looking for anything to sue companies. Telsa gets these
| lawsuits all the time, but they have a bunch of lawyers to
| deal with it.
| buran77 wrote:
| > Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really
| have it both ways.
|
| I don't think they would have any legal problems due to
| this. They sell it but clearly label it as experimental,
| for research only, and urge buyers to comply with local
| regulation. And the law pretty much everywhere states that
| the driver is responsible for driving the car and for the
| outcomes of any modification brought to the car that was
| not pass homologation.
|
| Tesla is a real example that passed this test. Their
| marketing language brands AP as "fully self driving, some
| features unavailable due to local laws". The "wink wink"
| may be obvious for the buyer but not in the eyes of the
| law. Letting the car drive itself is the driver's failure,
| not Tesla's. Tesla can at most be held responsible for
| misleading advertisement and ordered not to use specific
| language (as it actually happened).
| fossuser wrote:
| > "Tesla is a real example that passed this test. Their
| marketing language brands AP as "fully self driving, some
| features unavailable due to local laws"."
|
| This isn't true, FSD has always been a 'coming soon'
| feature you can prepay for distinct from autopilot.
| Autopilot has always been advanced lane assist.
| "Autopilot" in planes just holds the same flight pattern
| and doesn't really do anything sophisticated, autopilot
| in Tesla is similar.
| tjoff wrote:
| > This comes across as them selling a product they know
| could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be
| responsible for any of it.
|
| _Exactly_ the same as Tesla then?
|
| Though I do think they are both terrible reckless.
|
| "The driver is always responsible" might or might not be a
| good enough legal scapegoat, but morally inexcusable.
| fossuser wrote:
| Not at all the same as Tesla.
|
| Tesla expects you to use its product on the road and
| expects it to work within the constraints they tell you
| with you also paying attention.
| tjoff wrote:
| > "with you also paying attention."
|
| So no guarantees whatsoever then. Because you are always
| responsible and are always expected to recover from
| anything the autopilot might ever come up with.
|
| Teslas do fail in deadly ways. Everyone that cares to
| look knows this. Yet Tesla is fine with it, even while
| knowing that humans can't reason about safety when the
| car drives perfectly the other 99% of times.
| jryle70 wrote:
| > Because you are always responsible and are always
| expected to recover from anything the autopilot might
| ever come up with.
|
| That's always been the case for any driving assistance
| systems that automakers offer, AFAIK. Do you object to
| the state of driving assistance in general or just how
| Tesla implements it?
| luplex wrote:
| Tesla guarantees that an attentive driver can safely take
| control.
|
| Comma does not.
| bko wrote:
| > This comes across as them selling a product they know
| could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be
| responsible for any of it.
|
| This is just a safety precaution. Why wouldn't they put
| this in there? It may not hold up in court but it can't
| hurt. I don't think this means they "know it could fail in
| dangerous ways".
|
| The safety model in comma.ai is actually quite brilliant.
| It can't perform any action faster than you're able to
| correct and disengage. To test it, they have someone drive
| while a malicious passenger seat has full access of the
| controls as limited to by the software. The passenger then
| messes with the steering and acceleration without the main
| driver's knowledge. The driver has to prevent the actions.
| The torque limit is much lower than that of Tesla or other
| lane-keep assist tools.
| picks_at_nits wrote:
| "It may not hold up in court but it can't hurt"
|
| If you sell someone something with a nudge-nudge, wink-
| wink, and they get killed using it, it absolutely hurts.
| You may be able to weasel out of being held accountable
| for it, in which case it won't hurt _you_ , but the
| larger issue here is that this kind of misleading copy
| can lead to people making poor decisions.
|
| You may have put it in the fine print that it's not a
| real product, but the whole point of nudge-nudge wink-
| wink is to strongly imply that it's a real product worth
| real money, and thus you are going out of your way to
| encourage people to try it and take chances with real
| lives.
| bko wrote:
| What's the appropriate level of liability?
|
| If I buy a cell phone holder for my car, and it distracts
| me and I get into an accident? What if Car Play lags and
| i'm distracted and I get into an accident? What if radio
| plays an ambulance and I freak out and get into an
| accident? What if my sunglasses make me mistake a red
| light?
