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

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#171

Post by endisneigh »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #165
astral303 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.

Owning a self driving car you can always regulate using taxes etc. If too many people start using self driving cars you would increase taxes on owning those. I don't see that being an actual problem.

that doesn't make any sense though - self driving is a capability, not a type of car. it would be like taxing cars that have cruise control. fundamentally self driving is a safety feature, why would you tax it?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#172

Post by throwaway894345 »

bushbaba wrote: post #67
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is Tesla won't have anything resembling FSD to cover the entire US within 15 years. Though Musk and Tesla fans have shown that FSD is subjective, and they seem to think they already have it now, so I guarantee in 15 years they'll be arguing even louder... If they change everything about their approach, and/or lease tech from Cruise or Waymo - then maybe they'll have something resembling FSD in large parts of…

Self driving isn’t nearly as evolutionary as going from horse to car, or boat to flight. We aren’t likely to redesign entire cities for self driving. We might see self driving only highway lanes with faster speeds but that’s all I’d envision over next few decades.

Today we have roads that aren’t good for self-driving cars and we think “how can self-driving cars be allowed?! They’re so dangerous!” but after self-driving reaches some critical threshold, people will look at the situation and think “why do we tolerate roads that are hazardous for self-driving cars?! That’s so dangerous!”.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#173

Post by throw0101c »

astral303 wrote: post #118
jimkleiber wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.

I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.

Alternatively, a bunch of friends could buy a car together and split the costs.

I could see a scenario where instead of (or in addition to) vehicles being pooled between "x" random people (taxis, Uber/Lyft, ZipCar), you could purchase a fractional share of a car (Cf. NetJets): you get semi-exclusive use of (particular?) vehicles.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#174

Post by mewpmewp2 »

jimkleiber wrote: post #109
endisneigh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read the study I linked - what you suppose does not and has not happened in practice.

Ah ok, I'll check it out. I'm curious if self-driving Ubers would be a step change tho, or if we would observe the same thing. Edit: because if we half self-driving cars, do we also get self-driving buses and now we can have a lot more bus routes? Is lack (or cost) of labor one thing that holds back the number of buses we have? Could we have more mini buses? Just curious how much the labor factors into the transit op…

There could be a huge algorithm which will try to schedule vehicles with varying sizes from 2 seats to 30 seats to people all over the city. If you pay more you can get the exact N spots so you get privacy, if you are willing to pay the least, you might have to go 30m into a dedicated spot where a 30 seater will stop for you and some others, then it will make optimised stops based on what everyone has as their destinations.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#176

Post by samwillis »

orlp wrote: post #153
samwillis wrote: post #121

FSD is a Boondoggle. (Collision/accident avoidance and driver assist systems are not) I don't think we will see a legitimate L5 automation in our lifetimes. Take my 1.5 mile journey to do the morning school run, in a small UK town: - Getting off the driveway, there is a wall that creates a blind spot behind it, often other parents are walking small kids who are shorter than that wall. I can't see behind it. I check d…

> (Yes, a 1.5 mile journey to school, we should be walking) You should be cycling.

I agree, we have two choices, cycle on the busy roads with the 4+8yo or on a footpath through a park and down the pedestrianised road. Second option sounds perfect right?

No, there are big signs saying "no cycling" because I live in an F-ing stupid Tory middle England town where that sort of thing is not aloud...

Once the 4yo is a little bigger we will be breaking that stupid rule.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#177

Post by kolbe »

endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

> Just think about it - what happens when everyone has a self driving car? All of those cars that are otherwise parked are now on the road. Traffic. Same thing that happened pre-COVID with "ridesharing".

Explain this logic? To my understanding, ride sharing increased traffic because it increased demand for car travel. They did this by being a better choice than other modes of transit. But I believe the idea of ride sharing itself took 2-3 would-be individual riders, and put them in one car. The flip side was that the car would sometimes be empty, driving to its next customer, but that wasn't nearly as common as having multiple customers at once.

But holding constant demand for car travel, I don't see the logic for why FSD ride sharing would increase traffic. It would even free up an extra seat to add an additional passenger. And in theory, it would be able to drive more efficiently if it was an entire network of FSD vehicles.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#178

Post by rsynnott »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #164
fallingknife wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only currently known self driving system uses that same sensor suite (neural nets and cameras).

If you are referring to humans, we have a couple orders of magnitude more connections, our neurons can achieve the same functions at 1 order of magnitude fewer numbers, and our brain has better inductive biases.

Our ‘cameras’ are also so much better than any camera that could be put in a car (by most though not all metrics) that there is no real comparison.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#179

Post by mewpmewp2 »

alistairSH wrote: post #37
warning26 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re getting downvoted but you’re not necessarily wrong. I love the idea of self driving vehicles and I’m excited about them, but I harbor no illusions about them fixing traffic. The key question I would ask to self driving proponents is this - if you waved your magic wand and suddenly changed every car on the road to self driving…how would that impact traffic? At the very least traffic wouldn’t decrease . You coul…

Traffic would get somewhat worse. People would be willing to commute somewhat farther because they could spend that time reading the paper or working instead of driving the car. Errands that used to be annoying enough to delay get more frequent as well for the same reason. If we get to a car share model, where you subscribe and pay per mile, that might offset some car use. Really we need all of the above - self-drivi…

These are really odd predictions. People would be running more errands instead of leaving them on the last minute?

It seems like a definite stretch to me to think that it would make traffic worse. Also some people enjoy driving and drive out of enjoyment.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#180

Post by Saris »

orlp wrote: post #153
samwillis wrote: post #121

FSD is a Boondoggle. (Collision/accident avoidance and driver assist systems are not) I don't think we will see a legitimate L5 automation in our lifetimes. Take my 1.5 mile journey to do the morning school run, in a small UK town: - Getting off the driveway, there is a wall that creates a blind spot behind it, often other parents are walking small kids who are shorter than that wall. I can't see behind it. I check d…

> (Yes, a 1.5 mile journey to school, we should be walking) You should be cycling.

If it's safe yeah, but plenty of areas have no option other than riding a bike in car traffic.
Post reply on HN