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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by wg0 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #98
wg0 wrote: post #82

In all the hype of AI etc, if you think about it then the foundational problem is that even Computer Vision is not a solved problem at the human level of accuracy and that's at the heart of the issue of both Tesla and that Amazon checkout. Otherwise as thought experiment, imagine just a tiny 1 Inch tall person glued to the grocery trolley and another sitting on each shelf - just these two alone are all you need for "…

> Otherwise as thought experiment, imagine just a tiny 1 Inch tall person glued to the grocery trolley and another sitting on each shelf - just these two alone are all you need for "automated checkout". I don’t think this would actually work, as silly a thought experiment as it is. The problem isn’t the vision, it’s state management and cost. It was very easy (but expensive) to see and classify via CV if a person pic…

Yeah - that's exactly is my point that humans were required to recognize and computer vision is NOT a solved problem regardless of tech bros misleading techno optimism.

Distributed communication and state management on the other hand is a solved problem already mostly with known parameters. How else do you think thousand and thousands of Kubernetes work in the wild.

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

#113

Post by lngnmn2 »

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.

[dead]

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

#114

Post by paulryanrogers »

fallingknife wrote: post #91
infamouscow wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers are not known for their prowess in mathematics, let alone statistics. Making these arguments from the standpoint of an engineer is counterproductive.

Which is why they are the wrong people to run the country

Whom? Because math is important and so is law, among a variety of other things.

s/ Thankfully the US presidential choices are at least rational, of sound mind, and well rounded people. Certainly no spoiled man children among them. /s

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

#115

Post by ivewonyoung »

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

#116

Post by ivewonyoung »

mbernstein wrote: post #105
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Are you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in them?

Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.

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

#117

Post by Retric »

mbernstein wrote: post #105
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity.

It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.

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

#118

Post by rblatz »

FireBeyond wrote: post #109
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 Tesl…

I have to disengage FSD multiple times a day and I’m only driving 16 miles round trip. And routinely have to stop it from doing dumb things like stopping at green traffic lights, attempting to do a u turn from the wrong turn lane, or switching to the wrong lane right before a turn.

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

#119

Post by UltraSane »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #115
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]

Tesla's BS with FSD is as bad as Theranos was with their blood tests.

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

#120

Post by akira2501 »

botanical wrote: post #52

Only the US government can allow corporations to beta test unproven technology on the public. Governments should carry out comprehensive tests on a self-driving car's claimed capabilities. This is the same as cars without proven passenger safety (Euro NCAP) aren't allowed to be on roads carrying passengers.

> Only the US government

Any Legislative body can do so. There's no reason to limit this strictly to the federal government. States and municipalities should have a say in this as well. The _citizens_ are the only entity that _decide_ if beta technology can be used or not.

> comprehensive tests on a self-driving car's claimed capabilities.

This presupposes the government is naturally capable of performing an adequate job at this task or that the automakers won't sue the government to interfere with the testing regime and efficacy of it's standards.

> aren't allowed to be on roads carrying passengers.

According to Wikipedia Euro NCAP is a _voluntary_ organization and describes the situation thusly "legislation sets a minimum compulsory standard whilst Euro NCAP is concerned with best possible current practice." Which effectively highlights the above problems perfectly.

Post reply on HN