191–200 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, an autopilot should aim to be a peer with the best drivers, not with mediocre or bad drivers.
It's a limited beta with the goal of discovering error cases.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supposedly there are a "few thousand" FSD beta testers, and only a small fraction of them are videoing their drives and uploading them to YouTube. Beta 9 has existed for 2 days. This puts a pretty high lower bound on the serious error rate.
The consensus is that there far fewer than a few thousand
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…
Because Elon doesn't operate under the same jurisdiction as us common people. Try calling out a random diver a 'pedo', or perform the most cynical kind of market manipulation (then laughing to the SEC at their face) and your outcome will be very different. It's Animal Farm all over.
Not just any random diver, a diver who had just helped rescue the lives of several children and adults from what was an internationally known emergency.
If any of us had said what Musk said about the diver, we'd be rightfully dragged through the mud.
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.
> ...doesn't matter how well it does in 90% of situations... Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% or even 99.99% for FSD 9.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That said, there are going to be a lot of dead small animals due to autonomous vehicles. I'd hope that whoever develops the system has some good training data to stop it from hitting children.
The issue will be that it's going to be real hard to make a system that can tell the difference between a plastic bag and a poodle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been a common assertion about Tesla's "leadership" in the field - that they can learn from all the cars, push updates, and obviously not have to experience the same issue repeatedly. It's far from clear, in practice, if they're actually doing this. If they have, it would have to be fairly recent, because the list of "Oh, yeah, Autopilot always screws up at this highway split..." is more or less endless. GM's…
RE: determining what humans did was right to take over It's a QA department. If there is a failure hot spot, then take a bunch of known "good" QA drivers through that area. Assign strong weight to their performance/route/etc. It's interesting reading through all this, I can see a review procedure checklist: - show me how you take hotspot information into account - show me how your QA department helps direct the softw…
No. If the car cannot handle random obstructions and diversions without external data, it cannot be allowed on the road.
Construction is often enough planned ahead of time, but crashes happen, will continue to happen, and if a SDC can't handle being routed around a crash scene without someone having updated some cloud somewhere, it shouldn't be allowed to drive.
First responders need to deal with the accident, not be focused on uploading details of the routing around the crash before they can trust other cars to not blindly drive into the crash scene because it was stationary and not on a map.
And if you can handle that on-car, which I consider a hard requirement, then why not simply use that logic for all the cases involving detours and lane closures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is, if humans were held to the standards machines are, we wouldn't let them drive. If you offered me a car that drove itself, and statistically, it killed people at the same rate as humans, but let me not have to drive, I'd take that. Nobody everybody agrees.
> I think the idea is, if humans were held to the standards machines are, we wouldn't let them drive. But the reverse is true. Humans receive driving bans and even criminal penalties for the sort of driving errors autonomous systems make without penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is already true today of human drivers because of the tall SUVs that are so popular. Do you think matching biases will be acceptable?