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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by alkonaut »

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…

> How about a quarter? Or a tenth?

Probably closer to the latter. The "skin in the game" (physically) argument makes me more willing to accept drunk drivers than greedy manufacturers when it comes to making mistakes or being negligent.

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

#353

Post by jjmarr »

UltraSane wrote: post #146
jjmarr wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It "works" if you mean often does incredibly stupid and dangerous things and requires a person to be ready to take over for it at any moment to prevent a crash. So far no Tesla car has ever legally driven even a single mile without a person in the driver's seat.

And? How does that make Elon Musk a con artist?

It's possible to physically get in a Tesla and have it drive you from point A to point B. That's a self-driving car. You're saying it's unreliable, makes mistakes, and can be used illegally. That doesn't mean the car can't drive itself, just that it doesn't do a very good job at "self-driving"

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

#354

Post by tensor »

rvnx wrote: post #295
frabjoused wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that doesn't make sense is the numbers. If it is dangerous in your anecdotes, why don't the reported numbers show more accidents when FSD is on? When I did the trial on my Tesla, I also noted these kinds of things and felt like I had to take control. But at the end of the day, only the numbers matter.

There is an easy way to know what is really behind the numbers: look who is paying in case of accident. You have a Mercedes, Mercedes takes responsibility. You have a Tesla, you take the responsibility. Says a lot.

You have a Mercedes, and you have a system that works virtually nowhere.

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

#355

Post by snypher »

modeless wrote: post #312
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

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,…

So just a few more years of death and injury until they reach a finished product?

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

#356

Post by misiti3780 »

modeless wrote: post #312
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

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 the same experience 12.5 is insanely good. HN is full of people that dont want self driving to succeed for some reason. fortunately, it's clear as day to some of us that tesla approach will work

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

#357

Post by bastawhiz »

modeless wrote: post #312
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

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,…

> At the current rate of improvement it will be quite good within a year

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure "quite good" is the next step after "feels dangerous".

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

#358

Post by tensor »

jeremyjh wrote: post #244
Arainach wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this is the answer: the company takes on full liability. If a Tesla is Fully Self Driving then Tesla is driving it. The insurance market will ensure that dodgy software/hardware developers exit the industry.

I’m for this as long as the company also takes on liability for human errors they could prevent. I’d want to see cars enforcing speed limits and similar things. Humans are too dangerous to drive.

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

#359

Post by bastawhiz »

potato3732842 wrote: post #319
bastawhiz wrote: post #257

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous. - It failed with a cryptic system error while driving - It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene. - In my opinion, the default setting accelera…

If you were a poorer driver who did these things you wouldn't find these faults so damning because it'd only be say 10% dumber than you rather than 40% or whatever (just making up those numbers).

That just implies FSD is as good as a bad driver, which isn't really an endorsement.

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

#360

Post by yCombLinks »

penjelly wrote: post #335
travem wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That claim wasn't made. It was a hypothetical, what if it was 10x safer? Then would people tolerate it.
Post reply on HN