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

Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 394 posts

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#291

Post by martindbp »

kennend3 wrote: post #193
jleyank wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about non California weather? I imagine radar might handle fog, but driving rain as in Carolina or serious snow as in Canada?

I've wondered the same thing about FSD in Canada. Often we Canadians drive on roads where we cant see the lines due to snow/ice. We sort of form our own "lanes" based on where we think the lines SHOULD be. How would a FSD Tesla handle a situation where everything is white? Even Humans who are use to these conditions still fail: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/opp-responds-to-numerous-crashes-o...

> We sort of form our own "lanes" based on where we think the lines SHOULD be.

And that is exactly what FSD does. You can search YouTube, there's plenty of examples if you want to see how it performs in different weather conditions. Snow is challenging but not impossible.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#292

Post by Zigurd »

A large factor in the valuation of Tesla is the notion that Tesla is not "just" a car maker. There used to be a good case for that: Tesla, by necessity, led the way in a more integrated electronics architecture for EV controls and infotainment. Self-driving looked promising. Breaking the dealer model in the US was very attractive to anyone who had a bad experience with car salesmen.

But, in the end, everyone puts their trousers on one leg at a time. Car OEM valuations will probably be higher than in the ICE age, and probably lower than $TSLA is today.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#293

Post by sangnoir »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #278
amf12 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Aren't you describing Level 5? From what I see online, Level 4 means "The car can operate without human input or oversight but only under select conditions defined by factors such as road type or geographic area" Waymo has been operating geo-fenced self-driving cars without drivers present. It may not handle complex situations, but that isn't expected…

Level 5 means full autonomy over all known driving conditions. Including dirt roads, etc. Otherwise there would need to be a level 6.

What's the difference between "all normal driving conditions" (your definition of Level 4) and "all known driving conditions" (your definition of L5)?

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#294

Post by sangnoir »

kaczordon wrote: post #133
sidibe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 2016 it was already widely known by the industry it was going to be very difficult compared to what Tesla was saying, especially without the handicaps they imposed on themselves. No one with knowledge took Tesla's timeline seriously > Clearly even level 4 autonomy is far beyond what any near future technology is capable of I've always been pessimistic about FSD but I think it'd pretty hard to reconcile that q…

They also have remote operators standing by who jump in when the car gets confused tho…

That's the definition of L4, and the reason Waymo isn't L5. L5 is no human in the loop is ever necessary.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#295

Post by cameldrv »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #219
Shubham28 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/full-autonomy-waymo-driver#:~:text...

Level 4 means full autonomy over all normal driving conditions. Waymo does not handle complex construction sites like a normal human driver would, a fact verifiable by many thousands of people. It does not have level 4 autonomy. Looks like the article got backlash too because the editor inserted an editor's note in quite large font right in the middle of the article clarifying it.

Level 4 means full autonomy within certain predefined conditions. In Cruise's case, this might be, "Only in certain parts of San Francisco at night." This qualifies for Level 4.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#296

Post by sofixa »

electrondood wrote: post #181
snek_case wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very different from the approach taken by Waymo and Cruise. Tesla's FSD uses vision only, and it's available everywhere in the US and Canada. The fact that it can complete most drives successfully (~90% of the time) without intervention in any city in the US or Canada is pretty impressive IMO. The parent poster is right, I've been watching the progress and it's gotten probably 20 to 50 times more reliable in the…

This is what people aren't paying attention to. The rate of progress over only 1 year is astounding. Driving with FSD supervised by a driver already makes driving far safer and far less stressful. The car has a situational awareness that humans can't match. It's only a matter of time until most drives have 0 disengagements due to human discomfort/awkwardness.

> Driving with FSD supervised by a driver already makes driving far safer

Does it though? Waymo said that their research indicated drivers tend to get complacent and assume the tech will bail them, thus they pay less attention and make more mistakes.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#297

Post by lelanthran »

electrondood wrote: post #176
rootusrootus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only time I touch the controls on the car is to input the address I want to be driven to.

This is already happening with regularity, at least in California. Engineering is about solving part of the problem first, then iterating. If you look at what they've accomplished only in the last year with FSD, I find it highly unlikely that 0-disengagement drives don't become the norm by the end of 2023. Currently, 90+% of drives have 0 safety-critical disengagements, and 50+% have no human-discomfort-related disen…

> If you look at what they've accomplished only in the last year with FSD, I find it highly unlikely that 0-disengagement drives don't become the norm by the end of 2023.

> Currently, 90+% of drives have 0 safety-critical disengagements, and 50+% have no human-discomfort-related disengagements.

No one is going to put their pre-teen child in a car for a 5 hour trip when there is a 10% chance that the car will crash.

And yet you think that such a thing will be the norm in 12 months or less?

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#298

Post by sangnoir »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #86
philjohn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting up a doctored video demonstrating FSD to me seems like a massive fraud.

"Doctored" as a colloquial term covers a lot of things, some of which are massive frauds and some of which aren't. It's misleading for sure to have the car drive around a bunch and release only the best 3 minute segment. But as long as the car really was driving, I don't think it's fraud, any more than it's fraud for a restaurant to post only their most perfectly plated dishes to Instagram.

If you release a video claiming a car was driving itself, and delete the footage where it was failing to drive itself - say, buy driving into fences - then that is a fraudulent video. "Best 3 minute segment" does not capture the intentional deception because the product is incapable of attaining claimed capability.

Not too far off from "This saline injection will cure headaches" and pick the best 40% of trial results to film an ad

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#299

Post by albinofrenchy »

wpietri wrote: post #148
coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy. Though I'd be concerned about the effect he is having on their brand image. Even two years ago I was on the verge of buying a Tesla but ended up cancelling my order in large part because I just couldn't stand the obnoxiousness of Elon and he has gotten orders of magnitude worse since then. His new "demographic"/cult also se…

> At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy. I think that's probably correct. One question I find interesting: What is Musk actually good at? He's clearly good at hype-driven PR and painting himself as a Tony Stark character. That has been great for Tesla; he's been able to raise gobs of money cheaply. Money that apparently kept Telsa from going bankrupt. [1] But th…

It really feels like he used to have advisors who would push back on his more outlandish ideas and that provided a good hype / pr vehicle for Tesla and SpaceX. That seems gone now.

He seemed to go steadily off the rails since the Thailand rescue debacle but that might have just been the first gaffe that I noticed as being an obvious misstep.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#300

Post by blisterpeanuts »

joering2 wrote: post #55
0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #14

I've owned Tesla's since 2016. At no time did I base my purchases on what the cars might be able to do in the future, only what they can do right now. Nor did I see any compelling reason to donate $10k - $15k to their R&D effort. The cars were compelling enough on their own merits and remain so. The FSD fiasco really does a disservice to what is otherwise a revolutionary car company producing excellent automobiles.

How is Tesla revolutionary? We had electric cars (on Moon!!) in 1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

Unlike the Apollo LRV (Lunar Roving Vehicle), you don't need a spacesuit to drive a Tesla. Plus, I think a Tesla has more range.

As an interesting aside, the LRV had non-rechargeable batteries (two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr, according to Nasa).

Post reply on HN