California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD • Hacker News Board

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#531

Post by ajross » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #240

dotnet00 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The most important metric for self driving is the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant. That’s what self driving is. That's reductionist to the point of meaninglessness. A car limited to a specific track could keep going autonomously until it breaks down, thus having an infinite metric on the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant, yet practically it co…

Self driving trucks at mines have very limited routes but they are legitimately self driving and quite useful. There are under 4.1 million miles of roads in the US. ~70 people could map every mile of that every year assuming average speed of 30mph and 2,000 hours of work per year. It’s literally trivial compared to building a self driving system. Tesla’s insistence on good road markings is a far larger limitation tha…

> Self driving trucks at mines have very limited routes but they are legitimately self driving and quite useful.

One of the problems with this discourse is the propensity for people to talk past each other. No one is interested in mining automation here, no matter what level of SAE autonomy they qualify for.

> Tesla’s insistence on good road markings is a far larger limitation than simply pre mapping roads.

And another problem is people's insistence on arguing from bad information and ignoring the testimony of those who have good info. I honestly don't know what you're referencing here, FSD works fine on unpainted roads (I live on one).

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#532

Post by CSMastermind » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #489

CSMastermind wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cras…

It wouldn’t have to do that much driving flawlessly - many crashes occur without there being a fatality.

It would actually need to be driven significantly more, see this report: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html

To quote:

> Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries.

> Under even aggressive testing assumptions, existing fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles — an impossible proposition if the aim is to demonstrate their performance prior to releasing them on the roads for consumer use.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#533

Post by lolinder » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #437

teraflop wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How so?

They're different in practically every way. It's easier to enumerate the things they have in common: NNs borrowed the idea of using a connected network of functions whose outputs feed into each other's inputs.

That's it. That's the total resemblance between the two. The brain isn't just an NN implemented in biology, it has whole systems that aren't accounted for in digital NNs, like hormones and neurotransmitters, and even the system of connected neurons doesn't work the way digital NNs implement it.

Neural networks model the brain exactly as well as objects in OOP model cells: not very well at all. They're inspired by biology, nothing more.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#534

Post by thrashh » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

diffxx wrote: post #504

thrashh wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all humans are the same either Some people can flawlessly do stunts with their car after driving for a few years and have a perfect driving record Others make you shake in fear every time you sit with them as you see them fail to notice other cars when they change lanes, despite driving for 10 years It’s a bell curve and I think the median is better than current car driving AI, even with LIDAR, can achieve But co…

I think part of the problem is the lax licensing standards in the US. For everyone's benefit, we should have higher standards. There also can and should be regional differences. Someone who has learned to drive in a rural or suburban area has not necessarily had the training and experience necessary to safely drive in a city alongside pedestrians and cyclists.

I think we’re not really willing to up the standards because you need to drive to survive in a lot of places.

You can’t change your genetics, you can’t necessarily change where you live, and you can’t just fix transit without rebuilding an entire city that took 100+ years to build so the standards are just what they have to be

Over the last many decades, we’ve starting requiring things like backup cameras because cars naturally break down and so it’s something we can actually change on a short timescale (but it does add a lot of cost)

Fixing transit is a long timescale thing

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#535

Post by ElfinTrousers » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:25 PM UTC

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #308

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.

I will have to look that up, thanks for the tip.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#536

Post by cwalv » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

simondotau wrote: post #439

samtho wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This future sounds great until you consider what it really means to let “someone else” become the arbiter of you being able to get around. If I have a car in my driveway, I can make sure it is charged/fueled for whenever I need it and I can just turn it on and go. Compare t…

> This future sounds great until you consider what it really means to let “someone else” become the arbiter of you being able to get around. Assuming we're discounting things like bicycles, family member's vehicles and company-owned vehicles, this is present day reality for the overwhelming majority of people on this planet. (It's also debatable whether a car truly eliminates other people from being an arbiter of "be…

> By comparison an EV charged with a domestic solar array would probably more liberating

By comparison, yes. But where are you going to go, or what are you going to do, that isn't dependent on other ppl in some way? I like the idea of being self-supporting as much as anyone, but that doesn't change the fact that we're all interdependent in modern society.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#537

Post by KyeRussell » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #529

gaius_baltar wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Specially because we don't drive with eyes only, we use at least our ears too for hearing unusual noises and the balance sense for detecting vibrations, changes on road surface, and to get feedback about orientation changes.

Teslas have those sensors, but don’t currently use some of them (like microphones) as inputs. Unlike human drivers, a Tesla autopilot can track the rotation of each wheel independently and in real time.

Yet it still doesn’t work.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#538

Post by cwalv » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:36 PM UTC

tnel77 wrote: post #393

shawnz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just a passenger then why does it matter to you whether the taxi service is self-driving or not? Surely the benefits of self-driving would be significantly more relevant for those who do want to own the vehicle?

I’m hoping that by excluding the human labor costs I will save some money, but we will see. It would also be nice to not have to have that awkward taxi conversation every time I go to the store.

> It would also be nice to not have to have that awkward taxi conversation every time I go to the store.

This is the real reason ppl will own cars for the foreseeable future. Same reason I prefer a detatched home with a private/fenced yard. I'd probably get used to high-density living, but I doubt if I'd ever really prefer it.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#539

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #413

dragonwriter wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also means energy prices will not rise high enough until the government becomes incapable of subsidizing them, if you (s your argument does) neglect the possibility of political shifts.

I want some of those subsidies. Aside from a few particular oil-rich nations (and some very poor ones), where are these fuel subsidies I keep hearing about? A gallon of gasoline largely costs the same in the US as it does in Europe, if you strip away the taxes.

> Aside from a few particular oil-rich nations (and some very poor ones), where are these fuel subsidies I keep hearing about?

Flowing from the US to oil-rich nations in form of security assistance to buy policy, or in the form of US military going to enforce policy preferences, as well as:

> A gallon of gasoline largely costs the same in the US as it does in Europe, if you strip away the taxes.

Accepting negative externalities without internalizing them (whether through direct liability for externalized harms or pigovian taxes) is a forced subsidy to the activity creating those externalities by the rest of society.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#540

Post by dmix » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 9:39 PM UTC

calgarymicro wrote: post #404

coffeeblack wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving". > But Musk bought Twitter. The bill was introduced in mid-February and was presumably drafted over the preceding months. Musk made his very first Tweet about buying Twitter in mid-April. Not sure what connection you're trying to make here.

> Being "pretty clear" in the fine print doesn't help when your product is called "Full Self Driving".

The likely chose the FSD branding with good intentions. Tesla just had some over-optimistic projections of what it will be in the near future and they weren't the only ones being optimistic in 2015-2016 when it launched (you can find plenty of Youtube interviews from other car companies at the time projecting The plan was to always call it in "beta" and an early ~$2-10k(?) investment for the future offering that wasn't yet ready.

The only problem is when those projections turned out to be heavily optimistic after ~2-3yrs in they should have rebranded it... but chose to stick with it for whatever reason.