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

101–110 of 130 posts

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

#101

Post by GravitasFailure »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #95
GravitasFailure wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure an extra alert would be helpful since it's either going to alert constantly on streets that twist and turn or it's going to think it's doing nothing wrong and not alert. Same for the turn signal.

I think it should. Having a car in front of you means that part of the view of the road is obstructed. IMO the veering car has a moral duty to signal to the next car especially if the veering is unexpected. Now the state law on signaling says "No person shall turn a vehicle..." but I can't find what the definition for "turn" is, so there may be no legal obligation, but I do see a social obligation.

You need to signal when you're leaving the lane or street you're currently on, not when it bends. Nobody ever signals on bends because that's sending bad information. Considering how erratic the car was with signaling and turning I really have no idea what it "thought" it was doing at all.

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

#102

Post by lmilcin »

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?

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

That because it drove slowly and the supervisor took IMMEDIATE control of the car. But it looked like it had every intention to drive into these people.

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

No. I suggest that government should ground commercial airplanes when they make stupid software mistakes that kill people.

Oh, actually they already do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

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

#103

Post by sidibe »

bagels wrote: post #28
awsthro00945 wrote: post #12

The video in the Tweet replies is even worse, IMO: https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1437743602579423233 The Tesla FSD would've caused a t-bone in the first two clips, and a head-on collision at decent speed in the third clip. Yikes.

How long can they get away with charging 10k for something that is trying to crash the car in to bits?

Everything about FSD is truly mindblowing. They sold the product but are not letting most users get the version that tries to be autonomous (and thank god for that). It won't be available to most of these people on the car they purchased it for, and can't be transferred to other cars. That has to end in a refund or class action law suit right? And now they have a subscription available? That also doesn't include these features? Who are the suckers paying monthly for this, especially after years of failed promises about this product (that's giving the benefit of the doubt, I think "lies" is more appropriate at this point).

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

#104

Post by xiphias2 »

dham wrote: post #41

I've been using Open Pilot for the last 3 months (Rav4 Hybrid). I've really enjoyed it a lot on the highways. It also works really well in stop and go traffic. I'm starting to agree with George Hotz about making driving chill. Highway driving is chill. Stop and go traffic is chill. There's nothing chill about letting a car drive in these situations (pulling out intersections, right hand turn on red, congested streets…

I started to agree with George Hotz that a half autonomous car should try to drive like a human because that's what humans can superwise efficiently.

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

#105

Post by dude1234 »

The comments here are funny. Having lived in Seattle, owning 2 teslas and actually watching more than this single clip of a beta software: this is deliberate testing in a crazy corner case of a road. The driver is nervous because of the pillers. I use navigate on autopilot (FSD for the masses) literally every day and it navigates multiple highways, every day. It's awesome. Please continue skepticism and never partake, more room for me at the superchargers.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by singularity2001 »

gpm wrote: post #83
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).

Most insightful comment my week.

Maybe we need a new catchphrase CAI comprehensive AI as an intermediate goal to AGI.

But then: maybe a car needs to understand the motivations of pedestrians and human drivers in order to predict their movements. And we are almost back to AGI requirements

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

#108

Post by alkonaut »

notJim wrote: post #21
Aliabid94 wrote: post #18

If you have to anxiously hover your hands over the wheel constantly like the driver is in this video, is it really helpful even if it doesn't crash? I don't own a Tesla, curious how other drivers are when on Autopilot.

This is the city-driving beta that's only available to a small number of people. I have read that at this point, it is more stressful than driving yourself, but it is not yet at the point where anything more is expected.

Assuming it stays in limited beta until safer than humans (statistically causing 1/10th as many accidents or some acceptable level like that) and until people actually feel measurably more relaxed when using it before it’s released to the public.

Who then believes it will even be this decade?

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

#109

Post by bagels »

tzs wrote: post #92

I wonder how well it does with stopping for school buses? Here in Washington I see people getting that wrong all the time, usually in the direction of stopping when they do not have to. The rule is that when a school bus has its flashers on and/or its stop sign out you stop unless: 1. You are going in the opposite direction, and 2. The road is either a divided road (separated by a median or a barrier) or has at least…

It's low likelihood that it handles that. There are so many videos of it not handling even more mundane things, like this one, or the ones showing it trying to run in to a road closed sign.

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

#110

Post by void_mint »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #89
rndmind wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> No, lmilcin didn't suggest that.

They posted this:

> Yes, killing pedestrians is not perfect.

In a thread about a video in which an autonomous vehicle did not kill any pedestrians.

Post reply on HN