Live data from Hacker News

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

181–190 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#181
post #42

Let that sink in. And you know what is not arriving anytime soon? Even “cat-level” AGI is just not going to happen within next 20 years at least.

20 years ago, the Linux kernel version was 2.5, we had the Intel Pentium III, Apple just released the Lamp, Nickelback was Top 1 with "How you remind me?" for over 16 weeks, Warcraft 3 got released and I bought my first Palm Tungsten. This reads like another world because it was and I suspect the world will change even faster in the next 20. We will have cat like AGI before 2042.

> This reads like another world because it was

So...another world with a slightly different taste in music and less advanced consumer electronics? Pretty picayune difference.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#182

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.

Decades is the correct context in which to be talking about this.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely perceive a shift in some people who were very pro-EV, pro-Tesla due to environmental concerns but became very anti-EV, anti-Tesla as it became apparent that Musk was not part of their political affiliation.

In RL or on HN? If on HN, you can be pro-EV and anti-Tesla (which is where I fall), so don't mistake a commenter taking that position with someone changing their mind.

On social media. Agreed that you can be pro-EV and anti-Tesla; I am remarking about an observed change in tone from pro-EV, pro-Tesla to anti-EV, anti-Tesla.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#184
post #42

Let that sink in. And you know what is not arriving anytime soon? Even “cat-level” AGI is just not going to happen within next 20 years at least.

20 years ago, the Linux kernel version was 2.5, we had the Intel Pentium III, Apple just released the Lamp, Nickelback was Top 1 with "How you remind me?" for over 16 weeks, Warcraft 3 got released and I bought my first Palm Tungsten. This reads like another world because it was and I suspect the world will change even faster in the next 20. We will have cat like AGI before 2042.

I think the rate of change over the next 20 will be slower. Mostly just because the rate of change in computing power has slowed down. AI training compute has been doubling every 6 months. But how long can that continue without fundamental improvements in hardware? At this rate would need to increase compute by 1000x by 2027.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#185
post #154

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 Where do you get that? FSD is not by itself going to compel people to drive more than they need to.

> FSD is not by itself going to compel people to drive more than they need to.

What people "need" (or "want") changes: if you live in the city and want to partake in Nature, it may be a hassle to get out of the city. But if you can 'just' hop in a FSD car and have it drive overnight (while you sleep) to a nature reserve/park, people may do that. Whereas previously they may not desired it enough to deal with traffic in getting there.

Imagine FSD recreational vehicles (RVs, UK: campers), or those live-in vans that are somewhat popular nowadays: go to sleep in one place, wake up in another.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.

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

If you're talking about humans, I think you're underestimating the importance of the less obvious senses:

- sound

- touch

- equilibrioception (balance)

- proprioception

- and surely there are more

Think of the visceral difference between driving a car in real life, vs driving a car on a screen in a video game.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#187
post #154

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 Where do you get that? FSD is not by itself going to compel people to drive more than they need to.

We already do drive more than we need to because of how society is designed in America, but if the costs were lower as promised and you basically had an always-on-demand car with no driver, you could work or something while in the car, and take a nap wouldn't people take a lot more road trips or trips otherwise? I don't see how this wouldn't increase usage. That being said, increase in usage doesn't necessarily correlate to increased traffic.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do we “need less personal car ownership?” It’s not clear to me why that’s a key goal. I also think that’s just not going to happen, not until the flying cats with cities in the skies is a reality.

Owning a car is massively expensive at a personal level… Purchase cost, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, space to store it. Minimum a few hundred $/month for an “asset” that sits idle most of the day.

Owning cars is massively expensive at a societal level… Storage space - so much asphalt for parking (both at destinations and at home). Pollution - production/raw materials, emissions during use, eventually disposal. Injuries to drivers, pedestrians, animals.

All that money could go to education, health care, recreation, etc.

I’m not saying ban cars. But align incentives towards fewer cars and less driving. Many cities are already making some progress - DC, NYC, Seattle, Portland are all adding transit alternatives at a rapid rate and seeing reduced car usage. But then Houston and some others are doing the opposite and continuing to sprawl and pave everything.

Edit - And yes, some people live in rural areas and need cars (trains and buses don’t scale in rural areas). But, the suburban sprawl we have today? We can do better. Less single-use, single-family zoning. More bike lanes and walking paths (preferably both separated from cars). More light commercial/retail.

Just thinking about my own neighborhood (Reston VA), there is an intersection 0.5 mile down the road that should (IMO) have a corner market and a cafe. There are thousands of residents who could walk there for milk, eggs, or a snack. Instead, they all have to drive to the strip mall 2 miles down the road. A little planning in advance would have made a difference here, but with current zoning, we’re stuck with what we have - you couldn’t buy a corner lot and build a shop if you wanted.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#189

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.

Anecdotal evidence, but as a city-dweller who owns a car, all of my friends who don't own cars have a reason besides "it's inconvenient." They have a disability that makes it unsafe to operate a vehicle and/or they simply can't afford a car.

Maybe it's different in other parts of the world, but that seems to be the way it works here in Chicago.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#190
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just how well they designed it

Imagine thinking that firing 50% of the staff that built an enormously complicated piece of software, and having the service stay up and running means that the people who built it were overpaid or overstaffed.

"We don't need firefighters. No one has died in a fire in years!"
Post reply on HN