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

When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#31

Post by pmarreck »

simondotau wrote: post #18
Animats wrote: post #10

As time goes on, Tesla's fiasco becomes more and more embarrassing. Waymos are all over the place in the cities they serve, doing pretty much what they're supposed to do. Nuro has some fully autonomous vehicles running around. Baidu's Apollo Go is deployed in 16 cities in China, although they use remote driving as a backup. Tesla, though, is still hyping a technology that seems to have maxed out years ago.

[flagged]

> In your quest to be critical of anything Tesla does

That conclusion does not logically follow, whatsoever, from the evidence presented

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#32

Post by kevincrane »

twostorytower wrote: post #5
neilv wrote: post #3

> However, at this week’s shareholder meeting, Musk stated that Tesla may allow “texting and driving” within “a month or two.” The family of the first person killed by that will know who to sue for a punitive trillion dollars.

Would at least like to use it for stop and go traffic, which is about the only thing I trust FSD for.

Just pull over if you have things to text that can’t wait

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#33

Post by pmarreck »

coliveira wrote: post #21
lukax wrote: post #7

Kind of similar to Agentic coding. The code works? Yay, well done, AI. It't doesn't? You didn't prompt it correctly.

This scam is true for all AI technologies. It only "works" as far as we interpret it as working. LLMs generate text. If it answers our question, we say that the LLM works. If it doesn't, we say that it is "hallucinating".

It's not a scam because it does make you code faster even if you must review everything and possibly correct (either manually or via instruction) some things.

As far as hallucinations go, it is useful as long as its reliability is above a certain (high) percentage.

I actually tried to come up with a "perceived utility" function as a function of reliability: U(r)=Umax ⋅e^(−k(100−r)^n) with k=0.025 and n=1.5 is the best I came up with, plotted here: https://imgur.com/gallery/reliability-utility-function-u-r-u...

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#34

Post by Gigachad »

simondotau wrote: post #11
paulbjensen wrote: post #4

One reason I wouldn't trust Tesla's FSD: Sun glare: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaFSD/comments/1huzgtu/tesla_fsd... Drivers have tackled this problem by wearing polaroid sunglasses. I really hope someone asks Tesla how they plan to solve the Sun glare issue.

According to users, that issue appears to be solved as of FSD v13. The solution may be reliant on the higher quality camera modules shipped with hardware 4.

Will Tesla recall the old defective cars?

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#35

Post by coliveira »

adocomplete wrote: post #30
coliveira wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This scam is true for all AI technologies. It only "works" as far as we interpret it as working. LLMs generate text. If it answers our question, we say that the LLM works. If it doesn't, we say that it is "hallucinating".

How is that any different from Googling something and believing any of the highly-SEO optimized results that pollute the front page?

That's the point, nobody really believes there is an intelligence generating Google results. It is a best-effort based engine. However, people have this belief that ChatGPT has somehow some intelligent engine generating results, which is incorrect. It is only generating statistically good results; if it is true or false depends on what the person using it will do with the results. If it is poetry, for example, it is always true. If it is how to find the cure for cancer it will with very high probability be false. But if you're writing a novel about a scientist finding a cure for cancer, then that same response will be great.

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#36

Post by MBCook »

simondotau wrote: post #11
paulbjensen wrote: post #4

One reason I wouldn't trust Tesla's FSD: Sun glare: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaFSD/comments/1huzgtu/tesla_fsd... Drivers have tackled this problem by wearing polaroid sunglasses. I really hope someone asks Tesla how they plan to solve the Sun glare issue.

According to users, that issue appears to be solved as of FSD v13. The solution may be reliant on the higher quality camera modules shipped with hardware 4.

So why did it ever ship like that?

Why was that OK? Why was it safe to let people use like that without informing them?

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#37

Post by bastawhiz »

don_neufeld wrote: post #17
Animats wrote: post #10

As time goes on, Tesla's fiasco becomes more and more embarrassing. Waymos are all over the place in the cities they serve, doing pretty much what they're supposed to do. Nuro has some fully autonomous vehicles running around. Baidu's Apollo Go is deployed in 16 cities in China, although they use remote driving as a backup. Tesla, though, is still hyping a technology that seems to have maxed out years ago.

Not sure if it’s evident in broader statistics yet, but I think that because Tesla got the early adopter market (tech savvy people), they are now losing that same market first. I had a party at my house a couple months ago, mostly SF tech people. I found the Tesla owners chatting together, and the topic was how much FSD sucks and they don’t trust it. I asked and no-one said they would buy a Tesla again. Distrust beca…

I own six EVs (three cars, one of which is a Tesla, and three motorcycles). My first EV was my Tesla.

We're on the cusp of trading the Tesla in for a Rivian most likely. I should be Tesla's target customer, but instead I'm exactly who you described:

- I don't like the brand. I don't like Elon. I don't like the reputation that the car attaches to me.

- I don't trust the technology. I've gotten two FSD trials, both scared the shit out of me, and I'll never try it again.

- I don't see any compelling developments with Tesla that make me want to buy another. Almost nothing has changed or gotten better in any way that affects me in the last four years.

They should be panicking. The Cybertruck could have been cool, but they managed to turn it into an embarrassment. There are so many alternatives now that are really quite good, and Tesla has spent the last half a decade diddling around with nonsense like the robot and the semi and the Cybertruck and the vaporware roadster instead of making cars for real people that love cars.

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#38

Post by jmuguy »

paulbjensen wrote: post #4

One reason I wouldn't trust Tesla's FSD: Sun glare: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaFSD/comments/1huzgtu/tesla_fsd... Drivers have tackled this problem by wearing polaroid sunglasses. I really hope someone asks Tesla how they plan to solve the Sun glare issue.

I'm sure they'll figure this out right around the time they test the cars in places that have more than one season.

Re: When Tesla's FSD works well, it gets credit. When it doesn't, you get blamed

#40

Post by buran77 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #14
brianwawok wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it drives me on 2000 mile car trips without touching anything. If you ignore the hype and look at the actual product, it’s fine.

Ancedotes are nice. Miles per disengagement stats would be better.

That's not an anecdote, it sounds like an exaggeration bordering flat out lying. A 2000 miles trip "without touching anything" to drive the car is statistically impossible for any reasonable drive (e.g. not endless straight lines on an Australian highway), especially for a Tesla famously known for needing interventions often. Even more advanced autonomous driving systems are far too limited to take arbitrary 2000 miles trip with zero human assistance.
Post reply on HN