Tesla's 2M car Autopilot recall is now under federal scrutiny

Post by chucksta » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 6:04 PM UTC

bangaladore wrote: post #46

londons_explore wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be best in class, yet still rarely deploy... It can even be best in class when tested, rarely deploy, and save more lives than competitors. It just needs to correctly detect cases like this[1]. [1]: https://youtu.be/MTX0MvqBqL0?t=10

You claim that Tesla is gaming the system. I'm not aware of a definition of gaming in which the system is overall safer or equivalently safer than other top-tier competitors. That seems objectively better than deploying airbags when they will harm the occupants or total the vehicle when not-needed.

Post by grecy » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #48

grecy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The photo is of a Jan 2018 crash So still more than 5 years out of date. Would you accept a photo of a 5 year old iPhone on an article about some iPhone limitation? Would you accept a photo of a 5 year old version of Uber on an article about some Uber limitation? Would you accept a photo of a 5 year old robot vaccum on an article about some robot vac limitation? These things all change drastically each year. Five y…

It's a picture of a crashed car. Unless you're claiming the system doesn't crash now, a picture from 2018 is just as good as a picture from last week. It's not a main piece of evidence, it's an example. The evidence is in the text of the article where it talks about hundreds of crashes. As to your questions, as long as the issue in the article applies to the model in the picture, all of those are fine. I'd want a new…

Post by FireBeyond » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 6:38 PM UTC

tgma wrote: post #30

FireBeyond wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, except of those people who have bought (at a significant price) those features, and understand that they're nowhere near their "aspirational" goals (When Tesla has been called out by the SEC and DMVs for some of Musk's more absurd statements, the company has quietly whispered to them "these are aspirational goals", and in one case, to the California DMV, "Musk's visionary statements are not reflective of engine…

The aspirational claims are not about Autopilot, but FSD (and I agree that having people pay for FSD in 2015 is borderline fraudulent. It is a consumer protection matter, not a safety matter.) Again, the statements to California DMV or SEC or Congress is one thing. Whether the owner is confused by the abilities of their vehicle post purchase and driving for a week is a distinct matter. > Those drivers are "it's okay…

Post by bangaladore » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 6:41 PM UTC

thenewnewguy wrote: post #56

bangaladore wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that Tesla is gaming the system. I'm not aware of a definition of gaming in which the system is overall safer or equivalently safer than other top-tier competitors. That seems objectively better than deploying airbags when they will harm the occupants or total the vehicle when not-needed.

Tesla is not gaming the system by having a good airbag system that only deploys when necessary (that's actually really good!). Tesla is gaming the system by excluding accidents where the airbags don't deploy from the "Autopilot/FSD accidents" dataset, thus artificially deflating the number of accidents.

Post by jeffbee » Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 6:44 PM UTC

bangaladore wrote: post #43

jeffbee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also not Tesla's responsibility to nanny people Yes, it is. An L2 driver assist system must ensure that the driver is always actively supervising, and Tesla's systems failed to do that. That's why they recalled 2 million cars.

It seems to me that there are 10s of millions of "L2 driver assist" as defined by synopsys that have zero driver supervising checks such as most cars out there with lane-keep and cruise control.