Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by strawhatguy » Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 11:57 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #130

strawhatguy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.

It is fine (and correct) to be cautious about any situation where the government gets involved and starts setting limits. But to discard an argument entirely is to bury your head in the sand. Regulations are applied to many industries and limit the kinds of claims that can be made about products, and those regulations are important to public safety. Such regulations most often apply to products that involve life or d…

The involvement of government is at most the courts to redress the kind of issues you're talking about, which is narrow to the particular situation involved, guided by precedent, but not fixed by it. Fraud, injury, death are all covered here.

Heavy-handed regulation I can't back though, in part because it is (increasingly these days) as broad as possible, as vague as possible, ensnaring far more then the initial case merited.

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

#392

Post by strawhatguy » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 12:04 AM UTC

TomSwirly wrote: post #261

strawhatguy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.

Why would you brag about not reading what someone wrote?

I did read it, actually, but there wasn't much of merit there. The usual spend more, make more rules, enforced by someone with a gun somewhere such that bad thing X can't happen again. Then of course, it does.

Not bragging, just bored.

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

#393

Post by strawhatguy » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 12:20 AM UTC

giomasce wrote: post #309

strawhatguy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I stopped at “the government should…” That never goes the way you think it will.

[citation needed]

Fair.

Although honestly, it should also be on the regulation proposer to say cite why such a rule is necessary, and more importantly, under which conditions, if it doesn't work out, such a rule might be withdrawn.

I mean: We've had Medicaid, but still have problems in elderly healthcare. We have the Patriot Act, but still have terrorists. We have a Department of Education, but still have low (possibly lower) quality schools. We have a CDC, that failed in testing and containment of disease. We have an SEC, but SBF's fraud went unabated (although hopefully punished soon). We have an FAA, but still have unworthy aircraft (737 Max looking at you).

Perhaps then next round of rules proposed by folk looking to win their next popularity contest will work next time, I just doubt it very much. I just don't see much value in these rules - if bad things keep happening, what was the point? Might as well not have them, and make people directly responsible, through a court of actual law, when actual damages have occurred.

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

#394

Post by martindbp » Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #388

martindbp wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That is not my experience at all. It either says “Full self driving unavailable. Poor weather detected,” or it freaks the fuck out and tries to kill me. FSD can’t adequately handle rain, let alone snow where the road lines are not visible.

Based on many hours of footage, rain doesn't seem to be a big problem unless it's very heavy, but the experience can vary I suppose. Snow for sure is still a problem, but there is a path to improving it. The current state of perception shows that it can be solved by deep learning (more training data for these conditions), in the sense that in many situations it can guess where the lines and lanes are based on other context, like tire tracks, positioning of other cars, width of the road and lane meta data, snow protrusions etc. There's also the problem of when to treat snow as an obstruction to go around and avoid vs when to just go over it. There will always be more uncertainty in these conditions though, just like there is for us humans, we are often unsure where the lanes are exactly, and one of the challenges if having the system deal with this uncertainty better. And then control has clearly not been worked on for snow and ice yet.