US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash • Hacker News Board

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#101

Post by hunter-gatherer » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:54 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #74

bbor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you’re coming from and would also be interested to see, but based on the clips I’ve seen that wouldn’t be enough in this case. Of course the bias is inherent in what people choose to post (not normal and not terrible/litigable), but I think there’s enough at this point to perceive a stable pattern. Long story short, my argument is this: it doesn’t matter if you reduce serious crashes from 100PPM to 50PPM…

> But what do you do if your car might crash because someone ahead flashed their high beams, or because the sun was reflecting off another car in an unusual way? These are -- like drunk driving, driving distract, and driving in bad weather -- things that actually do cause accidents with human drivers.

The point is the choice of taking precaution part that you left out of the quote. The other day I was taking my kid to school, and when we turned east the sun was in my eyes and I couldn't see anything, so I pulled over as fast as I could and changed my route. Had I chosen to press forward and been in an accident, it is explainable (albeit still unfortunate and often unnecessary!). However, if I'm under the impression that my robot car can handle such circumstances because it does most of the time and then it glitches, that is harder to explain.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#102

Post by systemvoltage » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:54 AM UTC

massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

[flagged]

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#103

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:54 AM UTC

valine wrote: post #81

Aeolun wrote: post #68

I love how the image in the article has a caption that says it tells you to pay attention to the road, but I had to zoom in all the way to figure out where that message actually was. I’d expect something big and red with a warning triangle or something, but it’s a tiny white message in the center of the screen.

It gets progressively bigger and louder the longer you ignore it. After 30ish seconds it sounds an alarm and kicks you out.

> After 30ish seconds it sounds an alarm and kicks you out.

That's much better. When AP functionality was introduced, the alarm was fifteen MINUTES.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#104

Post by Forgeties79 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:55 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #88

massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

[flagged]

Nobody who buys a magic eraser thinks it’s literally a magical object or in any way utilizes magic. It’s not comparable.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#105

Post by mbernstein » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:55 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #102

massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

[flagged]

Nuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate change.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#106

Post by bqmjjx0kac » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:55 AM UTC

vineyardmike wrote: post #94

fallingknife wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Magic isn’t real. No one should be confused that the eraser isn’t magic. Fully self driving cars are real. Just not made by Tesla.

What's the verdict on X-Ray Specs?

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#107

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:56 AM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #102

massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#108

Post by dfxm12 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:57 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #74

bbor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you’re coming from and would also be interested to see, but based on the clips I’ve seen that wouldn’t be enough in this case. Of course the bias is inherent in what people choose to post (not normal and not terrible/litigable), but I think there’s enough at this point to perceive a stable pattern. Long story short, my argument is this: it doesn’t matter if you reduce serious crashes from 100PPM to 50PPM…

> But what do you do if your car might crash because someone ahead flashed their high beams, or because the sun was reflecting off another car in an unusual way? These are -- like drunk driving, driving distract, and driving in bad weather -- things that actually do cause accidents with human drivers.

This language is a bit of a sticking point for me. If you're drunk driving or driving distracted, there's no "accident". You're intentionally doing something wrong and committing a crime.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#109

Post by FireBeyond » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:58 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #40

Will the review assess overall mortality of the vehicles compared to similar cars, and overall mortality while FSD is in use?

If you're trying to hint at Tesla's own stats, then at this point those are hopelessly, and knowingly, misleading.

All they compare is "On the subsets of driving on only the roads where FSD is available, active, and has not or did not turn itself off because of weather, road, traffic or any other conditions" versus "all drivers, all vehicles, all roads, all weather, all traffic, all conditions".

There's a reason Tesla doesn't release the raw data.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#110

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:59 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #74

bbor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you’re coming from and would also be interested to see, but based on the clips I’ve seen that wouldn’t be enough in this case. Of course the bias is inherent in what people choose to post (not normal and not terrible/litigable), but I think there’s enough at this point to perceive a stable pattern. Long story short, my argument is this: it doesn’t matter if you reduce serious crashes from 100PPM to 50PPM…

> But what do you do if your car might crash because someone ahead flashed their high beams, or because the sun was reflecting off another car in an unusual way? These are -- like drunk driving, driving distract, and driving in bad weather -- things that actually do cause accidents with human drivers.

Indeed, yet humans can anticipate such things and rely on their experience to reason about what's happening and how to react. Like slow down or shift lanes or just move ones head for a different perfective. A Tesla with only two cameras ("because that's all humans need") is unlikely to provably match that performance for a long time.

Tesla could also change its software without telling the driver at any point.