Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

fuelarc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 449 posts

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#71

Post by swid »

Gud wrote: post #53
energy123 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…

Not at all. The car should be smart enough to figure out which sensor is faulty. Otherwise, the car should not be driving itself at all. It's more like, a pilot has access to multiple sensors. Which they do.

The comment you are replying to is saying the chance of error decreases with more pilots since there is redundancy. They are not saying it’s like too many chefs in a kitchen.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#72

Post by redox99 »

jcranmer wrote: post #52
redox99 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shortcomings of 2 year old software is not relevant, because that's not what the cars run now.

What evidence do you have that Tesla has meaningfully improved the software to fix the referenced issues since then?

Evidence is a strong word. But based on personal driving, other drivers comments, and seeing tests by channels like Dirty Tesla and Chuck Cook, you can tell the difference between current FSD v13, and what we had 2 years ago (v10 or v11) is absolutely gigantic.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#73

Post by hkpack »

ReptileMan wrote: post #25
Mistletoe wrote: post #4

Visual detection only doesn’t work and the man that forced Tesla to use it is now in control of government “efficiency”. This decade’s very dark humor just keeps getting worse.

We have more than 100 years of proof that visual detection works quite well. The problem is that we don't have certification process before a tech is deployed on the streets - your AV must pass this and this tests before you are allowed to use it. We don't care how you got there lidar, gps/astrology, camera/ai are all ok as long as you pass

> We have more than 100 years of proof

What are you talking about specifically?

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#74

Post by [deleted] »

Gud wrote: post #53
energy123 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…

Not at all. The car should be smart enough to figure out which sensor is faulty. Otherwise, the car should not be driving itself at all. It's more like, a pilot has access to multiple sensors. Which they do.

[deleted]

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#75

Post by YawningAngel »

alesso_x wrote: post #69

The article gives a pretty misleading impression of where FSD stands today. It treats highway behavior as if nothing has changed, but that’s not accurate. Before October 2024, the highway stack was still running on Tesla’s older software. A major shift happened with version 12.5.6, which brought the end-to-end neural network to highways for the first time. Then in December, version 13.2.2 pushed things even further b…

The responsibility does not rest solely with the person behind the wheel. Tesla know or should know how people use this system, and engineer it such that it doesn't kill people when the end user does what they are foreseeably going to do.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#76

Post by CalChris »

xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

Radar. I remember some of his nonsense about disambiguating, despite the previous AP disambiguating just fine. Same with the rain sensor. This is a cheap part. Radar isn't very expensive either.

To be fair, the ghost brakes on TACC have reduced. But I tend to control my wipers with voice.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#77

Post by pfannkuchen »

xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

You do want them to be better than humans, but vision quality is not really a major source of human accidents. Accidents are typically caused by driving technique, inattention, or a failure to accurately model the behavior of other drivers.

Put another way - would giving humans superhuman vision significantly reduce the accident rate?

The issue here is that the vision based system failed to even match human capabilities, which is a different issue from whether it can be better than humans by using some different vision tech.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#78

Post by timschmidt »

energy123 wrote: post #30
xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…

I thought it was consensus that the move away from lidar was driven by a lack of supply compared to desired EV production numbers, and the things said about making vision only work have all been about coping with that reality.

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#79

Post by hughw »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #77
xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

You do want them to be better than humans, but vision quality is not really a major source of human accidents. Accidents are typically caused by driving technique, inattention, or a failure to accurately model the behavior of other drivers. Put another way - would giving humans superhuman vision significantly reduce the accident rate? The issue here is that the vision based system failed to even match human capabilit…

Yes?

Re: Self-Driving Teslas Are Fatally Rear-Ending Motorcyclists More Than Any Other

#80

Post by NoTeslaThrow »

energy123 wrote: post #30
xbmcuser wrote: post #22

The point I soured on Musk was when he ditched radar/lidar and tried to go with camera's alone. This made me realize he is not the genius he is made out to be but instead he is a fraud/charlatan and over the years his statements on different topics have only hardened that belief. Why the fuck would you want ai cars to be the same as humans you should want them to be many times better and radarr/lidar sonarr type tech…

Multiple independent sensor streams is like having multiple pilots fly a plane instead of just one pilot. The chance of a fatal error (false negative identification of an object near the car) decreases from p to p^n. The size of that decrease is not intuitive: if p=0.0001 it now becomes a much smaller number with the introduction of a second pilot or second independent sensor stream (0.0001^2). Now the errors are not…

I'm not really following the attempt at logic here but under this logic surely you'd WANT multiple types of sensors for all the same reasons.
Post reply on HN