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

161–170 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#161

Post by cogman10 »

bobsomers wrote: post #92
serverholic wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are plenty of people in the AV space that routinely drive significantly better than this and are already doing completely driverless service in some geofences. The problem with Tesla's approach has always been that Elon wanted to sell it before he actually knew anything about how to solve it. It's lead to series of compounding errors in Tesla's approach to AVs. The vehicle…

Definitely agree on the sensor suite.

Even wanting to do things vision only is ok, but the cars simply don't have enough cameras for redundancy. You are a little rain or mud away from having a system that no longer operates.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#162

Post by flutas »

colinmhayes wrote: post #137
mritun wrote: post #123

Question: Would it be awesome if FDA allowed Pharma to conduct drug-tests like this? Put a "beta-2.9" on the vial and let people try it out... Some may die, be disabled or may linger in vegetative state life-long, but it was their choice afterall and the it can argued that medicinal side-effects are very small cause of mortality and hence long-term the "public beta tests" will make drugs more effective and save more…

I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. If you're asking whether that would be awesome if it lead to pharmaceutical innovations I think it would.

> I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it.

The pharma company could see results (self-driving car data) and figure out what caused the issues (details of the deaths in pharma, accidents in Tesla) and use that to make the next beta version.

I don't really see how that isn't an apt analogy.

It's called clinical trials for pharma the key point being it's opt in and doesn't affect anyone around the subject, unlike Tesla's autopilot beta.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#163

Post by manmal »

j7ake wrote: post #156

These spectacular fails weaken the rationalist's arguments that "as long as FSD achieves lower deaths per km driven (or any other metric) than humans" then FSD should be accepted in favor of human driving. Even if "on aggregate" FSD performs safer (by some metric) than humans, as long as FSD continues to fail in a way that would have been easily preventable had a human been at the wheel, FSD will not be accepted into…

I think this is already true though for highway driving. Highways are long and tiring, and the surroundings model is easy to get right, so computers have an advantage. Most manufacturers offer a usable cruise control which is safe and can probably be active 90% of the time spent on highways. I often switch it on in my 3yo Hyundai as an extra safety measure in case the car in front of me unexpectedly brakes while I‘m not looking there. Add to that a lane keeping assistant and lane change assistant, and you don‘t need to do much.

Except for when the radar doesn’t see an obstacle in front of you, eg because the car in front of you just changed lanes. That needs to be looked out for.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#164

Post by AlexandrB »

colinmhayes wrote: post #137
mritun wrote: post #123

Question: Would it be awesome if FDA allowed Pharma to conduct drug-tests like this? Put a "beta-2.9" on the vial and let people try it out... Some may die, be disabled or may linger in vegetative state life-long, but it was their choice afterall and the it can argued that medicinal side-effects are very small cause of mortality and hence long-term the "public beta tests" will make drugs more effective and save more…

I think the difference is releasing self driving provides the data Tesla needs to improve it. Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it. If you're asking whether that would be awesome if it lead to pharmaceutical innovations I think it would.

> Releasing a half baked drug doesn't help the pharma company improve it.

Sure it does. It identifies cases where the drug may have unexpected side effects so either the chemistry, dosage, or expected risk factors can be refined.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#165

Post by foepys »

bob33212 wrote: post #146
richwater wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally doesn't matter how well it does in 90% of situations when the other 10% can injure or kill people in relatively basic scenarios like the Tweets presented. I mean the car almost ran into a concrete pillar like it wasn't even there. > For BETA software, FSD 9 is doing remarkably well If this was a React website, that'd be great. But it's a production $40,000 multi ton automobile.

People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem. Are you OK with that or do you think we should attempt to fix that with software? If you do think you should attempt to fix that, do you understand that software engineering is a iterative process? It gets safer overtime.

> People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem.

That's a straw man argument. Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start and yearly medical and psychological check-ups would solve a lot of these problems as well.

> It gets safer overtime.

There is no evidence of this happening yet. It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. Remember that you only need to drive into a pillar once to die. Passing it 10,000 times before doesn't help when an update suddenly decides that the pillar is now a lane.

