Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features

Post by pests » Thu, May 27, 2021, 8:57 PM UTC

stoddur wrote: post #76

dragontamer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210312022048/https://www.tesla... I'm pulling this from archive.org, because Tesla has removed this blogpost from their servers. As recently as March, they kept this pro-Radar blogpost up. Only now are they purging this data from their archives. Fortunately, the Internet Archive remembers the history, so they won't find it so easy to rewrite history in their favor.

You meant March 2016? I would not call that recent in the self-driving vehicle world

Post by wombatmobile » Thu, May 27, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

osmarks wrote: post #255

IncRnd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related to what you wrote, I strongly disagree with the argument that some people make, where it is said X lives were saved. But, what they are really saying is that Y people, who wouldn't otherwise die, were killed by the new technology, yet overall fewer died! What good is any technology if it is known to kill people who would otherwise be alive?

Why does the particular set of people matter instead of just the difference in numbers? If the Y people happened to be a subset of those who would die without the technology, is that better? If you somehow move all the deaths caused by a thing to a different but equally large set of people, is that bad because those people "would otherwise be alive"?

Post by kevinskii » Thu, May 27, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #251

arcticfox wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which will hurtle you 200mph at a wall and then disengage autopilot 100ms before hitting the wall and not count it as an autopilot death. This is false: "To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds before a crash." https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport It would be more helpful to focus on actually deceptive issues in how they report data, nam…

You are correct about the 100ms (although 5s is too short, should be something like 30 given our understanding of task switching) but it's worth pointing out that the comparison you quote (and all those like it, not just from Tesla) is disingenuous. All the self driving companies do this, but it only makes sense to compare # of accidents/mile between like processes. It's an ok proxy for total risk iff accidents were…

Post by nobodylikeme » Thu, May 27, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

jdhn wrote: post #153

pmastela wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the worst part is that it's not even transferable from one car to another. That would make sense to do it that way: Sell FSD as some sort of license that always works in any Tesla one drives. How does it currently work? If someone sells their Tesla does the FSD package follow the car or does the new owner need to purchase FSD for that car?

I believe it follows the car, as you can buy used Teslas with FSD.

Post by ghoward » Thu, May 27, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #219

ghoward wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people need to see your comment because there seems to be a belief that full self driving is just around the corner. However, IMO, it will never happen because it needs a full artificial general intelligence. In your case, the new lane was clearly marked, which just shows how weak the system really is. Imagine if there was snow covering the lane markings. Or sunlight reflecting off of the road confuses the visio…

It doesn't actually need full general AI, but it does need to know and understand all of the roads in its "service area". IMHO the real solution will be building a database of roads (and lanes, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, etc). BTW, the average driver gets in a crash every 18 years. The best humans aren't perfect either, and a self-driving car really only needs to be better than the worst humans to be a…