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

211–220 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#211

Post by bumby »

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…

>"I'll do 99.90% of it correctly, you watch and catch the 0.1% when I screw up!"

Do you have thoughts on why this is? Is it because, almost by definition, the remaining 0.1% are the toughest problems so the hardest to catch/solve? Or is it a human-factors issue where people get complacent when they know they can count on the machine 99.9% of the time and they lose the discipline to be vigilant enough to catch the remaining problems?

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#212

Post by ahartmetz »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #192
throwaway-8c93 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know these are extract from multiple hours of video and it's a closed beta?

"The airplane rarely explodes! We're down to one explosion every 500 hours!"

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#213

Post by potatolicious »

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…

Yep, also over-promising that legacy cars with the "FSD-readiness" upgrade would be guaranteed to support FSD was a completely unforced error.

At this point it's pretty obvious none of the original "FSD ready" cars Tesla shipped will be able to handle L4/L5 autonomy hardware-wise. Arguably none of the cars currently rolling off the line will be either - others have made the point in the thread: while nobody has really cracked autonomy fully, other players (see: Waymo, Cruise) are clearly much further along with a very different sensor and compute suite than anything Tesla has shipped or currently ships.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#214

Post by joakleaf »

manmal wrote: post #159

Is FSD still operating on a frame-by-frame basis? I remember it was discussed on Autonomy day that the ideal implementation would operate on video feeds, and not just the last frame, to improve accuracy. When you look at the dashboard visualizations of the cars‘ surroundings, the model that is built up looks quirky and inconsistent. Other cars flicker into view for one frame and disappear again; lane markings come an…

There also seem to be general problems with objects disappearing when they are obscured by other objects, and then reappear later, when no longer obscured.

It is ridiculous, that the model doesn’t keep track of objects, and assume they continue with current velocity when they become obscured. It seems like a relatively simple thing to add depending on how they represent objects. You could even determine when the objects are obscured by other objects.

In 8.x videos I noticed cars shifting and rotating a lot over fractions of a second, so it seemed like they needed a Kalman filter for objects and roads.

Objects in 9.0 look more stable, but I still see lanes, curbs, and entire intersections shifting noticeably from frame to frame. So if they added time (multiple frames) to the model, it is still not working that well.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#215

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

moralestapia wrote: post #152
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 video is jaw-dropping. Who needs radar right? A few cameras are enough to discern gray concrete structures in the night, oh wait ...

They probably would be if they stopped using such shitty cameras. It always blows my mind that the cameras they use appear to be quite bad for the job.

> in the night

Purpose-built cameras can see better in the dark than humans can.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#216

Post by moralestapia »

dnautics wrote: post #185
moralestapia wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just so we can appreciate the whole spectrum.

A random dude made a post on reddit about how he planned to invest all of his meager (in comparison) savings into GameStop stock. The post caught on, we all know what happened, and he ended up being called by the SEC, accused of market manipulation, among other things.

https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/sec...

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#217

Post by cogman10 »

matz1 wrote: post #204
cogman10 wrote: post #169

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…

>They MUST be perfect for the general public to accept them No they don't, its far from perfect right now yet its available and you can use it right now provided you have money to buy it.

Incorrect. What you can buy now is driver assist. I'm talking about actual "no driver at the wheel" driving.

AFAIK, the closest there is WAYMO, but they are geo-fenced. There's also some fixed route low speed buses out there. However, there's no self driving you can purchase which allows you to, for example, nap while the car is driving.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#219

Post by Veserv »

cs702 wrote: post #174
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.

> ...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.

The rate of driving fatalities is ~1 per 60 million miles driven. At an average speed of 60 mph that would be ~1 per million hours. Even if we were to assume there would be only one fatality-inducing error per hour, 99.99% success rate would make FSD 9 100x more dangerous than the average driver. I do not remember the exact numbers, but that would make FSD something like 1000x more dangerous than the classic example of a deathtrap, the Ford Pinto.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#220

Post by jazzyjackson »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #15
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…

> 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…

Cars aren’t safe and robots don’t fix it.
Post reply on HN