Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

np.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 351 posts

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#181

Post by thomasjudge »

close04 wrote: post #162
rayiner wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. We're not even at the point where we're comparing safety rates. Can a Model Y drive through DC? Can it ignore traffic signals in favor of following hand signals from a uniformed traffic officer, or follow the directions of a construction worker having traffic in turns through a road that they've decided to turn into one lane? Can it deal with an unannounced presidentia…

It's because Tesla marketing material doesn't tell the whole truth, just the selected bit that sounds impressive. The conditions in which the Autopilot is safer than a human driver are so narrow and under so many restrictions that it's obvious it's less "self driving" and more "driver assist". Indeed, I also find it disingenuous to claim the Autopilot is safer than a human driver even if it actually can't function at…

It's because -in general- marketing material doesn't tell the whole truth, just the selected bit that sounds impressive.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#182

Post by x38iq84n »

tim333 wrote: post #164
tbabb wrote: post #60

I have been yelling about this for a long time: Tesla is not going to be able to deliver full self-driving as promised. They don't have the hardware, for one (ranging is terrible; they need stereo cameras), and second, their software strategy seems to be a dead end. They need sensor fusion. The system needs to make maximum use of all the information available to it: Where is the road striping? Where are the other car…

Musk is more optimistic than you - says late 2020 for sleep while the car drives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dEYm8hzLo&t=10m25s Also quite interestingly he says there will be a big jump forward in quality when they switch to their own computing hardware (18m40 or so)

> late 2020 for sleep while the car drives

Musk is often overly optimistic and he keeps underestimating the problem at hand. I call BS on this, it won't be ready in 5 or even 10 years. And then there is a regulatory approval.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#183

Post by madeofpalk »

tim333 wrote: post #164
tbabb wrote: post #60

I have been yelling about this for a long time: Tesla is not going to be able to deliver full self-driving as promised. They don't have the hardware, for one (ranging is terrible; they need stereo cameras), and second, their software strategy seems to be a dead end. They need sensor fusion. The system needs to make maximum use of all the information available to it: Where is the road striping? Where are the other car…

Musk is more optimistic than you - says late 2020 for sleep while the car drives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dEYm8hzLo&t=10m25s Also quite interestingly he says there will be a big jump forward in quality when they switch to their own computing hardware (18m40 or so)

> Musk is more optimistic than you

Indeed.

What Musk says and what Tesla delivers are two completely separate things.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#184

Post by kirse »

erobbins wrote: post #138

I think Tesla eventually has a catastrophic accident and is sued and/or criminally prosecuted into oblivion. I feel sorry for the people who are going to have to die for this to happen. This trope that humans are bad drivers is, in general, crap. Humans are very good drivers. The US has 7.3 deaths per billion km driven. This means if you drive 50km a day, every day, you are (essentially) guaranteed to die... after 75…

I feel sorry for the people who are going to have to die for this to happen.

I try to explain this to friends who are far too optimistic on self-crashing car technology. Self-driving cars (SDC) ultimately trade one class of problems that result in death (human-attention deficit) for another class of growing issues (sensor malfunctions/incapabilities, software defects).

Ultimately SDC deaths end up as bugs/features on some random devteam's backlog, and I have no desire to have a JIRA ticket named in my honor.

In my opinion, by the time all the money and effort is spent making SDC's capable of successfully driving from point-A to point-B in the near infinite possible conditions they could encounter, it would have been 50x cheaper to simply build a fully modernized high-speed rail network over existing highways and roads.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#185

Post by heavenlyblue »

FireBeyond wrote: post #174
slg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking about Teslas or Teslas being driven by Autopilot? Autopilot so far has a fatality rate of roughly 0.25 per 100 million miles. Just for information's sake the overall rate in the US in 2017 was 1.16 per 100 million miles. Although there are plenty of caveats that should prevent you from comparing those numbers directly. The national number is for all cars, all drivers, all conditions, etc while those dr…

Tesla drivers have the luxury of turning autopilot off in suboptimal conditions. Human drivers don't. Like you say, this number is really valuable only for Tesla marketing.

Tesla would have had 0 fatalities in total if the Autopilot disengaged just before hitting the barrier.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#186

Post by quickthrower2 »

slg wrote: post #169
rayiner wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are setting up a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between Autopilot and paying attention. The video above is an obvious example. It didn't result in an accident because the driver was paying attention and intervened. If you have to pay attention, then you might as well be driving.

This is just a silly argument to me. Would anyone suggest that cruise control is worthless because you still have to steer the car?

Cruise control is useful to me because it means I won’t accidentally speed. But having to hold the wheel means I need to pay attention. If the car is driving itself human nature means you might not pay attention. Also if the car does something weird you have to decide in a split second if it is because of a hazard you haven’t seen but the car has, or because the software went wrong.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#187

Post by disiplus »

robbiep wrote: post #151
disiplus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would not take those chances. if the self driving car is only slightly better then average driver in fatal accidents that's not good enough. most of accidents happen because of distractions (texting and so on) and if a self driving car is only slightly better then average driver I can get a lot better if I just don't use my smartphone while driving and don't sit behind a wheel tired. so it's not enough to be better…

You’re implying that agency is the element that is most desired. Ie if a human crashes and kills themselves/others, it is ok, because someone is at fault. If the car is anywhere from slightly to quite a lot safer, but accidents that result in injuries/deaths occur, then it is not ok. Psychologically you may feel this to be ‘right’ but I would prefer a world with less injuries and deaths all round. And one day the cou…

no I'm just saying that average is not good enough.

imagine lung cancer for example, if we take average then it's 6% risk taking smookers and not smookes, but if I decided not to smoke then it's 0.2%. so in this case I can do better for lowering the chances then when I would accept some other solution that would let us all have it at 5% witch might seem ok but not for me.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#188

Post by simple_phrases »

thomasjudge wrote: post #181
close04 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Tesla marketing material doesn't tell the whole truth, just the selected bit that sounds impressive. The conditions in which the Autopilot is safer than a human driver are so narrow and under so many restrictions that it's obvious it's less "self driving" and more "driver assist". Indeed, I also find it disingenuous to claim the Autopilot is safer than a human driver even if it actually can't function at…

It's because -in general- marketing material doesn't tell the whole truth, just the selected bit that sounds impressive.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't excuse them when users take Tesla at their word that their Autopilot feature is fully self-driving and end up in an accident and/or dead.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#189

Post by quickthrower2 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #175
tim333 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is more optimistic than you - says late 2020 for sleep while the car drives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dEYm8hzLo&t=10m25s Also quite interestingly he says there will be a big jump forward in quality when they switch to their own computing hardware (18m40 or so)

He's also said 2016. And 2018.

He likes even numbers.

Re: After 6 months of working fine, Tesla software update drives at barriers again

#190

Post by automathematics »

rayiner wrote: post #155
slg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between Autopilot and paying attention. The video above is an obvious example. It didn't result in an accident because the driver was paying attention and intervened. Also you aren't considering that other drivers can be the cause of a potential accident. You can assume that the other drivers on the road are average drivers with all the distractions that…

> You are setting up a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between Autopilot and paying attention. The video above is an obvious example. It didn't result in an accident because the driver was paying attention and intervened. If you have to pay attention, then you might as well be driving.

You definitely aren't doing your commute in a Tesla, then.
Post reply on HN