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

301–310 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#301

Post by cactusplant7374 »

rvz wrote: post #192
Kiro wrote: post #61

How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.

It seems that recently, it is become trendy to hate Elon Musk because of the news where as I'm only critiquing FSD as I did a year ago against the fanatics [0], since that is obviously full of snake oil and false promises and a beta 'safety critical' product deployed to hundreds of thousands of drivers on the road. I don't see that level of deception yet with SpaceX, Starlink or Neuralink. Tesla cars themselves are a…

Neuralink experiments are based on old experiments and nothing new. We have to ask ourselves why didn’t the research lab that originally did those experiments move forward with them?

But the idea that this has any implications for healthy people is ludicrous. They can read a thousand neurons close to the brain’s surface. So? The understanding of the brain is incredibly limited and Musk won’t be able to access much of it anyway.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#302

Post by [deleted] »

redox99 wrote: post #212
anonymoushn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is pretty trivial to disprove that: A human could no doubt "remotely" drive using the current Tesla cameras. So the sensor suite might be more challenging than alternatives, but obviously not impossible. You could however argue that the current computer isn't powerful enough to run the software required for vision based L3/L4.

[deleted]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#304

Post by cactusplant7374 »

h2odragon wrote: post #78
Kiro wrote: post #61

How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.

Musk spoke political heresy.

Which is obviously a mistake if you’re a TSLA shareholder. Not knowing the political opinions of the CEO of your favorite company facilitates revenue.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#305

Post by epgui »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #296
epgui wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock I believe the opposite is the more likely outcome: I think we can expect much lighter traffic the more autonomous vehicles there are. Most traffic is caused by humans doing really irrational things, like following each other too closely, making unnecessary lane changes, and driving at inconsistent speeds. It's very rare that traffic congest…

The sorts of Driving behaviors you mention are not a significant cause of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is caused by there being too many cars on the road with limited space for cars. Anything that will increase the amount of cars will quickly dominate inefficient driving behaviors, and self driving cars will massively increase the amount of cars on the road, as it would drive down the cost of driving and en…

> "Traffic congestion is caused by there being too many cars on the road with limited space for cars."

I mean in some sense this is always going to be true, and removing cars will always help alleviate traffic. But it's not true that driving behaviour is not a significant cause of traffic congestion: it's the cause in most cases. [1]

For an extreme illustration, there's a well-known phenomenon where adding extra lanes of traffic to a highway or freeway actually worsens traffic: the added bandwidth interacts in weird/subtle ways with driver behaviour. [2]

[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7276027/traffic-jam

[2] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#306

Post by Animats »

California was the first state to take autonomous vehicles seriously.[1] DMV licenses them. There's three levels of license. The "learner's permit" is testing with a safety driver. The autonomous license is testing with no safety driver. Deployment is carrying real customers for money. Waymo and Cruise have deployment licenses, which requires testing and evaluation by DMV. You can see their cars running around San Francisco with nobody in the driver's seat. That's self-driving.

Tesla has never been able to get beyond the learner's permit. So, they can't sell a fake self driving product. It's that simple.

[1] https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_3875...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#307

Post by dreamcompiler »

Should have happened sooner. I love my Model Y. It's the most fun car I've ever owned. It's also the most comfortable on long road trips and I can sleep in it in climate-controlled comfort without generating a gas that could kill me. I leave the house every morning with a full tank and never have to stop at a gas station. And my cost per mile is 1/4 what it was with an ICE car.

I just wish Tesla would focus on this stuff without hyping an AI feature that can never happen.

It's like what if somebody invented the world's greatest backpack? It's bigger on the inside than the outside, and it incorporates negative gravity so anything you put in it becomes 50 lbs lighter. And all that was true; it actually worked? But for an extra $10k, the company will add on the "anti-grizzly bear" feature which makes you invulnerable to grizzly bears while you're wearing the backpack. Except most of the people who buy the anti-grizzly bear feature end up getting eaten by grizzly bears. Whoops! Just quietly stop advertising the anti-grizzly bear feature and you'll still have a great product.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#308

Post by cactusplant7374 »

ElfinTrousers wrote: post #210

I live in Boston. You know all those stereotypes about Boston drivers and Boston traffic? Largely accurate. If they ever do succeed in creating an AI powerful enough to drive a car safely in this Commonwealth, I want that AI curing cancer and inventing time travel, not bothering with trifles like driving.

I believe Taylor Ogan did a drive with FSD through Boston with the results that you would expect.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#309

Post by cactusplant7374 »

marvin wrote: post #82
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 6 or 7 years ago, many people thought we would at least have something like Waymo's self-driving taxis in Phoenix in several cities, more publicly available, really starting to change transportation. We're not too far behind on that estimate. My guess is in less than 3 years - Waymo will be publicly available in large parts of Phoenix and probably another major metro - and within 10 years most of the south we…

Tesla FSD and Waymo FSD are trying to solve two completely different problems.

I have a feeling that I know this argument. The argument is that FSD is general purpose and Waymo is geofenced?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#310

Post by gcanyon »

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #265
rich_sasha wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans don't have lidar either.

And birds don't have jet engine, yet nobody is trying to replicate flight by wing flapping as a bird.

My friend, I have news for you :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBq9NcITh6o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtn4PpZEB8I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R19QQiM5Mw

Post reply on HN