|
| This product does lane assist. It does a good job
| according to consumer reports [0], higher than all other
| lane assists. It doesn't detect stop signs or traffic
| lights or drive for you. It keeps your lane. It acts
| predictably and gives the driver enough time to react.
|
| Unfortunately the liability model is messed up. I think
| this product is relatively tame and should allow to
| exist. And you need to pay attention. They even have
| inward facing cameras to make sure you're paying
| attention, more than most other companies. They do
| everything they can to be safe but of course they're not
| stupid and they'll put in a sweeping statement on
| liability.
|
| This is really pushing forward the self-driving industry
| and is an incredible feat of engineering. It's much more
| open and transparent than every other lane keeping
| software, and it's being developed with a lot of thought
| and care from a talented engineer as opposed to some
| nameless faceless bureaucratic commission in Ford or some
| other dinosaur.
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-
| ranks-t...
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| Please don't doxx Ford engineers if you don't give any
| proof. There are hard working, ethical people working who
| don't want to kill people by lightheartedly pushing stuff
| on the road. Just because you don't know them does not
| mean they are not talented.
| greenrd wrote:
| I think you meant "diss", not "doxx".
| picks_at_nits wrote:
| I'm not gonna debate the "appropriate level of
| liability."
|
| My point has to do with what you're signalling. If a
| thing is alpha-level, and real humans can get killed, I
| wouldn't let random people buy it and use it in their
| cars, period.
|
| Informed consent is deeply problematic for a product like
| this: Very few people have the expertise to look at the
| code and the hardware and properly evaluate the risks,
| right down to understanding which kinds of edge cases
| need to be very carefully avoided.
|
| Unless you're vetting researchers and barring people who
| just want to save a few bucks and brag their car self-
| drives, you really don't know if every person who
| downloads the extra software really does grasp the
| implications of what they're consenting to.
|
| You might grasp the implications, and so might many
| people in this thread, but that doesn't guarantee that
| everyone does. THE AUDIENCE OF HACKER NEWS IS NOT A
| REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF SOCIETY.
|
| And we are talking about a product to be used on open
| roads: In addition to informed consent from the person
| who downloads the software, if they get into an accident
| with another vehicle, pedestrian, or cyclist, did any of
| those people consent to share the road with someone who
| installed alpha software on their device?
|
| Morally, I can't get behind a few disclaimers and a
| nudge-nudge, wink-wink for any kind of autonomous driving
| tech, even if it's "just" lane-keeping.
|
| ------
|
| Update: But to be clear, I am in favour of people
| tinkering with all sorts of digital automotive tech, and
| we really should find a way for lone inventors or small
| teams to innovate without the "enterprise outfits" using
| regulatory capture to drown small competitors with red
| tape.
|
| I'm only arguing in favour of truly informed consent,
| which I believe is tricky for driver assistance
| technology being provided to arbitrary customers.
| bko wrote:
| So your main problem is about the disclaimer and that its
| called alpha. I provided a source that rates it the best
| product among all other competitors and the highest score
| on keep driver engage. And they have the most miles of
| any other lane assist technology. So I think its safe. I
| think the alpha is more tongue in cheek and is not a term
| that means anything really apart from, as you say, a wink
| and a nod.
|
| For the laymen user, they won't read the disclaimer or
| understand what Alpha means or even know that is is
| "alpha". I'm an engineer and I probably won't ever really
| audit the code. I will do my research like most other
| people, read online reviews or testimonials like Consumer
| Reports.
|
| So are you against all lane assist technology? How about
| auto-braking? Anti lock breaks?
| tedivm wrote:
| That line only exists in their Git Repository, which contains
| the latest code. That line does not exist on their website.
|
| If you want to use software directly out of someone's
| development git repository then yeah, you're going to get
| alpha level code.
| [deleted]
| madamelic wrote:
| 98% of that is boilerplate language for any product you use.
|
| The uppercase is legalese to wiggle out of responsibility.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| I don't want to wiggle into a car crash.
