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

121–130 of 149 posts

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

#121

Post by simondotau »

cyberax wrote: post #105
torginus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a thought - a Waymo car costs $200k (maybe more) from a quick google search. YoY returns of $200k on S&P are about 10%, while an Uber driver takes home about $40-$50k - so in terms of cost, they are about 2x-2.5x of each other, with the Waymore likely needing expensive maintenance/support infrastructure, bringing the total much closer. Which means if Tesla can really build that Cybercab - with an underpowe…

Waymo cars are basically priceless at this point. As in: the car cost doesn't matter. They've so far spent multiple times their fleet's costs on R&D. The fact that they're getting some pocket cash from paid fares is inconsequential for their bottom line. Any realistic mass deployment will use cheaper cars, more suitable for taxi service.

The cost isn't an issue at their current scale, perhaps not even one order of magnitude larger, because today's fleet is as much a devkit as it is a consumer product. But that strategy only takes them so far. Cost is a dangerous impediment to scale, and it will be their albatross long before their business model has a chance of becoming profitable, let alone cumulatively profitable.

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

#122

Post by simondotau »

tippytippytango wrote: post #57

Ultimately, anecdotes and testimonials of a product like this are irrelevant. But the public discourse hasn't caught up with it. People talk about it like it's a new game console or app, giving their positive or negative testimonials, as if this is the correct way to validate the product. Only rigorous, continual, third party validation that the system is effective and safe would be relevant. It should be evaluated m…

It can be misleading to directly compare disengagements to actual catastrophic incidents.

The human collision numbers only count actual incidents, and even then only ones which have been reported to insurance/authorities. It doesn't include many minor incidents such as hitting a bollard, or curb rash, or bump-and-run incidents in car parks, and even vehicle-on-vehicle incidents when both parties agree to settle privately. And the number certainly excludes ALL unacceptably close near-misses. There's no good numbers for any of these, but I'd be shocked if minor incidents weren't an of magnitude more common, and near misses another order of magnitude again.

Whereas an FSD disengagement could merely represent the driver's (very reasonable) unwillingness to see if the software will avoid the incident itself. Some disengagements don't represent a safety risk at all, such as when the software is being overly cautious, e.g. at a busy crosswalk. Some disengagements for sure were to avoid a bad situation, though many of these would have been non-catastrophic (such as curbing a wheel) and not a collision which would be included in any human driver collision statistics.

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

#123

Post by nofriend »

don_neufeld wrote: post #67
bastawhiz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sca…

The execution on the roadster baffles me. IIRC the deposit was 250K, and I know people who signed up on the first day. Can you imagine a more dedicated fan? How do you not deliver to that group ? How big an own-goal is that?

50k. point definitely remains

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

#124

Post by irjustin »

atlex2 wrote: post #119
irjustin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only rigorous, continual, third party validation that the system is effective and safe would be relevant. It should be evaluated more like a medical treatment. 100% agreed, and I'll take it one step further - level 3 should be outright banned/illegal. The reason is it allows blame shifting exactly as what is happening right now. Drivers mentally expected level 4 and legally the company will position the fault, in a…

They're building on a false premise that human equivalent performance using cameras is acceptable. That's the whole point of AI - when you can think really fast, the world is really slow. You simulate things. Even with lifetimes of data, the cars still will fail in visual scenarios where error bars on ground truth shoot through the roof. Elon seems to believe his cars will fail in similar ways to humans because they…

So, I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't matter.

The legal standing doesn't care what tech it is behind it. 1000 monkeys for all it matters. The point is level 3 is the most dangerous level because neither the public nor the manuf properly operates in this space.

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

#125

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #104
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying all that I wouldn't mind even cheaper Tesla - small screen, 1 camera instead of 11, fully offline, fully stainless steel, fully open source - basically minimally tech and maximally maintainable and maximum longevity. What you describe would probably cost more money, not less. The market is small and analog tech is actually more expensive to produce with than digital tech.

I said nothing about analog.

> I said nothing about analog.

But:

> basically minimally tech and maximally maintainable and maximum longevity.

Kind of implies it.

Tech is used to lower prices, not raise them, if you want minimize tech, and you want to make it as maintainable by end user or relatively cheap mechanics, and you want it to last as long as possible, that is going to cost a lot. Or you basically want a Lada Laika, the old ones, that could be repaired super easily. Anything with microchips is going to suffer if those chips die, and they aren't going to be easy to repair.

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

#126

Post by terminalshort »

weirdindiankid wrote: post #101
terminalshort wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me actual stats on the safety vs human drivers and I may actually care. The lack of them makes me think that it isn't actually that dangerous compared to humans.

