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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by dylan604 »

Retric wrote: post #160
dylan604 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, hydro has done harm to the ecosystems where they are installed. This is quite often overlooked and brushed aside. There is no single method of generating electricity without downsides.

We’ve made dams long before we knew about electricity. At which point tacking hydropower to a dam that would exist either way has basically zero environmental impact. Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant environmental impact.

I just don't get the premise of your argument. Are you honestly saying that stopping the normal flow of water has no negative impact on the ecosystem? What about the area behind the dam that is now flooded? What about the area in front of the dam where there is now no way to traverse back up stream?

Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with the risk of nuclear, the use of land for solar/wind. But to just flat out deny that it has impact is just dishonest discourse at best

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

#332

Post by SoftTalker »

Arainach wrote: post #241
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…

This is about lying to the public and stoking false expectations for years. If it's "fully self driving" Tesla should be liable for when its vehicles kill people. If it's not fully self driving and Tesla keeps using that name in all its marketing, regardless of any fine print, then Tesla should be liable for people acting as though their cars could FULLY self drive and be sued accordingly. You don't get to lie just b…

It’s your car, so ultimately the liability is yours. That’s why you have insurance. If Tesla retains ownership, and just lets you drive it, then they have (more) liability.

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

#333

Post by modeless »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #328
jvanderbot wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 12.5. maybe 12.6 is better but I've heard that before. Don't get me wrong without a concerted data team building maps a priori, this is pretty incredible. But from a pure performance standpoint it's a shaky product.

The latest version is 12.5.6, I think he got confused by the .6 at the end. If you think that's bad then there isn't a better version available. However it is a dramatic improvement over 12.3, don't know how much you tested on it.

You're right, thanks. One of the biggest updates in 12.5.6 is transitioning the highway Autopilot to FSD. If he has 12.5.4 then it may still be using the old non-FSD Autopilot on highways which would explain why he hasn't noticed improvement there; there hasn't been any until 12.5.6.

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

#334

Post by Terr_ »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #226

The interesting question is how good self-driving has to be before people tolerate it. It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? Accidents caused by human drivers are one of the largest causes of injury and death, but they're not newsworthy the way an accident involving automated driving is. It's all too easy to se…

> It's clear that having half the casualty rate per distance traveled of the median human driver isn't acceptable.

Even if we optimistically assume no "gotchas" in the statistics [0], distilling performance down to a casualty/injury/accident-rate can still be dangerously reductive, when the have a different distribution of failure-modes which do/don't mesh with our other systems and defenses.

A quick thought experiment to prove the point: Imagine a system which compared to human drivers had only half the rate of accidents... But many of those are because it unpredictably decides to jump the sidewalk curb and kill a targeted pedestrian.

The raw numbers are encouraging, but it represents a risk profile that clashes horribly with our other systems of road design, car design, and what incidents humans are expecting and capable of preventing or recovering-from.

[0] Ex: Automation is only being used on certain subsets of all travel which are the "easier" miles or circumstances than the whole gamut a human would handle.

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

#335

Post by penjelly »

travem wrote: post #279
gambiting wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>. How about a quarter? Or a tenth? The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then…

> The answer is zero If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it. I agree that it should be regulated and incidents thoroughly investigated, however letting perfect be the enemy of good leads to stagnation and lack of practical improvement and greater injury to the population as a whole.

I'd challenge the legitimacy of the claim that it's 10x safer, or even safer at all. The safety data provided isn't compelling to me, it can be games or misrepresented in various ways, as pointed out by others.

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

#336

Post by valval »

gitaarik wrote: post #213
valval wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been safer than a human driver for years. It’s also not meant to be unsupervised.

Something about these two statements seem to be in conflict with each other, but maybe that is just kinda Tesla PR talk.

It’s quite easy to be safer than a human driver, since humans are just human. Supervision is required because the system can face edge cases.

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

#337

Post by theyinwhy »

gitaarik wrote: post #211
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As I understand, electric cars are more polluting than non-electric, because first of all manufacturing and resources footprint is larger, but also because they are heavier (because of the batteries), the tires wear down much faster, needing more tire replacement, which is so significantly much that their emission free-ness doesn't compensate for it. Besides, electric vehicles still seem to be very impractical compar…

That has been falsified by more studies than I can keep track of. And yes, if you charge your electric with electricity produced by oil, the climate effect will be non-optimal.

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

#338

Post by valval »

UltraSane wrote: post #208
fallingknife wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The difference is that Tesla has a general algorithm, while Waymo is hard coding scenarios.

I never really got why people bring Waymo up every time Tesla’s FSD is mentioned. Waymo isn’t competing with Tesla’s vision.

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

#339

Post by gitaarik »

valval wrote: post #336
gitaarik wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something about these two statements seem to be in conflict with each other, but maybe that is just kinda Tesla PR talk.

It’s quite easy to be safer than a human driver, since humans are just human. Supervision is required because the system can face edge cases.

Ah ok so if humans would be supervised for their edge cases then humans would actually be safer!

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

#340

Post by hilux »

jvanderbot wrote: post #316
modeless wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla jumped the gun on the FSD free trial earlier this year. It was nowhere near good enough at the time. Most people who tried it for the first time probably share your opinion. That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD 12.3 that you experienced earlier this year and the latest version 12.6. It will still make mistakes from time to time but the improvement is massive and obvious. More importantly,…

I have yet to see a difference. I let it highway drive for an hour and it cut off a semi, coming within 9 to 12 inches of the bumper for no reason. I heard about that one believe me. It got stuck in a side street trying to get to a target parking lot, shaking the wheel back and forth. It's no better so far and this is the first day.

> ... coming within 9 to 12 inches of the bumper for no reason. I heard about that one believe me.

Oh dear.

Glad you're okay!

Post reply on HN