| whatyesaid wrote:
| The whole point is they're selling you some hardware only (a
| modified Android), and it's legal if you yourself modify your
| own car or something. You have to manually install the software
| and mount it physically after buying this.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/28/comma-ai-cancels-the-comma...
|
| It seems well-tested and safe though, not something sizzling
| out the lab, they're just using a legal loophole.
| jordache wrote:
| wait so many normal cars now have steering motors that you can
| actuate via OBD??
|
| Is that just leveraging the lane keep assist feature on these
| modern cars? How much can that hardware steer for you?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Since the early 2000's most cars have been using a drive-by-
| wire system for steering. They aren't exposed on OBD2 though,
| that's just for legacy emissions. Most are on a CAN bus but
| there isn't some big standard to control them all--it's very
| much a manufacturer by manufacturer thing right now.
| bri3d wrote:
| This is only partially true - the only cars which used "real"
| drive-by-wire (wheel -> computer -> steering actuator) were a
| few Infiniti vehicles, and even then they had a clutch which
| could re-engage a physical steering column.
|
| Rather, a few cars in the early 2000s and many since the
| early 2010s or so offer electric power steering assist: the
| steering wheel is still very much connected by a physical
| steering column to the steering rack, and normal steering
| input is purely physical - there's just also an electric
| motor attached to the rack to provide the usual power
| steering boost. And, that power steering assist can be
| controlled over a non-diagnostic CAN bus to facilitate LKA.
| bri3d wrote:
| Yes, this is usually leveraging the LKA feature. Depending on
| the manufacturer/car the LKA generally has a torque limit (to
| allow the driver to override the system by hand, and prevent
| wrist injuries from steering input) and an angle limit.
|
| Most cars (none, that I am aware of) do not allow the steering
| motor to be actuated over the OBD port, the CAN bus containing
| the steering/LKA sits behind a diagnostic gateway that doesn't
| pass steering messages. You need to tap into this CAN bus,
| which in the Comma product is accomplished by the connector at
| the rearview mirror (usually used for the stock lane-keeping
| assist camera).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Most modern cars have something like lane assist yes, which
| moves the steering wheel for you. Many have automatic parking
| which also moves the wheel. So yeah it's built in anyway.
| BooneJS wrote:
| I tend to be a bargain shopper, but I don't put my life in the
| hands of most of my deals.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| Okay, anecdotes aside... What level of autonomy does this
| provide? Is it just basically lane assist?
| treelovinhippie wrote:
| Level 2. But it's rapidly evolving opensource software.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| There is a "tap to switch lane" which can do your lane changes
| but it's not automated (since there's only forward facing
| camera)
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| I've seen a few videos of it. It really is just a half step up
| from active lane keeping. It will proactively keep you centered
| and manage your speed with no interaction, whereas normal lane
| keeping only kicks in if you are about to drift out of the
| lane.
| elil17 wrote:
| Honda LKA keeps you centered and lets you take your hands off
| the wheel.
| leesec wrote:
| A "half step up" doesn't really do it justice. Most current
| LKA + Adaptive Cruise Control on cars will only keep you in
| the lane for a few seconds before requiring human engagement.
| The Comma Openpilot has already driven intervention free for
| hours.
| elil17 wrote:
| Yes, it's just lane assist that does a good job in a variety of
| situations that stock systems typically don't do well in.
| easton wrote:
| *$1,199 once you add in the required car harness to, you know,
| connect it to your car.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Adding the self driving option to a Tesla model 3 or S is up to
| what, like $3000 now? (on top of whatever extra tech package
| you have to add too) This is pretty competitively priced. A lot
| of folks spend more than that just on upgrading the stereo in
| their car.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Highway Autopilot is free and included on all current Teslas.
|
| For an additional 10k you can do a software upgrade to FSD
| which does things like lane changes, and autopark, and
| summon. Someday, it will also hopefully do this for city
| streets (15 public users are on a beta of it right now).
|
| But yah, you would never buy this on a Tesla, as the car
| includes a better version of it for free on all cars.
| anotheryou wrote:
| that's cables? or the 3D printed mount?
