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

Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

tomverbeure.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 378 posts

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#281

Post by throwaway7ahgb »

ThereIsNoWorry wrote: post #48

Almost a decade ago I used to be a hyped up HS graduate fully spoon-fed the AI hype bubble (after 2012, the first "deep" learning breakthroughs for image classification started hyping the game up). I studied at a top 5 university for CS and specialised in deep learning. Three years ago I finished, rejected a (some would call "prestigious") PhD offer and was thoroughly let down by how "stupid" AI is. For the last 2-is…

What are you using as the definition of 'doesn't work'? Are you taking the author's claims?

Does something have to be perfect to work? If that's the case we shouldn't have bridges because sometimes they fail?

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#282

Post by throwaway7ahgb »

croes wrote: post #30
jlmorton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what Elon has said. He's said that 99.99% of all vehicle miles are useless from a training perspective. https://www.teslarati.com/fsd-distance-driven-training-musk/

That's not the same. Elon thinks if he gets the right training data he gets rid of the dangerous 1% of errors. But that is not the case if it's a general problem of the used AI.

What are you using for "AI"? AI is a buzzword, unless you know specifically how they are using it, you can't make this claim.

Many marketing teams are just using AI when it is really ML doing the work, or it could be both.

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#283

Post by timschmidt »

bayindirh wrote: post #230
mlindner wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how people keep calling this vaporware when it actually works, is active on roads, and is used by tens of thousands of people. That's the strangest usage of the term I've ever seen. Vaporware is the term used to describe products announced that never make it to market in any form.

> when it actually works* *: The definition of "work" includes veering incl. but not limited to other vehicles, road shoulders or road divisions, sometimes self stabbing the car incl., but not limited to its driver with road railings or other roadside objects. The car might catch fire as a result or independent of the event if its feelings are hurt, or just feels like it, and burns for days, releasing its densely pac…

Did someone give you the impression that cars without FSD have ever been safe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Most dangerous way to travel, full stop. FSD or not. I don't think a perfect safety record is possible. Only better than what people currently accomplish given the inherent unsafety of the whole system. If safety were a top priority, the cars would be on rails.

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#284

Post by ProxCoques »

ddalex wrote: post #277
ProxCoques wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of my fave FSD predictions: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tesla-driverless-cars... Oct 2014: "Five or six years from now we will be able to achieve true autonomous driving where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination."

And waymo got there, in limited conditions

Indeed. "Limited conditions" being the issue here (and as per the article).

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#285

Post by ddalex »

FiberBundle wrote: post #133
TheDong wrote: post #99

The thing I've been most amazed at about FSD is that there hasn't been any sort of lawsuit around FSD refunds. There are people who paid thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars for a promise that their car would eventually have "full self driving". A not-insignificant portion of those people have lost any chance at actually getting FSD, whether by their car being totaled in an accident, or having sold it, or such,…

There have been lawsuits. I'm unable to find the actual documents, but this article [0] reports on it and has some unbelievable quotes in it. > Lin rejected Tesla's argument that LoSavio should have known earlier. "Although Tesla contends that it should have been obvious to LoSavio that his car needed lidar to self-drive and that his car did not have it, LoSavio plausibly alleges that he reasonably believed Tesla's c…

That's a very strange defense: you should have known we're lying you.

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#286

Post by sneak »

hankman86 wrote: post #64

They should teach Tesla’s “autopilot” (and its FSD upgrade) in business schools. Turns out you can sustainably push up company valuation on vapourware. You have to wonder if Tesla’s autonomous driving technology was actually ever meant to turn into a product. Or whether it is mostly a tool to justify the lofty Tesla stock price. I very much doubt that it is technologically ahead of its competitors.

> Turns out you can sustainably push up company valuation on vapourware.

It is very nearly standard practice in startupland to describe a yet-to-be-developed product in the present tense prior to/during development.

Strictly speaking, it’s lying/fraud, but it is so pervasive and widespread as to be expected and could rightly be called standard industry practice.

This is in no way a Tesla-specific thing.

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#287

Post by rchaud »

blueboo wrote: post #216
hankman86 wrote: post #64

They should teach Tesla’s “autopilot” (and its FSD upgrade) in business schools. Turns out you can sustainably push up company valuation on vapourware. You have to wonder if Tesla’s autonomous driving technology was actually ever meant to turn into a product. Or whether it is mostly a tool to justify the lofty Tesla stock price. I very much doubt that it is technologically ahead of its competitors.

Fake it til you make it is a fundamental principle of startups. We just don’t usually see it at such a vast scale. There’s a timeline where Theranos was acquired for 9b by UnitedHealth if they could keep the grift alive juuust a bit longer and Elizabeth Holmes ascends to the tech firmament permanently while her enablers congratulate each other. Tesla has even more and deeper financial and branding defense mechanisms.…

Wouldn't United Health have been in the same position as HP when they acquired Autonomy for $10b in 2011 on the basis of their cooked books?

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#288

Post by throwup238 »

jfoster wrote: post #256
schmuelio wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think arguing that "driving" requires the same amount of effort as "not driving" is a more specious claim It's really not, the human brain is _really_ good at abstracting. In pretty much exactly the same way you don't have to pay attention to balancing to walk, your brain learns to do the same thing for cycling and driving. It abstracts the mechanics of the car (e.g. turning the wheel to turn left/right) and sort…

Do you have a theory as to why drcode feels "FSD is a significant quality of life improvement for me"?

Different people have different abilities, just like with literally everything else.

For some people it’s easier to zone out and drive on auto, for others its easier to use FSD. Some people find it easy to zone out in bumper to bumper traffic, others not so much.

Re: Tesla's FSD – A Useless Technology Demo

#289

Post by bayindirh »

timschmidt wrote: post #283
bayindirh wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when it actually works* *: The definition of "work" includes veering incl. but not limited to other vehicles, road shoulders or road divisions, sometimes self stabbing the car incl., but not limited to its driver with road railings or other roadside objects. The car might catch fire as a result or independent of the event if its feelings are hurt, or just feels like it, and burns for days, releasing its densely pac…

Did someone give you the impression that cars without FSD have ever been safe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... Most dangerous way to travel, full stop. FSD or not. I don't think a perfect safety record is possible. Only better than what people currently accomplish given the inherent unsafety of the whole system. If safety were a top priority, the cars would be on rails.

> Did someone give you the impression that cars without FSD have ever been safe?

Did I say anything resembling or implying that? I don't think so.

> Most dangerous way to travel, full stop.

I love a quote from a famous driver, paraphrasing: "Racing is some people knowing what they're doing driving in a closed circuit. Traffic is the same, but with people who don't know what they're doing".

On top of that, I had enough incidents to know that what humans can do in traffic. They make good stories though.

> I don't think a perfect safety record is possible.

Me, too.

> Only better than what people currently accomplish given the inherent unsafety of the whole system.

I think cars with driver monitoring is more secure than cars with FSD or hands-free driving. I love to drive cars with lane hold, adaptive cruise and driver monitoring, because these systems improve safety and augment humans at the same time.

I don't believe that AI and/or computer vision is close to matching human perception and reasoning to handle a 2ton steel box like humans. Augmenting humans' capabilities is a far safer and reliable (if not unsexier) way.

> the cars would be on rails.

I love trains to death, but they're not perfect either.

Post reply on HN