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

181–190 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#181

Post by moralestapia »

Syonyk wrote: post #155
flutas wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a big issue with that instance (monorail) is probably because they just threw out years of radar data without having a comparable reliability in place with the vision only. Completely mental that they are allowed to run this on public roadways.

I'm not sure radar would help - the pillar is a stationary object, and car based radar tends to drop all returns at the same rate as the car is moving forward. Radar isn't terribly precise, so you end up with tons of returns off signs, bridge abutments, etc. Remember, with radar, Teslas will happily autopilot themselves into a semi truck across the road, stopped fire trucks, concrete road barriers, etc. I see no reas…

Here's what happened another time someone argued that "radar can't detect stationary objects".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16722461

Radar does detect stationary objects, come on.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#182

Post by mikestew »

minhazm wrote: post #127
carlmr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that surely is the description of 1% of the drivers. It should be better than the 1% worst drivers. It should be demonstrably safer than humans on average with a good margin.

Even if they accomplish that, people will move the goal posts. People are illogical and will see some edge case that self driving might perform worse at, but on an aggregate data basis it might be 10x safer than human drivers. People will see that 1 edge case and say that self driving cars are worse than humans.

That's an awful lot of presumption of "people"'s behavior toward a system that has failed nearly every promise made. There's no need to move the goal posts when the player isn't anywhere near it. I mean, if we're going to talk about someone moving goal posts around, how about the one claiming "full self-driving" for a system that isn't anything of the sort?

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#183

Post by j7ake »

cogman10 wrote: post #169
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 runni…

Imagine if algorithmic accidents had biases. For example, let's say a car tended to crash into children (maybe they are harder to detect with cameras), more often than adults. This type of algorithmic bias would be unacceptable no matter how safe FSD were on aggregate.

So you're right, the only bar to reach is perfection (which is impossible), because algorithmic errors have biases that will likely deviate from human biases.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#184

Post by Theodores »

Syonyk wrote: post #17
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.

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…

A century ago horses had Full Self Driving with the human having to be vigilant and in charge.

The horse could go crazy in scary situations endangering others but you could train that out and make a good war horse.

Basic stuff like following the road around a bend was something the horse could do but you could not tell it to autonomously go across town to pick someone up.

People were okay with horses and knew what to expect. Tesla need to rebrand autopilot to 'horse mode' and reset people's expectations of FSD.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#185

Post by dnautics »

moralestapia wrote: post #160
dnautics wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Come on, dnautics. This is not hard. You're neither an insider of said companies, nor are you a public figure with enough influence to actually manipulate the market.

I think the problem is that we expect the market to be fair. Because a lot of social systems depend "on the market" in really stupid ways. Maybe that's the real problem. If CEO's wanna lie, then we shouldn't trust them, but is it right for it to be illegal for them to do so? I promise you every CEO has lied (uncharitably, misreprented, charitably) at some point about their company. So in the end, it can come down to a matter of which CEO has the most political connections/political favor so as not to get jacked by the state that can arbitrarily choose to reinterpret a misrepresentation as a lie. I'm a person that actively gets politically disfavored (overrepresented minority, and all that) so that sort of shit scares the fuck out of me, since I would like to get a large amount of money to help change society for the better.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#186

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

AlexandrB wrote: post #157
mortenjorck wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monorail video is jaw-dropping. Nine versions in, I would expect ongoing challenges with things like you mention. But continued failure to even see large, flat obstacles is no longer something that needs to be fixed – that it has persisted this long (even after killing someone as in the case of T-boning a semi trailer at highway speeds) is an indictment of the entire approach Tesla has been taking to FSD. I used…

The monorail posts and planters would be trivially handled by LIDAR. Tesla's aversion to time of flight sensors often strikes me a premature given our level of planning/perception technology.

They should be trivially handled by stereopsis and structure from motion as well. Stereo+time photogrammetry has been solved well enough to not steer directly towards large obstacles for decades. Overreliance on machine learning pixel models to classify everything in view is the real problem.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#187

Post by throwaway-8c93 »

cs702 wrote: post #120

Many of the comments here seem a bit... unfair to me, considering that these clips were handpicked. I watched (and fast-forwarded) through a few of the original, full-length videos from which these clips were taken. The full-length videos show long drives (in some cases, hours long) almost entirely without human intervention, under conditions explicitly meant to be difficult for self-driving vehicles. One thing I rea…

FSD occasionally requesting driver to take over in genuinely difficult situations would be completely fine.

The videos in the Twitter feed are nothing like that. The car makes potentially catastrophic blunders, like driving straight into a concrete pylon, with 100% confidence.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#188

Post by bob33212 »

foepys wrote: post #165
bob33212 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are you proposing? If someone is overweight with high blood pressure and a higher risk for a heart attack we should take away their license?

These drivers are vetted and their usage is monitored, many are employees. In the long run automated driving will save many more lives than it takes. Just like automated elevators.

https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dr....

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#190

Post by camjohnson26 »

colinmhayes wrote: post #133
ASalazarMX wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well if you think of this closed beta as a way for Tesla to collect data about its program's shortcomings it's easy enough to see how releasing could save lives in the long run even it is takes some in the short run. Every day sooner that a 10x better self driving car comes is hundreds of lives saved.

And what if it gets stuck in a local maximum and never improves? Then you lost those extra lives for no reason, which consequently is what I believe has happened. At least 4 people are dead in preventable autopilot crashes, and the real number is probably over 10. For the number of Tesla’s on the road that number is way too high.

https://tesladeaths.com

Post reply on HN