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| What an insufferable use of lowercase. I can't even identify the
| products in some text later on:
|
| ``` Your first three months of comma prime are free with the
| purchase of a comma two. ```
|
| Later...
|
| ``` The comma two and openpilot are currently compatible with
| dozens of cars with new models being added regularly. See if your
| car is compatible or check out our complete list of compatible
| cars. ```
|
| Why do first words of a sentence still get capitalization but not
| the actual proper nouns?
| beastman82 wrote:
| Shady alert: I just clicked on one of the testimonials ("Jason S
| Co") and it seems apparent that it is an employee of Comma, all
| retweets of comma's main twitter account.
| madamelic wrote:
| Yeah, all three of the testimonials seem to be comma.ai
| employees. That's an awful look.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| Pretty sure this statement is incorrect
| netrus wrote:
| The second one is true for sure.
| leesec wrote:
| If you're concerned, there's also hundreds of hours of it being
| used on youtube by real users.
| cyrux004 wrote:
| I dont think there is an employee named Jason. Employees are
| active on discord and github.
| rvz wrote:
| Here's a real testimonial: [0]
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26147102
| beastman82 wrote:
| Just clicked on another and... it's another Comma retweet
| factory. This is a super shady business!
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26146361
| (not many comments but the Twitter link has info).
|
| A thread from last year:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21986315
| thethethethe wrote:
| It seems like the market for a product like this (augmenting
| older vehicles) will diminish over time as more and more vehicles
| come with these features plus rolling updates and more advanced
| sensors standard.
|
| If this proves to be the case, I wonder what the company will do
| to pivot
| trulyme wrote:
| Not sure why the downvotes, it is a legit risk for this
| business. Remember how one could convert analog SLR cameras to
| digital with some kits? It wasn't a success story...
|
| EDIT: at least not for long.
| stjo wrote:
| Sell directly to manufacturers? Nearly no one (except Tesla)
| has anything coming in the near future. Why anyone they pay
| billions to develop the technology in-house if they can just
| pay Comma.ai to integrate a sub $1000 thingy in their cars.
| bri3d wrote:
| I don't think Comma would pass compliance as any control-
| related automotive system, much less a self-driving one, at
| any established automotive manufacturer in a regulated market
| (US, EU). The code isn't written to any commercial audit
| standard that I can tell, the hardware is COTS mobile phone
| hardware, and change management and testing (in a formal
| sense) seems pretty much non-existent. Most manufacturers
| demand compliance with standards like ISO 26262 for liability
| reasons. Arguments about the value of these kinds of
| standards aside, it's vanishingly unlikely that any mature
| automaker would buy Comma's product as it stands - a major or
| nearly complete overhaul would be required. Now, that's not
| to say they couldn't sell into a less-mature company or one
| in an unregulated market, but I don't think the opportunity
| for them is as great as it seems.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Nearly all luxury brands have had lane keeping for years.
| Similar quality to what Tesla offers, just not marketed as
| broadly and typically not available on a model 3 kind of
| entry level. But at Tesla S price levels, all other
| manufacturers offer similar lane keeping and adaptive cruise
| capabilities.
| leesec wrote:
| So far there are only 2 car companies with comparable quality,
| Tesla, and GM with Supercruise ( available on only 1 model ).
|
| This is intended to provide functionality for all the rest
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Have you seen recent Volvo, BMW and Mercedes systems? They
| all have good lane keeping and adaptive cruise / stop & go
| for several years now. And I'm sure there are many more that
| I'm not aware of.
| lini wrote:
| Perhaps they are waiting for someone to buy them. Even though
| most of their software is open source, the crucial parts are
| still closed IP. If it is really better than the current LKA
| systems and has the potential to handle even more driving
| scenarios in the future, it will be an easy decision for a big
| auto company that needs to quickly catch up.
| stunt wrote:
| This is a link to the homepage. Is there a new announcement?
|
| What is new about this? AFAIK Comma.ai has this since at least
| 2-3 years ago!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-15 23:01 UTC)