I'd be totally fine with Tesla testing this with trained drivers in suitable areas but giving this into the hands of amateurs is pure "move fast and break things", with "break" meaning ending lives.

The worst thing is: all of these videos feature sunny weather. How bad would it be in the rain? Ever tried to take picture in the dark with even light rain? Cameras are very bad at this.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#166

Post by [deleted] »

manmal wrote: post #163
j7ake wrote: post #156

These spectacular fails weaken the rationalist's arguments that "as long as FSD achieves lower deaths per km driven (or any other metric) than humans" then FSD should be accepted in favor of human driving. Even if "on aggregate" FSD performs safer (by some metric) than humans, as long as FSD continues to fail in a way that would have been easily preventable had a human been at the wheel, FSD will not be accepted into…

I think this is already true though for highway driving. Highways are long and tiring, and the surroundings model is easy to get right, so computers have an advantage. Most manufacturers offer a usable cruise control which is safe and can probably be active 90% of the time spent on highways. I often switch it on in my 3yo Hyundai as an extra safety measure in case the car in front of me unexpectedly brakes while I‘m…

[deleted]

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#167

Post by DrBenCarson »

dnautics wrote: post #151
moralestapia wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Become the CEO/major shareholder of a billion+ dollar company. Step 2: Publicly lie about some purported acquisition with the purpose of manipulating the stock of said company. We can talk after you've done that, from jail probably.

My point is, I can lie about purported acquisitions of companies now.

As a publicly accepted absolute source on said company?

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#168

Post by cptskippy »

j7ake wrote: post #156

These spectacular fails weaken the rationalist's arguments that "as long as FSD achieves lower deaths per km driven (or any other metric) than humans" then FSD should be accepted in favor of human driving. Even if "on aggregate" FSD performs safer (by some metric) than humans, as long as FSD continues to fail in a way that would have been easily preventable had a human been at the wheel, FSD will not be accepted into…

> spectacular

There was nothing spectacular about those failures, I would say because the driver was attentive and caught/corrected the car. That's not to say some of these fails could not have ended in catastrophe, but to call them spectacular is quite the exaggeration.

One of those "spectacular fails" was displaying two stop signs in the UI on top of each other while properly treating it as one stop.

Using hyperbole like this only makes people ignore or dismiss your otherwise valid point.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#169

Post by cogman10 »

j7ake wrote: post #156

These spectacular fails weaken the rationalist's arguments that "as long as FSD achieves lower deaths per km driven (or any other metric) than humans" then FSD should be accepted in favor of human driving. Even if "on aggregate" FSD performs safer (by some metric) than humans, as long as FSD continues to fail in a way that would have been easily preventable had a human been at the wheel, FSD will not be accepted into…

Yeah, I've brought this point up in other locations.

It does not matter that any autonomous driving tech is safer than human drivers. They MUST be perfect for the general public to accept them. The only accidents they'd be allowed to get into are ones that are beyond their control.

Algorithmic accidents, no matter how rare they are, won't be tolerated by the general public. Nobody will accept a self driving car running over a cat or rear ending a bus even if regular humans do that all day long.

The expectation for self driving cars is a perfectly attentive driver making correct decisions. Because, that's what you theoretically have. The computer's mind doesn't "wander" and it can't be distracted. There's no excuse for it to drive worse than the best human driver.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#170

Post by camjohnson26 »

belter wrote: post #112
toomuchtodo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does open road snow count? https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/

Its an interesting video but its an edited video. The company website mentions the system was able to negotiate the challenges of the driving conditions, looks like an euphemism... Very few details, no scientific publications I could find on their Asimov system on a quick search, not sure if this is a technological breakthrough or a fine tuning of existing processes and methods. Because if its a fine tuning of curren…

Worth remembering that Tesla posted this “self driving” video in 2016. Editing can do amazing things. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

I’m actually shocked it’s on the website today, first frame says the driver is only there for legal purposes.

Post reply on HN