Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#81

Post by gpm »

trangus_1985 wrote: post #27
gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The pedestrians had just started crossing, so it was in the wrong, but barely . It's the sort of manoeuvre that you see human drivers do all the time.

> so it was in the wrong, but barely when it comes to hitting pedestrians, i dont think you can shade that in terms of "barely". either it is or isnt

It fundamentally didn't hit pedestrians though, and wasn't on a course to.

It was on a course to illegally cut off some pedestrians.

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#82

Post by gpm »

notJim wrote: post #30
gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The pedestrians had just started crossing, so it was in the wrong, but barely . It's the sort of manoeuvre that you see human drivers do all the time.

If you look at the blue track on the screen, the car is indicating it's going to go straight, not that it plans to turn right. I think the word veer is applicable because it is sudden and unexpected. If this was only a mistimed right turn, I might feel differently.

I mean it does look like it got lost, but the blue line in the "this is what I'm sensing and going to do in the next 30 seconds" view started indicating a full turn the instant it started turning.

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#83

Post by gpm »

drooby wrote: post #19

Level 3+ requires AGI for unmapped non-highway roads. Change my mind.

AGI implies things like "motivations" and "feelings" not just understand of the world (i.e. beyond understanding other things "motivations" and "feelings"), it's a fundamentally different problem. Even if you think you need extremely good world understanding to make a self driving car, AGI is irrelevant (and would actually make it much scary, because an AGI is perfectly capable of deciding to intentionally kill you).

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#84

Post by notJim »

gpm wrote: post #82
notJim wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the blue track on the screen, the car is indicating it's going to go straight, not that it plans to turn right. I think the word veer is applicable because it is sudden and unexpected. If this was only a mistimed right turn, I might feel differently.

I mean it does look like it got lost, but the blue line in the "this is what I'm sensing and going to do in the next 30 seconds" view started indicating a full turn the instant it started turning.

I'm talking about on the right-hand-side, where it shows the route it's going to take. There's no indication on there it should turn right at this location. It looks like it should go straight through the intersection.

I see the display on the left side, which shows the car's trajectory, and it shows it's going to continue going straight and then suddenly switches to a turn. I would expect it to show that the turn is going to happen sooner, not suddenly switch from straight to turning.

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#85

Post by gpm »

Alupis wrote: post #16
gpm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a sign on this half of the traffic wire that looks like it might be saying "yes turns" (low resolution, but I can't imagine what the sign says with an arrow pointing right other then that)

That sign says "One Way". Not "yes turns"... I don't think I've ever seen a sign saying that, actually, it's either "No Turns" or no sign at all, since by default turns are allowed.

I've definitely seen signs that say "you can turn here" and "you must turn here", admittedly not with language but with arrows (the "you can turn here" signs around here looking like a forwards arrow with a curved arrow bending off). They're not in general use, only for weird situations (like "two turning lanes" or "yes really this really strange intersection does work like this").

Probably regional though.

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#86

Post by gpm »

awsthro00945 wrote: post #22
gpm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The pedestrians had just started crossing, so it was in the wrong, but barely . It's the sort of manoeuvre that you see human drivers do all the time.

The entire talking point of FSD is that it's supposed to be better than human drivers. This ain't it. >it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn. The definition of veer is "to change direction". This did that. Stop arguing semantics. >The pedestrians had just started crossing I fail to see how this matters at all. Even if the pedestrians hadn't started crossing yet, and were still on the sidewalk, it would…

> I fail to see how this matters at all.

Contrast it to "running into the pedestrians"...

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#87

Post by rndmind »

lmilcin wrote: post #57

"Not perfect". Yes, killing pedestrians is not perfect. I mean, seriously. You are too fucking optimistic guys. Go back to the drawing board. If your program can do that you are way off from the target. You can't write software on which innocent lives depend like you would write a startup AI showcase.

Just to clarify here. no pedestrians were hit, and no one died.

I am curious how many people died on the first airplanes and commercial airline travel ( from 1900 - 1950's )

Do you suggest that the government should have made commercial airline travel illegal until there were zero accidents?

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#88

Post by tzs »

obilgic wrote: post #3

Misleading/Exaggerated HN title. Not an illegal turn. No turn sign applies to the left lane, and it's a one way street

It looks like any entry of the car into the crosswalk would be illegal at that point. RCW 46.61.235, "Crosswalks", states:

> (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

The street it was turning and/or veering into is a one-way street abd so the entire width counts as "half of the roadway" and thus any pedestrian in the crosswalk counts as being "upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning".

You can only drive into the crosswalk if it is a two-way road, no pedestrians are in the part of the crosswalk on the side that you are driving, there are at least two lanes going the other way, and none of the pedestrians on the other side are in the lane on that side that is adjacent to your side.

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#89

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rndmind wrote: post #87
lmilcin wrote: post #57

"Not perfect". Yes, killing pedestrians is not perfect. I mean, seriously. You are too fucking optimistic guys. Go back to the drawing board. If your program can do that you are way off from the target. You can't write software on which innocent lives depend like you would write a startup AI showcase.

Just to clarify here. no pedestrians were hit, and no one died. I am curious how many people died on the first airplanes and commercial airline travel ( from 1900 - 1950's ) Do you suggest that the government should have made commercial airline travel illegal until there were zero accidents?

No, lmilcin didn't suggest that.

And your analogy is imperfect. How many people died on the ground from airplane crashes from 1900-1950? Probably, not very many. (Why does the difference matter? The passengers got on the plane, knowing - at least approximately - what the risks were. The people on the ground didn't voluntarily accept any risk.)

Re: Tesla FSD Beta 10 veers into pedestrians with illegal right turn

#90

Post by bagels »

diggernet wrote: post #80
GravitasFailure wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've dealt with similar but less extreme behavior in lane keeping systems where it senses the right-side reference veering away so it "corrects" and follows, causing a veer to the right, so it might not have been trying to turn but instead drive next to the crosswalk at the same distance it was from the curb. Regardless of what happened, that's a really bad bug to have.

Nope. Watch the dotted line ahead of the car on the left side of the screen. At the last moment, it suddenly removes the "continue on this road" line, and replaces it with a "go down the road to the right" line. It literally decided to make a sudden turn. You might also notice that while pedestrians and other vehicles are displayed on-screen, not a single one of the solid concrete pillars are displayed. That car is c…

I don't think it's drawing everything on the screen, regardless of whether it recognized those particular barriers?
Post reply on HN