Live data from Hacker News

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

321–330 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brains aren’t neural nets and eyes aren’t cameras.

Why? The whole idea of neural nets is based on mimicking the brain. It's even in the name: neural (for neuron).

Yeah, and the name of "Full Self-Driving" tells you that it can drive "by itself" i.e. without human intervention.

But names aren't everything, and artificial neutral networks are "inspired by" but in truth drastically different from human brains.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#322

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.

I think it goes both ways and we won’t know for sure until it comes to fruition.

Personally, I hate owning vehicles and desperately want a self-driving taxi service that I can order via an app to get me and my family around.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#323

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 s…

I also love my Model Y. It’s by far the best car I’ve ever owned or driven. But the software has stagnated in favor of “FSD” beta releases.

Autopilot on freeways is great. I use it all the time and it works. I wish Tesla would focus on getting that to a level 3-type system - something where I can take my hands off the wheel and just be ready to take over after 10-15 seconds. It feels close enough that it could be done. But despite the complaints about the name it’s exactly what is claimed.

Auto park is bad. It doesn’t detect the spot half the time and it’s not great at actually parking. Especially on tight spaces where it would actually be useful.

Navigate on autopilot is underwhelming. It’s often too timid to actually switch lanes if there’s traffic. I like the signal-to-lane-change.

Full self driving is a boondoggle and absolutely false advertising at this point. Put all the disclaimers on it you want, but I paid for something that (the language at the time) claimed would get me from point A to point B while I relax and don’t pay attention. Every year it’s another few months away. I doubt it’s actually possible with the hardware on the car at this point. Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. It’s glossing over the very important bits of “with the compute power in the car” and “within the limits of moser CV/ML techniques”. I have no doubt that autonomous driving is possible - it’s actively happening in San Francisco roads with Cruise/Waymo. But I doubt my Model Y can do what I paid for, and that’s unethical.

This doesn’t need a law, it should be enforced by the FTC or by a lawsuit. It seems like someone scoring some cheap points.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#324

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 s…

> 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. Why are you sleeping in your car for long trips? :)

I know you're kidding but it's a good question. I don't do it while the car is moving obviously. I like to camp in the car at RV spots at lakes, state parks, and other pleasant places while on a long road trip. Plug in the car, sleep in the back, and wake to a full charge.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main costs is labor. Another is fuel. Get rid of labor and if fuel gets cheaper (I assume electricity, because it can come from more sources than gas, will get cheaper over time), then I assume these services will be cheaper. Plus, car ownership is not that cheap either.

Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. You could buy an overpriced car that you can’t afford with a high interest rate and it would still be much cheaper. I think you need to go back to first principles on this one.

> Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question.

Well, yes it is.

Cars are expensive: lease ($200+/month), maintenance ($100/mo), gas ($50/mo), insurance ($120/month), garage ($200/month). WAG of $670/month. That's 15 to 40 short-ish Uber rides/month.

Commute an hour each way every day, and have free parking? Buy that car. Have it available for occasional trips to the grocery store? Uber is almost certainly cheaper. And, if autonomous taxis become real then the price will go down even further.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#326

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…

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 so. when you own a car you can keep stuff in the car. Your golf clubs for an after work game, or those prizes you won at the circus while enjoying the meal after.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that it’s further away than anyone thought. No no, only musk was stupid enough to imply level 5 autonomy within x years. Everyone know how hard it is, realtime accurate position, machine perception of roads, & accurate prediction of cars/lorries/other are all very difficult problems. Then to hobble your team by saying "blah blah blah no lidars" because they are expensive and someone from the ML team convinced you t…

Let’s not pretend Apple, Uber, Google and countless others weren’t spending billions trying to make this a reality. They didn’t burn that money because they were smart enough to know it wasn’t going to happen. Everyone thought it was imminent. Many still do.

It was insurance against being left out of a revolution until they understood the problem better.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main costs is labor. Another is fuel. Get rid of labor and if fuel gets cheaper (I assume electricity, because it can come from more sources than gas, will get cheaper over time), then I assume these services will be cheaper. Plus, car ownership is not that cheap either.

Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. You could buy an overpriced car that you can’t afford with a high interest rate and it would still be much cheaper. I think you need to go back to first principles on this one.

Car ownership may be cheaper based on where one lives. One lives in a rural area and commutes everyday to a suburb where parking is free? Probably much cheaper than taking an Uber. Live in a city where parking is $40 per day and a parking space at an apartment is $500/month and work from home? Uber may be significantly cheaper than owning a car.

If we go to first principles, I think what would matter the most is at least how often someone uses a car, how one uses it, and where one lives, to determine whether ownership or renting (Uber is just very short-term rental with a driver included, no?) is cheaper in total cost.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#329
post #143

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…

Easy! Just stick a Genuine People Personality AI into the car. (Car slams the horn, passenger awakens.) Passenger: Huh. Uh. Where am I? Car: The grocery store. Passenger: But I asked to go home. Car: Yes, but you don't have anything for dinner. Passenger: I would have figured that out after getting home. Car: Then you would have disrupted my evening to get food. Passenger: What could a car possibly have to do that's…

Time to research the market for sassy automotive AIs.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any Kickstarter is obliged to be very explicit about the risks. They're required to have a section in the pitch dedicated to what might go wrong, and Kickstarter itself has text everywhere reminding you that rewards are not guaranteed. Tesla, on the other hand, never acknowledges the very real possibility that your extremely expensive vehicle never sees full self driving.

The sale page is pretty explicit about what you’re buying and has this note: > The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictio…

Somehow we got used to companies selling products named "Definitely Does Thing [X]!" and then adding fine print that says "this product absolutely does not do thing [X]." I think it would be much better if we stopped accepting that practice.
Post reply on HN