301–310 of 864 posts
That's 4-5B USD worth of fraud. This thing could actually be quite dangerous for TSLA. One class-action lawsuit around this and they're bankrupt. Edit: Dang, you're all right, they could eat this and still be alive. My whole sentiment comes from FSD being their big shot (and everything that comes with that, like the robotaxis and whatnot). Without FSD, they're "just another car company" and the market is already thri…
I thought emperically, statistically, the number of crashes from FSD was drastically lower than human drivers. Was this number hogwash or is this just lawboys saying the number must be 0 before it's allowed on the road? If so, that's pretty crazy and people will die because of this decision.
The number was problematic for various reasons: The usual comparison is vs. all cars on the road, but Teslas are comparatively new cars with a lot of recent and expensive safety features not available in older cars. They’re also likely to be maintained better. On top, they’re also a driven by a different demographic which skews accident statistics. Teslas autopilot can only be enabled in comparatively safe and simple…
This is incorrect. FSD can be enabled everywhere from dirt road to parking lots, even highways and dense urban environments like NYC. There is no geofence on FSD, you can turn it on anywhere the car can see drivable space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "self driving" tech that works (e.g. auto braking) is deployed and has saved lives. (Self driving in quotes because it is not really the full promise of self driving.) This Tesla AI does not work well enough in many conditions and is clearly sometimes more dangerous than humans. Just watch videos of people using it - it's obvious that is making unforgivable errors.
Do you have evidence for "clearly more dangerous"? Because what numbers exist say the opposite. They are now pushing a million (!) of these vehicles on US roads and to my knowledge the bay bridge accident[1] is the only example of a significant at fault accident involving the technology. It's very easy to make pronouncements like "one accident is too many", but we all know that's not correct in context. Right? If FSD…
No one would have any major issues if this (self)killing system was called "Extended Driver Assist" and it had implemented the minimal safety features like driver monitoring, safely stopping the car if the driver doesn't pay attention to the road.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/100pemh/tesla..., also, in this case, even a $20K Škoda [2] has basic automatic braking safety features, no need for artificial intelligence to detect something stationary in front of you.
[2] https://www.skoda-auto.com/world/safety-assistence-system-ci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hell, right now I'd pay a few bucks to disable AP so I could use the old school cruise control. I still don't understand Tesla's opposition for making that an option whether you have AP or not.
To engage traffic aware cruise control, pull the right stalk down once.
Dumb question: why would anyone sign-up for a beta program, that could kill you if gone wrong? (maybe people just don't think through ramifications)
People drive motorcycles, which seems much more dangerous. I don't think the risk of self driving is that high but it does seem stressful.
Would you like to participate in the beta program, to test stoping bullets being shot at you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does anyone have insights on what QA looks like at Tesla for FSD work? Because all of these seem table-stakes before even thinking about releasing the BETA FSD. Tesla is not exactly in love with QA. Especially for FSD. FSD is mainly 2 things: 1. (By far most important) shareholder value creating promise, that's been solved for 6 years according to their CEO. 2. Software engineering research project What FSD is not…
Do you have actual knowlage of Tesla internal QA processes, any kind of source at all? Based on there presentation, they for sure have a whole load of tests, many built directly from real world situation that the car has to handle. They simulate sensor input based on the simulation and check the car does the right thing. They very likely have some internal test drivers and before the software goes public it goes to t…
1. I know people working at Tesla.
2. Much more important one - Elon's Twitter feed. They're doing last minute changes, and once it compiles and passes some automated tests, it's tested internally only over few days before it's released to the customers. Even if they had world class internal testing (they don't), for something having to work in such a diverse environment like self driving system without any geo-fencing, those timelines are all you need to know.
I have a Model 3, and was excited to get the FSD beta access about a month ago. I don't use it super regularly, but it's neat. This morning I tried to turn it on, and the car immediately veered left into the oncoming lane on a straight, 2 lane road. Fortunately, there were no other vehicles nearby. I immediately turned it off in the settings, and have no intention of re-enabling.
So are they recalling, or releasing a software fix?
I think this is a legitimate question, and a reflection of how the NHTSA needs to adjust their wording for modern car architectures. It's technically a recall, but it's fixed with an OTA update. But the fact that any "defect" that can be fixed with an OTA update is called a "recall" is confusing to consumers and contributes to media sensationalism. There absolutely needs to be a process overseen by regulators for car…
Would it be sensationalism if the same recall happened to cars not capable of the OTA update?
Because I think there should be media "sensationalism" about these types of issues, regardless of whether they can be fixed with physical or OTA repairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone can drive from Palm Springs to SF with no intervention does that not make it bullshit anymore?
FSD requires you to be 100% in control of the vehicle for the entire drive, and paying full attention to the driving, and also do nothing. This is demonstrably not a task that anyone can do, let alone Joa[n] Average car driver. Highly trained pilots are not expected to do that, and that's when autopilot is being used in a vehicle that can provide significant amounts of time to handle the autopilot going wrong - serio…