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

471–480 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#471

Post by [deleted] »

clouddrover wrote: post #465
simondotau wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber predicted it was just a few years away in 2016.[1] Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2] BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3] Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4] It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessaril…

Uh huh. And did they take money from customers with the promise of full self-driving being just around the corner? Did they take money from customers for a product making the specific claim that it has the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver": https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... Musk will continue to lie abou…

[deleted]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#472

Post by yucky »

dagmx wrote: post #447
yucky wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their timing tells you what you need to know. This isn't new information, their decision is motivated by something other than a new set of facts on self driving vehicles. So they were wrong, and they stayed wrong (for money) long after they knew they were wrong. And now that it's convenient they've reversed course. Sounds like the other 49 states was right to be cautious.

This is illogical. You can’t simultaneously criticize California for taking so long to do this, while praising other states for being more cautious by not doing it. You’re also ascribing some laterite motive that you fail to provide a description of.

[flagged]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#473

Post by bagels »

misiti3780 wrote: post #423
ghaff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness I know people with "FSD" who went into it well aware that it's not really FSD and they still like it. That said, the marketing is clearly fraudulent.

Im one of those people, I have it and love testing it out, but I know it's not FSD, I really do get the big deal about the name. Anyone who buys it thinking it's really FSD is an idiot. The difference between me and apparently everyone else in this forum is I do think TSLA will build a video model that is L4/L5 in the next few years. I live in a rural america and majority of my drives do not require interventions.

Why are they idiots? Because they believed the marketing messages that Tesla put out?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#475

Post by bagels »

93po wrote: post #340
dpiers wrote: post #34

FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…

FSD beta is literally deployed to all Teslas that have purchased it.

It doesn't fully self drive, contrary to the implication of the name.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#476

Post by CSMastermind »

janalsncm wrote: post #442
rzimmerman wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don…

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Humans drive with our eyes and we’re pretty bad at driving. We should want systems with redundancy and using multiple modalities so that a car crash isn’t an accident, it’s a choice.

> Humans drive with our eyes and we’re pretty bad at driving.

I disagree that humans are bad at driving.

Let me ask you this, how many miles would a fully autonomous self-driving car need to drive without a fatality for you to be able to reasonably claim that it's statistically a better driver than a human?

And feel free just to round to an order of magnitude here. 2.75 x 10^z In 2013 in the US there were 32,719 crash related fatalities and 2.3 million reported injuries. So that must mean humans are bad a driving right? Well those numbers are tiny compared to the 3 trillion miles that humans drove that year.

Humans have about 1.09 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. The probability of a human causing a fatality for a mile driven is low: 0.00000109%

To show to a 95% confidence interval that a self-driving car is better at driving than a human it would need to drive 275 million miles flawlessly. This would require a fleet of 100 vehicles driving continuously for almost 13 years.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#478

Post by notahacker »

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #461
janalsncm wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Humans drive with our eyes and we’re pretty bad at driving. We should want systems with redundancy and using multiple modalities so that a car crash isn’t an accident, it’s a choice.

> we’re pretty bad at driving Are we? I know it is a fashionable thing to say, but I am personally fascinated by the relatively low number of accidents given how omnipresent cars are. For germany it's ~5 dead / 100000 motorized vehicles, and ~4 dead / 100000 inhabitants. [1] More anecdotal: Growing up I lived near a pretty busy street and never personally witnessed an accident there. Makes me think that we are actual…

It's a bit of both. We're pretty bad at minimising basic errors driving (at least until you consider we as a species spent a billion or so years of evolution travelling <20mph and generally picked up handling a vehicle in a few hours in our late teens) but so strikingly good at handling the sort of edge cases where people are at particularly at risk of death I'm not sure collision avoidance AI will catch up despite all its speed advantages.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#479

Post by redox99 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #203
725686 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was talking about humans.

Humans have stereoscopic vision Edit: I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted. Tesla cars guess depth with a neural net. Humans have the hardware for getting this data directly. Unless you either have lidar, radar, or dedicated stereoscopic cameras, you don't have real/accurate depth data. And depth data like that stops your car from plowing into white trucks.

I didn't downvote you, but as I see it human stereoscopic vision is kind of irrelevant.

If you close one eye, do you really feel like your ability to determine depth is significantly impacted?

And even then, the stereo effect is basically negligible at the distances relevant for driving.

A human missing one eye would have no trouble driving, except maybe for the reduced field of view.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#480

Post by dawnerd »

remote_phone wrote: post #450

It’s already changed. It’s called “Enhanced Autopilot” now.

No it's not. That a different product. FSD is still what they call the "full autonomous" mode. Enhanced Autopilot is just the highway auto lane change and some other minor gimmicks.
Post reply on HN