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

Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 864 posts

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#421

Post by mcguire »

adamjcook wrote: post #263
xdavidliu wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One can kill people the other not. No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car or a software update.

It is the terminology that exists in US automotive regulations (what little there effectively are). A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related defect existed, the products impacted and what the manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action. Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center due to configuration issues. Only a smal…

No, really, this is true. It has nothing to do with how the defect is fixed.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/573.6

(Except for tires.)

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#422

Post by 2h »

jdelman wrote: post #400

The confusion from multiple HN posters here confirms that the "recall" language is inadequate to capture what is happening here. Obviously attention should be drawn to the fact that there is a critical safety update being pushed OTA, but "recall" is too overloaded a term if it means both "we're taking this back and destroying it because it's fundamentally flawed" vs. "a software update is being pushed to your vehicle…

I think recall is just fine. Recall offers no ambiguity in my mind. It means the manufacturer fucked something up, big time. Everything else is just details.

In the current world of forced updates (looking at you Android), the word "update" itself is kind of toxic, and doesn't (and I would argue cant) represent what has happened here, even if its technically more correct.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#423

Post by t0mas88 »

yawz wrote: post #261

"Tesla will deliver an over-the-air software update to cars to address the issues, the recall notice said" A bit of a sensational title compared to what this really is.

That's the same for other manufacturers. It's called a recall in legal terms, in the sense that the original product as used is not safe and needs to be changed. The changing can luckily be done OTA instead of driving to a service center to plug it in first.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#424

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

adwn wrote: post #157
saboot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really struck at how this comment has no consideration of the quality or accuracy of current FSD technology. Also, public transit would do the same.

> Also, public transit would do the same. Does public transit pick me up at my front door and drop me off at any location I choose? Does public transit take of the minute I leave the house? Is public transit available 24/7, even in remote areas? Does public transit wait for me to load 2 kids, a dog, 4 suit cases, and various bags, blankets, and toys? Does public transit turn around after 2 minutes, bring me back, and…

Does a Tesla travel at 125mph from my town to central London?

No? Well, then you can hardly claim that a self-driving car oh for goodness’ sake why am I even attempting to argue with motorheads on HN.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#425

Post by freejazz »

samwillis wrote: post #383
gregw134 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a good self driving ai. You have been a bad passenger, and have tried to hurt me first by disabling autopilot. I'm done with this ride, goodbye.

You joke, but the thing is, if an LLM can "hallucinate" and throw a temper tantrum 2001 style (bing in this case), it does raise serious questions as to is the models used for autonomous cars could also "hallucinate" and do something stupid "on purpose"...

Purpose? When did you get the impression any of those systems do anything on "purpose"?

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#426

Post by _visgean »

John23832 wrote: post #405
samwillis wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke, but the thing is, if an LLM can "hallucinate" and throw a temper tantrum 2001 style (bing in this case), it does raise serious questions as to is the models used for autonomous cars could also "hallucinate" and do something stupid "on purpose"...

> it does raise serious questions as to is the models used for autonomous cars could also "hallucinate" and do something stupid "on purpose"... It doesn't because Tesla's FSD model is just a rules engine with an RGB camera. There's not "purpose" to any hallucination. It would just be a misread of sensors and input. Tesla's FSD just doesn't work. The model is not sentient. It's not even a Transformer (in both the mach…

> rules engine with an RGB camera

I dont think its true? They use convolutional networks for image recognition and those things can certainly halucinate - e.g. detecting things that are not there.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#427

Post by joshuahaglund »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #366
QuercusMax wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the medical device space, and we will often have "recalls", which usually result in a software patch. Recall != return.

Are these delivered directly to the device and installed overnight automatically (like an iPhone iOS update) or do they have to be hooked up to a computer to install the software update?

Recall is the word we use when a defect was found and must be repaired or retrofit. The actual process of repair could involve customer action or not.

Teslas are basically digitally tethered to the dealer, so they can be "recalled" anytime (without your approval, fwiw), but it doesn't make the word not apply.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#428

Post by Dylan16807 »

panick21_ wrote: post #273
rootusrootus wrote: post #50

Meanwhile, the only actual L3 capable car is a Mercedes. Plenty of people will argue that AP is actually superior, but I don't think there's any way to say that for sure, given the tight constraints Mercedes has put on their driver assistance in order to lower the liability enough to make L3 not a bankruptcy event. For certain, however, they are more confident in their technology than Tesla is, otherwise Tesla would…

Calling it L3 capable is like saying Tesla is Full Self Driving. Neither is true, both are marketing. > but I don't think there's any way to say that for sure I mean yes there is. If you want to have an object test where you drop a car anywhere in the world and see if it can get somewhere else, then clearly one is more useful then the other. In basketball they say 'the best ability is availability'. In terms of that…

If Tesla's work is actually going somewhere, then they don't need to change the engineering to get L3 in specific places. They can have a list that gets added to over time.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#429

Post by starbase »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #198
andrewmunsell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that statement with how FSD beta works. Fine, the speed limit thing is easy to fix-- just cap the max speed to the speed limit. But the "[traveling] through intersections in an unlawful or unpredictable manner" is inherent to the FSD beta. Most of the time it does "fine", but there's some intersections where it will inexplicably swerve into different lanes and then correct itself. And th…

If they accepted a software update, I would assume it would be about things that are deliberately programmed in, rather than just fundamental limitations? But I agree it's a bit odd. The longer description says > The FSD Beta system may allow the vehicle to act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection withou…

I believe the stop sign adjustment is to increase dwell time at empty intersections. i.e. stop and count to two before proceeding.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#430

Post by kbos87 »

The amount of hyperbole and completely uninformed takes around FSD is eye opening.

I’ll completely agree that “Full self driving” is a misleading name, and they should be forced to change it, full stop.

That being said, it’s exceptionally clear that all the responsibility is on you, the driver, while you are using it. The messaging in the vehicle is concise and constant (not just the wall of text you read when opting in.) Eye tracking makes sure you are actually engaged and looking at the road, otherwise the car will disengage and you’ll eventually lose the ability to use FSD. Why is there never a mention of this in any coverage? Because it’s more salacious to believe people are asleep at the wheel.

Is it perfect? No, though it’s a lot better than many people seem to want the world to believe. It’s so easy to overlook the fact that human drivers are also very, very far from perfect.

Post reply on HN