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

Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#71

Post by Syonyk »

Geee wrote: post #65

It seems to estimate the surroundings pretty well in the new version, but the path planner still has issues. I'm not sure if they already do this, but I think Tesla should run FSD on all cars in shadow mode, and then use the FSD vector data and driver actions to train the path planner. Basically using FSD vector data as input and driver actions as output of the neural net. If the network can't reach confidence in cer…

I've been hearing for years now that this is a Tesla advantage, that they can run in shadow mode, learn from humans, and big data learn all the quirks of the roads so they don't have to learn them in the self driving system.

If this has been the case, evidence here is certainly lacking. Turning down a street one presumably hasn't seen a car drive down in this direction? Failing basic stationary obstacle avoidance because they're in the center of the road? Screwing up basic turn lane behavior?

Either they aren't taking the "years of learning" data into account, or, worse, they are - and even with all that correction, it's still this bad.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#72

Post by serverholic »

Syonyk wrote: post #11

I don't understand how something this broken is allowed to operate on public roads. If I drove like Tesla's FSD seems to based on the videos I've seen, I'd be pulled out of my car and arrested on (well founded) suspicions of "driving while hammered." After a decade of work, it's not capable of doing much beyond "blundering around a city mostly without hitting stuff, but pay attention, because it'll try to hit the mos…

We are going to need a fundamental breakthrough in AI to achieve the level of FSD that people expect. Like a convolutional neural network level breakthrough.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#73

Post by [deleted] »

w0m wrote: post #58
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand how something this broken is allowed to operate on public roads. Also out in a rural area. Running out to pickup lunch a few minutes ago, a young man flipped their old pickup truck on its side in an intersection, having hit the median for some reason. I too don't understand how humans are allowed to operate on public roads. Most of them are terrible at it. About 35k people a year die in motor veh…

dinddingding. Self Driving cars (Tesla; who is faaaar from it, among others) will kill people. But people are shitty drivers on their own; has to start somewhere and Tesla is the first to get anything close to this level in the hands of the general population (kind of, beta program is still limited in release))

[deleted]

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#74

Post by ethbr0 »

mbreese wrote: post #23
ethbr0 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safely operating a motor vehicle via a steering wheel, accelerator, and brake (and sometimes clutch and gearshift) is a completely different skillset than monitoring an automated system in realtime. Novel skill requirements include: interpreting FSD UI, anticipating common errors, recognizing intent behind FSD actions, & remaining vigilant even during periods of autonomous success.

I'm going to posit that none of those novel skill requirements are actually requirements. You don't need to interpret a UI, or recognize intent to know that the car shouldn't turn the wrong way on a one-way street or hit a planter. Anticipating common errors and remaining vigilant while driving is a requirement for all driving, not when dealing with FSD. If you are capable of driving a car safely to begin with, then…

What makes them required is the speed that a reaction is expected. In both the quick and velocity senses of the word.

Unless the user is able to understand and anticipate common reactions, the entire system is unsafe at >25 mph or so.

Or, to put it another way, I'd love to see the statistics on how many drivers can react quickly enough to avert an unexpected turn into an exit divider at 60 mph, after a number of days of interruption free FSD.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#75

Post by belter »

Syonyk wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is flying a helicopter on Mars arrogance? Launching reusable space launch vehicles that boost back to the landing site arrogance? I don't believe so. These are engineering challenges to be surmounted, just as safe robotic vehicles are a challenge, and its reasonable (I'd argue) for us as a species to drive towards solutions (no pun intended). Silicon Valley isn't going to suddenly become less arrogant, but that doesn…

Aviation and space are a very, very different problem space from surface street navigation, because they rely, almost entirely, on "nothing else being there." We've had good automation in aviation for decades. It doesn't handle anything else in the way very well at all, and while there's some traffic conflict avoidance stuff, it's a violent "Oh crap!" style response, nothing you actually want to get anywhere close to…

Show me Self driving on a closed track with snow or rain please.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#76

Post by reallydontask »

darknavi wrote: post #43
mrRandomGuy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you getting down-voted? There's literal videos depicting what you state. Is the Musk Fanboy Brigade behind this?

You guys can downvote?!

I think you need 500 karma before you can downvote

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#77

Post by w0m »

moojah wrote: post #20

This really isn't beta grade software, as it isn't feature complete as the failure scenarios in the video clearly show. I'd call it alpha grade, and it has been that for a while. It's not 2 weeks or whatever unrealistic timeline away from being done, as Elon has claimed for ever. 2 perhaps years if we're lucky, but given human and driving complexity probably way more before even the whole of the USA is reliably suppo…

>This really isn't beta grade software, as it isn't feature complete as the failure scenarios in the video clearly show.

I think it depends what they actually are trying to accomplish. This is Beta for a glorified cruise control overhaul; not a beta for promised RoboTaxi.

Musk/Tesla tend to talk about RoboTaxi then slip seemlessly into/out of 'but today we have low engagement cruise control!'.

Fair bit of hucksterism.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#78

Post by throwaway0a5e »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #67
optimiz3 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait till you read the stats and see videos of what humans driving cars regularly do!

Still, an autopilot should aim to be a peer with the best drivers, not with mediocre or bad drivers.

A peer with average drivers would probably be fine.

A peer with average drivers and doing completely nonsensical things every now and then is basically an average driver on their cell phone though and the verdict on that is that it's not fine.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#79

Post by ASalazarMX »

avalys wrote: post #7
nikhizzle wrote: post #3

Does anyone have any insight as to why regulators allow a beta like this on the road with drivers who are not trained to specifically respond to it's mistakes? IMHO this puts everybody and their children at risk so Tesla can beta test earlier, but I would love to corrected.

Because America does not yet require that its citizens ask mommy and daddy for permission for every thing they do.

Such crude trolling. Build a new house without a permit and see how that freedom feels.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#80

Post by Syonyk »

ethbr0 wrote: post #64
Syonyk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of human machine interactions makes it clear that if you have the human as the primary control (in the main decision loop, operating things) and the automation watching over their shoulders, it works pretty well. The opposite - where the automation handles the common case, with the human watching, simply does not work. It's not worked in aviation, it's not worked in industrial systems, it's not worked in…

That's a great way to put it! It should be indicative of the kind and volume of licensing and training we require of commercial pilots, in order to use a more limited and situationally simple autopilot. And we still get Boeing-style @&$#-ups at the UX interface.

The use of the term "autopilot" is particularly cute here, because any pilot who's ever used one knows that autopilots are dumb as rocks, can't really be trusted, and don't do nearly as much as non-pilots tend to assume they do.

"You go that way, at this altitude, until I tell you to do something different" is what most of them manage, and they do it well enough. Some of the high end ones have navigational features you can use ("Follow this GPS route or VOR radial"), and in airliners, they can do quite a bit, but you still are very closely monitoring during anything important.

"In the middle of the sky," yeah, you've got some time to figure things out if George goes wonky. During a Cat III ILS approach down to minimums, you have two trained pilots, paying full attention to just what this bit of computer is doing, both prepared to abort the approach and head back into the middle of the sky with an awful lot of thrust behind them if anything goes wrong. But in cruise, there's just not too much that requires an instant response.

Post reply on HN