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

261–270 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#261

Post by alkonaut »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #113
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. It's important to point out that this software is currently only offered as a private beta to deliberately selected testers. Now, maybe they shouldn't be using it on public roads either, but at least it's not available to the general public.

It's being tested with the general public the oncoming lane, so it's effectively tested "on the public" even if at limited scale.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#262

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

brianwawok wrote: post #252
flowerlad wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have redundant sensors and crosscheck them? Boeing 737 Max had only one AOA sensor [1], and that wasn't a great idea. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/boeing-sensor-737-ma...

Right, so what happens when one says wall, and one says clear air? You brake? That is what happens now with phantom braking. Approaching a bridge? camera sees air, radar sees wall, slam on brakes. You want the best sensor type over a high-fidelity sensor and a lower fidelity sensor. The Tesla system has 8 cameras (3 forward), so they def have overlap between what they are considering better cameras. Time will prove w…

The post I was responding to said lidar, not radar. But if you want to switch to radar, we can talk about that too.

> camera sees air, radar sees wall, slam on brakes

Seeing bridges as walls is not a fundamental property of radar. That's an implementation problem. If cars are doing radar poorly, maybe the fix is to start doing it less poorly instead of throwing it away entirely.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#263

Post by colinmhayes »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #240
colinmhayes wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 deaths is worth a 1% increased chance of achieving self driving a month earlier. Way more than 400 people a month die in car accidents.

I just don’t understand why people think a robot can improve on this. If you want to save lives, lower speed limits, build out public transit, and don’t hand out drivers licenses like candy.

I don't only want to save lives, I want to maximize utility. I think driving less would raise utility, but society disagrees, so this is the next best option.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#264

Post by FireBeyond »

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?

a closed beta of a system that is "orders of magnitude better, completely reimagined"... videos like this certainly don't seem to show revolutionary growth in the usability of FSD, indeed "more of the same".

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#265

Post by viraptor »

brianwawok wrote: post #252
flowerlad wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have redundant sensors and crosscheck them? Boeing 737 Max had only one AOA sensor [1], and that wasn't a great idea. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/politics/boeing-sensor-737-ma...

Right, so what happens when one says wall, and one says clear air? You brake? That is what happens now with phantom braking. Approaching a bridge? camera sees air, radar sees wall, slam on brakes. You want the best sensor type over a high-fidelity sensor and a lower fidelity sensor. The Tesla system has 8 cameras (3 forward), so they def have overlap between what they are considering better cameras. Time will prove w…

> Approaching a bridge? camera sees air, radar sees wall, slam on brakes.

That's simplifying the situation a bit too much. The camera can give more results than air/not-air. Specifically in this case it could detect a bridge.

Same applies to the radar really - you'll get measurements from multiple heights which would tell you that it may be an inclined street, not a wall.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#266

Post by mcguire »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #215
moralestapia wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"Cars driving at night are supposed to have headlights active."

And yet...

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#267

Post by zaroth »

Veserv wrote: post #219
cs702 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

We have actual statistics on how well humans do with Tesla ADAS and it’s remarkably well. The accident rate numbers are hard to compare apples-to-apples since miles driven with all ADAS features active are different from miles driven without the full ADAS active, but the numbers show that the software is absolutely not “1000x more dangerous”.

> In the 1st quarter [2021], we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#268

Post by 48snickers »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #51

Why are there so many comments from seemingly different posters all saying the same thing on this, "I don't understand why humans are allowed to drive cars"? It feels kinda... culty? Or too similar to be a coincidence. It honestly probably is but these Tesla posts always bring out those types and it confuses me. Humans kill humans, do we want machines to start doing it on the road automatically now too?

Part of the disconnect here is that the oft-repeated claims of how many miles have been safely driven by FSD versus humans is a bullshit number. Nearly every mile driven by FSD was driven by FSD AND a human that had to take the wheel when FSD failed.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#269

Post by mcguire »

Syonyk wrote: post #241
moralestapia wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, radar can easily detect stationary objects. Tesla's implementation of their radar processing drops all returns from anything stationary, given the forward speed of the car. In the context of a Tesla thread, I didn't think that needed to be specifically stated, but will do so in the future.

Because, clearly, anything stationary is ground clutter that can be ignored.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#270

Post by alkonaut »

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…

We accept shit drivers. We don't accept companies selling technologies that calls itself "Full self driving" (witha beta disclaimer or not) that hits concrete pillars. This isn't hard. It's not a mathematical tradeoff with "but what about if it's shit, but on average it's better (causes fewer accidents) than humans?". I don't care. I accept the current level of human driving skill. People drive tired or poorly at their own risk, and that's what makes ME accept venturing into traffic with them. They have the same physical skin in the game as I have.
Post reply on HN