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

#201

Post by amenhotep » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

Kirby64 wrote: post #128

seadan83 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World of difference between, 30, 40, 50 and 60. Feels like something I have noticed between west and east coast drivers. Latter really send it on country turns and just trust the road. West coast, particularly montana, when vision is reduced, speed slows down. Just too many animals or road obstacles (eg: rocks, planks of wood) to just trust the road.

Road obstacles are static and can be seen by not “out driving your headlights”. Animals flinging themselves into the road cannot, in many instances.

You are responding in a thread about a person saying they were driving at 60 when the deer only became visible "due to terrain" at 100 feet away, and therefore hitting it is no reflection on their skill or choices as a driver.

I suppose we're meant to interpret charitably here, but it really seems to me like there is a big difference between the scenario described and the one you're talking about, where the deer really does fling itself out in front of you.

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

#202

Post by rsynnott » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

maeil wrote: post #184

m463 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's called "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"

The part in parentheses has only recently been added.

And is, well, entirely contradictory. An absolute absurdity; what happens when the irresistible force of the legal department meets the immovable object of marketing.

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

#203

Post by UltraSane » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

valval wrote: post #189

UltraSane wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current vision-only system is a clear technological dead-end that can't go much more than 10 miles between "disengagements". To be clear, "disengagements" would be crashes if a human wasn't ready to take over. And not needing a human driver is THE ENTIRE POINT! I will admit Musk isn't a liar when Tesla has FSD at least as good as Waymo's system and Tesla accepts legal liability for any crashes.

You’re wrong. Nothing about this is clear, and you’d be silly to claim otherwise. You should explore your bias and where it’s coming from.

No Tesla vehicle has legally driven even a single mile with no driver in the driver's seat. They aren't even trying to play Waymo's game. The latest FSD software's failure rate is at least 100 times higher than it needs to be.

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

#204

Post by rsynnott » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:21 PM UTC

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]

It’s really unfortunate that puffery survived as a common law defence. It’s really from an earlier era, when fraud was far more acceptable and people were more conditioned to assume that vendors were outright lying to them; it has no place in modern society.

Also, that’s investors, not consumers. While the rise of retail investing has made this kind of dubious, investors are generally assumed to be far less in need of protection than consumers by the law; it is assumed that they take care about their investment that a consumer couldn’t reasonably take around every single product that they buy.

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

#205

Post by seadan83 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:32 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #78

seadan83 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World of difference between, 30, 40, 50 and 60. Feels like something I have noticed between west and east coast drivers. Latter really send it on country turns and just trust the road. West coast, particularly montana, when vision is reduced, speed slows down. Just too many animals or road obstacles (eg: rocks, planks of wood) to just trust the road.

> West coast, particularly montana Montana is not "West coast".

Yeah, I was a bit glib. My impression is more specifically of the greater northwest vs rest. Perhaps just "the west" vs "the east".

Indiana drivers for example really do send it (in my experience). Which is not east coast of course.

There is a good bit of nuance... I would perhaps say more simply east of Mississippi vs west, but Texas varies by region and so-Cal drivers vary a lot as well, particularly compared to nor-Cal and central+eastern california. (I don't have an impression for nevada and new mexico drivers - I dont have any experience on country roads in those states)

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

#206

Post by soerxpso » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:34 PM UTC

For whatever it's worth, Teslas with Autopilot enabled crash about once every 4.5M miles driven, whereas the overall rate in the US is roughly one crash every 70K miles driven. Of course, the selection effects around that stat can be debated (people probably enable autopilot in situations that are safer than average, the average tesla owner might be driving more carefully or in safer areas than the average driver, etc), but it is a pretty significant difference. (Those numbers are what I could find at a glance; DYOR if you'd like more rigor).

We have a lot of traffic fatalities in the US (in some states, an entire order of magnitude worse than in some EU countries), but it's generally not considered an issue. Nobody asks, "These agents are crashing a lot; are they really competent to drive?" when the agent is human, but when the agent is digital it becomes a popular question even with a much lower crash rate.

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

#207

Post by fallingknife » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

UltraSane wrote: post #203

valval wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re wrong. Nothing about this is clear, and you’d be silly to claim otherwise. You should explore your bias and where it’s coming from.

No Tesla vehicle has legally driven even a single mile with no driver in the driver's seat. They aren't even trying to play Waymo's game. The latest FSD software's failure rate is at least 100 times higher than it needs to be.

That's a stupid point. I've been in a Tesla that's driven a mile by itself. It makes no difference if a person is in the seat.

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

#208

Post by UltraSane » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 3:43 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #207

UltraSane wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Tesla vehicle has legally driven even a single mile with no driver in the driver's seat. They aren't even trying to play Waymo's game. The latest FSD software's failure rate is at least 100 times higher than it needs to be.

That's a stupid point. I've been in a Tesla that's driven a mile by itself. It makes no difference if a person is in the seat.

"It makes no difference if a person is in the seat." It does when Musk is claiming that Tesla is going to sell a car with no steering wheel!

The current Tesla FSD fails so often that a human HAS to be in the driver seat ready to take over at any moment.

You really don't understand the enormous difference between the current crappy level 2 Tesla FSD and Waymo's level 4 system?

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

#209

Post by insane_dreamer » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:10 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #92

insane_dreamer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making 4 report crashes and 1 reported fatality for 2.4 million vehicles over 8 years look miniscule by comparison, that's the wrong comparison the correct comparison is the number of report crashes and fatalities for __unsupervised FSD__ miles driven (not counting Tesla pilot tests, but actual customers)

That seems like a bit of a chicken and egg problem where the software is not allowed to go unsupervised until it racks up a few million miles of successful unsupervised driving.

Similar to a Phase 3 clinical trial (and for similar reasons).

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

#210

Post by Zigurd » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

thebruce87m wrote: post #192

arcanemachiner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "overdriving your vision", and it's so common that it boggles my mind. (This opinion might have something to do with the deer I hit when I first started driving...) Drive according to the conditions, folks.

There is a difference between driving too fast around a corner to stop for something stationary on the road and driving through countryside where something might jump out. I live in a country with deer but the number of incidences of them interacting with road users is so low that it does not factor in to my risk tolerance.

The risks vary with speed. At 30mph a deer will be injured and damage your car, and you might have to call animal control to find the deer if it was able to get away. At 45mph there is a good chance the deer will impact your windshield. If it breaks through, that's how people die in animal collisions. They get kicked to death by a frantic, panicked, injured animal.