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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by misiti3780 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #372
misiti3780 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Curiousity about why they're against it and enunciating your why you think it will work would be more helpful.

It's evident to Tesla drivers using Full Self-Driving (FSD) that the technology is rapidly improving and will likely succeed. The key reason for this anticipated success is data: any reasonably intelligent observer recognizes that training exceptional deep neural networks requires vast amounts of data, and Tesla has accumulated more relevant data than any of its competitors. Tesla recently held a robotaxi event, explicitly informing investors of their plans to launch an autonomous competitor to Uber. While Elon Musk's timeline predictions and politics may be controversial, his ability to achieve results and attract top engineering and management talent is undeniable.

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

#402

Post by rKarpinski »

Retric wrote: post #389
rKarpinski wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omitting that the pedestrian was on a freeway meaningfully mis-represents the situation.

People walking on freeways may be rare from the perspective of an individual driver but not a self driving system operating on millions of vehicles.

What does that have to do with the original article's misleading title?

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

#403

Post by Retric »

dylan604 wrote: post #331
Retric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s the same premise as rooftop solar. You’re building a home anyway so adding solar panels to the roof isn’t destroying pristine habitat.

People build dams for many reasons not just electricity.

Having a reserve of rainwater is a big deal in California, Texas, etc. Letting millions of cubic meters more water flow into the ocean would make the water problems much worse in much of the world. Flood control is similarly a serious concern. Blaming 100% of the issues from dams on Hydropower is silly if outlawing hydropower isn’t going to remove those dams.

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

#404

Post by jeremyjh »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #369
jeremyjh wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just reducing the value of a life to a number. It can be gamed to a situation where it's just more profitable to mow down people. What's an acceptable number/financial cost is also just an indirect approximated way of implementing a more direct/scientific regulation. Not everything needs to be reduced to money.

There is no way to game it successfully; if your insurance costs are much higher than your competitors you will lose in the long run. That doesn’t mean there can’t be other penalties when there is gross negligence.

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

#405

Post by HaZeust »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #343

Unpopular take: Even with perfect FSD which is much better than the average human driver (say having the robotic equivalent of a Lewis Hamilton in every car) the productivity and health gains won't be as great as people anticipate. Sure way less traffic deaths but the spike in depression especially among males would be something very big. Life events are much outside of our control, having a 5000lbs thing that can ge…

As a sports car owner, I see where you're coming from -- but MANY do not. We are the 10%, the other 90% see their vehicle as an A-B tool, and you can clearly see that displayed with the average, utilitarian car models that the vast majority of the public buy. There will be no "spike" in depression; simply put, there's not enough people that care about their car, how it gets from point A to point B, or what contribution they give, if any, into that.

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

#406

Post by johnneville »

frabjoused wrote: post #262
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…

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.

are there even transparent reported numbers available ?

for whatever does exist, it is also easy to imagine how they could be misleading. for instance i've disengaged FSD when i noticed i was about to be in an accident. if i couldn't recover in time, the accident would not be when FSD is on and depending on the metric, would not be reported as a FSD induced accident.

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

#407

Post by concordDance »

TheCleric wrote: post #374
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…

> Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. There’s a simple answer to this. As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. Until then if Tesla doesn’t trust it, why should I?

Whats the current total liability cost for all Tesla drivers?

The average for all USA cars seems to be around $2000/year, so even if FSD was half as dangerous Tesla would still be paying $1000/year equivalent (not sure how big insurance margins are, assuming nominal) per car.

Now, if legally the driver could avoid paying insurance for the few times they want/need to drive themselves (e.g. snow? Dunno what FSD supports atm) then it might make sense economically, but otherwise I don't think it would work out.

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

#409

Post by concordDance »

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…

This would be more helpful with a date. Was this in 2020 or 2024? I've been told FSD had a complete rearchitecting.

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

#410

Post by Terr_ »

stormfather wrote: post #361
jeremyjh wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would be good because it would incentivize all FSD cars communicating with each other. Imagine how safe driving would be if they are all broadcasting their speed and position to each other. And each vehicle sending/receiving gets cheaper insurance.

It goes kinda dsytopic if access to the network becomes a monopolistic barrier.
Post reply on HN