Agreed. Unfortunately, Tesla’s quite cagey with publishing safety data, far as I can tell. For what it’s worth, both HW4 and HW3 with FSD 13.x and 12.x have put me in dangerous situations enough times to where I no longer trust it.

I would like to see that data too, but seeing how unhinged the media reaction is when even one person is killed in a Tesla (or even when a cat was killed by a Waymo) I do understand why they don't release it.

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

#127

Post by jonway »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #54
jonway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fairly weak shower thought, but it was interesting to note (anecdotally) people's propensity to rigidly prioritize safety in some, but not all circumstances. For example, I've had numerous conversations where people will point to safety rating in vehicles to defend their purchasing decisions. Its simple to understand really, I want the safest car for my family/child etc, that is why I refuse to buy an older…

Shame they don't reduce safety ratings for the bigger vehicles with worse visibility that are more likely to kill pedestrians/bicyclists and cause more respiratory problems than smaller vehicles.

Yes, its maybe an "internal" safety rating? Since the ratings are from a standardized test usually conducted on a powered rail trolley, I've often wondered if the safety rating would be different if the testing considered those other factors, like crashing into a Civic vs a Chevy truck, or vice versa.

I have training and a great deal of experience with vehicle emissions systems, but not medical training beyond first aid and CPR. I think that mostly the respiration problems are caused by particulates volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide(which is quite nasty), mostly from diesel emissions. The catalytic converters and emission controls prevent nearly all VoC and like %90 of NOx, so the effect from passenger vehicles seems pretty small there. They do nothing to eliminate SO2, which is why we mandate DEF (diesel emissions fluid) on some diesels.

Brake dust and tire wear is another smaller contributor, though

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

#128

Post by Animats »

simondotau wrote: post #118
torginus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a thought - a Waymo car costs $200k (maybe more) from a quick google search. YoY returns of $200k on S&P are about 10%, while an Uber driver takes home about $40-$50k - so in terms of cost, they are about 2x-2.5x of each other, with the Waymore likely needing expensive maintenance/support infrastructure, bringing the total much closer. Which means if Tesla can really build that Cybercab - with an underpowe…

Not to mention, Waymo is moving from Jaguar to Zeekr for its next-gen fleet, meaning 100% import tariffs on those Chinese-built base vehicles before it even begins the expensive retrofit process. The core problem with Waymo’s model is its lack of (economically rational) scalability. Shipping finished vehicles to a second facility to strip and rebuild them as robotaxis is inherently inefficient, and cannot be made eff…

> Not to mention, Waymo is moving from Jaguar to Zeekr for its next-gen fleet, meaning 100% import tariffs on those Chinese-built base vehicles before it even begins the expensive retrofit process.

Isn't Waymo going with Ioniq 5 vehicles built for them in the US by Hyundai, with all the vehicle sheet metal and other mods installed at the factory? That was the story a few months ago.

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

#129

Post by progbits »

romaaeterna wrote: post #88
rtpg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any blame to be associated to Tesla for its feature? what's the right percent for you? 20%? 10%? 5%? 0%? If the wheels of the car fell off, whould Tesla have any blame for that? If we had laid wires all along the road to allow for automatic driving, and Tesla's software misread that and caused a crash, would it be to blame? When is Autopilot safe to use? Is it ever safe to use? Is the fact that people seem t…

0%. This is entirely on the driver. He's someone who should spend a few years in prison, and then never be allowed to have a license again. A foot on the gas overrides braking on autopilot and causes it to flash up a large message up on the screen that "Autopilot will not break / Accelerator pedal is pressed"

Yet almost any other car made after that tesla (and much cheaper) will automated break if it's about to hit something, no AI involved, just radar obstacle detection.

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

#130

Post by piva00 »

vessenes wrote: post #114
bastawhiz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried 12 and 13. My car hasn't gotten 14 and I'm not interested in finding out if it'll get it, because at this point I'm simply not interested even if it's decent. And there's no guarantee it'll be meaningfully better, if I'm being honest. Why would I believe that all the issues are fixed? For me to be interested, every single problem that I'd encountered needs to be resolved. Why would I even consider accepting a…

Meh. I do a lot of beta testing, and enjoy it. I think it's fun to watch the evolution of this tech over the last seven or eight years. But you don't have to feel that way.

Has everyone else you encounter on the road agreed to participate in your beta testing?

That's the crux of it, and where traffic education mostly fails in the USA: the lack of consideration that the road is about safety for all users involved, the notion you are operating dangerous machinery around other people.

Post reply on HN