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

391–400 of 502 posts

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#391

Post by studentrob »

zaroth wrote: post #267
Veserv wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mill…

The rub in Tesla's safety report is it compares Teslas to all makes of vehicles, including motorcycles and trucks, and all costs. A fair comparison would be to newer vehicles in a similar price range.

Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#392

Post by studentrob »

TheParkShark wrote: post #340
nikhizzle wrote: post #3

Does anyone have any insight as to why regulators allow a beta like this on the road with drivers who are not trained to specifically respond to it's mistakes? IMHO this puts everybody and their children at risk so Tesla can beta test earlier, but I would love to corrected.

Everyone and their children seems a bit hyperbolic. There hasn’t been an accident involving FSD beta 9, but I’m sure someone has been killed at the hands of a drunk driver today. I am failing to find any comments from you arguing for alcohol to be removed from shelves across the country? Why aren’t you pushing your regulators for that?

It's not hard to see the connection between FSD driving towards concrete pillars and the AP accidents on highways driving towards concrete barriers. None of this is hyperbole. FSD isn't a whole new system, it's based on AP. As Elon often says, they have been going for incremental improvements rather than the all-or-nothing approach taken by Waymo and others.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#393

Post by sbierwagen »

TheParkShark wrote: post #348
raisedbyninjas wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They currently charge $10k for FSD. Even if they don't drop any of their cameras and processing equipment, $500 LIDAR is a 5% increase. Is it just me or are we politely ignoring Musk's reluctance to admit his bold proclamations against LIDAR are the biggest factor in their design decisions.

Andrej Karpathy already explained they were getting too much noise from Radar. Adding LIDAR would only complicated it. Unless you have better knowledge than Andrej Karpathy, I’ll go with his word on this. Edit: nitrogen I can’t comment directly on yours, so I’ll ass it here. That’s a good goal to have and they tried that for well over two years. They found too much noise and confusion. If Radar says one thing and Vis…

Andrej works for Tesla, so yes, I don't believe him.

If he contradicted his boss in public, Musk would just fire him and hire someone who will repeat the party line. I won't believe anything he says about lidar until he's no longer at Tesla, or until they have a car that's not trying to ram concrete pillars.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#394

Post by sbierwagen »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #336
Invictus0 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's Full Self Driving package was between 8 and 10,000 dollars per vehicle. That should cover it.

The hardware suite is the same on every car nowadays. They want FSD to be a downloadable app like a subscription. Which means you would have to put LIDAR on every car even if it didn't convert to FSD. Also, Elon has gone on Twitter rants several times before against LIDAR. That horse has already left the stable and it ain't coming back.

>They want FSD to be a downloadable app like a subscription.

Well that's just too bad.

While I'm sure it would be inconvenient to their business plan, it remains the case that they're charging ten grand for that software patch, and have no possible argument relating to margin.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#395

Post by ggreer »

w0m wrote: post #70
dekhn wrote: post #55

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.

Self determination > logic. Look at the American Gun debate as an example; carrying for self defense makes you drastically less safe by most metrics. But people prefer to have the modicum of self determinism over more consistent statistical safety.

> carrying for self defense makes you drastically less safe by most metrics

You're probably referencing studies such as Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault[1], which looked at whether people who were shot were carrying a gun at the time. It did not differentiate between criminals who were carrying illegally and law-abiding citizens who had concealed carry permits. The selection effect in such studies is clear: Many criminals who carry guns are involved in shootings. Also, many people carry guns because they are at a higher risk of being a victim of violent crime. I have yet to find a study that corrects for these confounders.

1. https://sci-hub.st/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#396

Post by matz1 »

cogman10 wrote: post #328
matz1 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get to the so called "no driver at the wheel" driving you have to go through what you called "driver assist" stage, its a continuous improvement. So are you saying people accept it in the far from perfect driver stage now but won't accept it when it become so much improved "no driver at the wheel" stage ?

Correct. I'm saying that the "no driver at the wheel" stage must be flawless. I've seen some claims that it's "Good enough if it's x times better than a human driver" or "can drive n number of miles without an accident". However, both of those are not the metrics to measure. A "no driver at the wheel" package is good enough when it doesn't run over the neighbor's cat or Timmy on the street. Humans today make that mis…

Well see, I personally accept and support far from perfect no driver at wheel car. I doubt I'm a minority.

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#397

Post by potatolicious »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #317
potatolicious wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reall…

I think there's a clear space in North America for a viable L3 system. That is, completely hands-free driving at slow speeds (30-50mph) that allows me to eat a sandwich, respond to a few emails, and text on my phone without having to look at the road or grab the wheel every 15 seconds. Sure, ping me if I'm coming up on a construction zone or if it pours down raining. And don't worry about making unprotected lefts and…

Isn't what you are describing actually L4 autonomy? At L3 the human still needs to be attentive and ready to intervene at very short notice - so you definitely cannot eat a sandwich or text while in the driver seat.

L4 autonomy is where the vehicle is fail-safe. It cannot handle all conditions, but is able to recognize conditions it cannot handle and hand control back to the driver. Importantly if the driver is not responsive to takeover the vehicle can put itself into a safe state (mostly just means pulling over in a safe place). L4 is the minimum at which you can be fully distracted from driving.

I don't think Tesla has a viable path to L4 using its current hardware...

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#398

Post by cogman10 »

matz1 wrote: post #396
cogman10 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. I'm saying that the "no driver at the wheel" stage must be flawless. I've seen some claims that it's "Good enough if it's x times better than a human driver" or "can drive n number of miles without an accident". However, both of those are not the metrics to measure. A "no driver at the wheel" package is good enough when it doesn't run over the neighbor's cat or Timmy on the street. Humans today make that mis…

Well see, I personally accept and support far from perfect no driver at wheel car. I doubt I'm a minority.

You say that now, will you say that when (not if) a driverless car kills a kid or animal that a human wouldn't? Were you ok with Uber's killing?

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#399

Post by rytor718 »

nradov wrote: post #225
rytor718 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive been saying this for over a decade: we're working on the wrong problem right now with autonomous vehicles. Their chief obstacle is operating on the roads with humans . They need dedicated infrastructure where only autonomous vehicles operate. Anything short of this will be implemented in very restrictive, small, niche areas and never become the new way most people move around. Tesla and Uber, et al have taken thi…

I don't want my tax money wasted on that. In most urban areas there's simply no space for separate autonomous vehicles roads. Would rather see that money spent on maintaining existing roads and improving schools.

And thats fair, every locale gets a say on how their city functions. For myself, I'd rather not have my town made up primarily of private vehicles clogging up traffic. I'll take a trolley/bus/train/cab any day of the week if I can get to where Im going quickly. I suspect most people who have to commute feel the same way: the shortest, fastest transportation. Few want to spend hours of their day in any vehicle.

That doesn't mean I don't want any roads for private vehicles. Just that need not make up 99% of them. Even if we knocked that down to 75% of roads I think we'd see amazing positive impacts on every metric (except the private roads; those will continue to suffer from congestion until cities offer a better way to get people from A to B).

Re: Scenarios in which Tesla FSD Beta 9.0 fails

#400

Post by renewiltord »

nikhizzle wrote: post #3

Does anyone have any insight as to why regulators allow a beta like this on the road with drivers who are not trained to specifically respond to it's mistakes? IMHO this puts everybody and their children at risk so Tesla can beta test earlier, but I would love to corrected.

Because Tesla FSD accidents don’t kill people who were not party to the agreement. That seems intuitively fair to me.
Post reply on HN