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

351–360 of 394 posts

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

#351

Post by maxbond »

poszlem wrote: post #346
maxbond wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally described it as an affliction. If you prefer the criticism to be, "don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences," fine, don't pathologize someone based on a few sentences. If your stated belief is real, then I'd encourage you to reflect on why you were willing to violate this principle, and why, after being challenged on it, you deflected.

I'm sorry, English is not my first language, but I don't think "affliction" means "disease". I used it as a "cause of persistent pain or distress", which I still think the OP has, given that he/she admitted to crying while writing a blog post (you can read his/her other posts to see that it's a bit of an obsession with Musk).

Well I'm sorry, I didn't realize English isn't your first language, but I should have been cognizant of this possibility. (In my language community, it's more commonly used to mean "a cause of mental or bodily pain, as sickness, loss, calamity, or persecution." I think even this is broader than I generally hear it, it's rare that I don't hear affliction refer to a disease.) You also said they were "hysterical", which, unless you're using a quite different usage, generally refers to someone's mental health & their inability to manage their emotions; not something we should say about someone because they took the risk to share a painful experience in public.

TIt is common to dismiss someone discussing something they care about, on the grounds that they care about it; they created this account to talk about Musk, so we shouldn't be surprised that's what they're doing. They related something painful, so we shouldn't be surprised it upset them. None of this should be held against them or discredit them.

If you were in there shoes, and assuming everything they said was true - is there really a different way that you would have expressed it?

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

#353

Post by fnordpiglet »

manicennui wrote: post #142
fnordpiglet wrote: post #97

I’m been on the fsd beta for a long time now and I have to say it’s remarkably improved over the last year. If it continues to improve at this rate for another year it’s going to be pretty useful. I use it to drive around seattle (which is a difficult driving place with randomly followed infrastructure standards and randomly driving drivers and randomly parked cars) and it used to be a death defying gripping of the s…

I'm sorry, but your wife should lose her license if she is truly that bad, and she should be required to take further training to get it back.

Well, she’s never actually hit anyone. Just walls when she’s backing out of a spot.

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

#354

Post by a1369209993 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #68
BoorishBears wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla FSD can barely handle a balmy 70 degree day, so I think you'd be disappointed. I might biased because I work on actual self-driving efforts, but nothing at all about Tesla has ever indicated they were serious about solving self driving in any capacity. The day that Elon proclaimed they already had the sensor suite decided was the day that they openly admitted this was fraud.

My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately,…

> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!”

To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever sensors we have now, and just learn to compensate for any deficiencies in software", could work, since our only preexisting examples of full-self-driving (humans) essentially do that.

It's just kind of stupid to hobble youself that way when you don't have to.

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

#355

Post by user_named »

a1369209993 wrote: post #354
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion doesn’t matter, but your last point resonates with me because this struck me as totally bizarre too. I don’t work in sensing let alone using AI with sensing data, but I’m around it a lot and my second-hand knowledge kind of set off some red flags. In remote sensing for landscape architecture, hydrography, and other similar fields (making sense of static things where no one is at risk of dying immediately,…

> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever se…

Humans don't have cameras.

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

#356

Post by a1369209993 »

ghaff wrote: post #69
jvm___ wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can use it like a taxi service and send a non-driving human as a passenger. Or no passenger and just send it to an address to retrieve or deliver a package.

It's probably reasonable to expect that there are some asterisks like paved roads only and can't drive in literally all weather conditions. But, yeah, no human supervision needed.

> some asterisks like paved roads only

Some asterisks like non-paved roads will cause poor and potentially dangerous performance, technically.

If I tell it to drive into a volcano, and getting it to do so is significantly harder than five minutes of repeating various variations on "Yes, I know it's a volcano and will likely destroy the car and everything in it; do so anyway.", it's defective. (Preferably it also should not be significantly easier, of course, at least not to the point of being able to do so accidentally.)

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

#357

Post by a1369209993 »

user_named wrote: post #355
a1369209993 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet Tesla comes out saying “we’ve got some mediocre cameras and we’re gonna run with it!” To be fair, humans managed to solve self-driving with some mediocre cameras, some crappy microphones, and some unreliable force-feedback and chemical sensors, without (importantly) adding any new sensors to the hardware between start-of-project and successful full driving. So it's not a priori implausible that "use whatever se…

Humans don't have cameras.

Sure they do. They're those two spherical mostly-white-with-colored-circles-on-the-front things embedded in the upper half of their face. (They usually tend to call them "eyes" for some reason.) They're closed-circuit and wired pretty directly into the brain, so it's not like webcams or recording cameras where you can semi-easily get the data off somewhere else, and obviouly they're kind of wet and squishy and not-easily-electronics-compatible like most human components, but in terms of actual functionality, they're cameras.

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

#358

Post by rurp »

cameldrv wrote: post #65
MichaelZuo wrote: post #2

It might be a plausible argument for stuff sold 6 years ago when the future was uncertain. But in 2022 I'm not seeing how it's plausible as an excuse. Considering it's still being sold and marketed as 'Full self driving'. Clearly even level 4 autonomy is far beyond what any near future technology is capable of. If at the very least due to the fact that a very commonly encountered condition, construction work, effecti…

What do you mean? Waymo and Cruise have already deployed level 4 vehicles.

If current Waymo counts as level 4 then we need sub-levels for them to have much meaning. They are a long way from supporting something like autonomous driving geofenced to all major US cities in all weather conditions. That big step up is still far behind true level 5, which can handle poorly maintained roads and all of the other weirdness one can encounter outside of major first world cities.

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

#359

Post by cameldrv »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #331
cameldrv wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's stopping someone from predefining it to mean "Only within a specific parking lot"? And then claiming they achieved Level 4?

Nothing. That is the definition of level 4. Level 5 is no restrictions.

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

#360

Post by wpietri »

cwalv wrote: post #332
wpietri wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds a lot like something Musk promised in 2019: "Next year for sure, we will have over a million robotaxis on the road," "The fleet wakes up with an over-the-air update. That's all it takes." The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. But I think it is more accurately described as bullshit ("speech intended to persuade without regard for tru…

> The most generous interpretation is that Musk is delusional and out of touch with his company and his technology. I'm not sure I'd describe that as a generous interpretation, but there is other evidence that he's just wildly optimistic/over-confident. E.g., he still pours significant investment/effort into his project to colonize Mars, even after describing falcon wing doors as "engineering hubris"

It's not a particularly positive interpretation, but because it's the least bad, it's the most generous.
Post reply on HN