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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by bdcravens »

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?

The liability for killing someone can include prison time.

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

#432

Post by modeless »

ben_w wrote: post #422
modeless wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, plenty of people have been saying it's great for a long time, when it clearly was not (looking at you, Whole Mars Catalog). I was not saying it was super great back then. I have consistently been critical of Elon for promising human level self driving "next year" for like 10 years in a row and being wrong every time. He said it this year again and I still think he's wrong. But the rate of progress I see right n…

The most important lesson I've had from me incorrectly predicting in 2009 that we'd have cars that don't come with steering wheels in 2018, and thinking that the progress I saw each year up to then was consistent with that prediction, is that it's really hard to guess how long it takes to walk the fractal path that is software R&D. How far are we now, 6 years later than I expected? Dunno. I suspect it's gonna need an…

Waymo went driverless in 2020, maybe you weren't that far off. Predicting that in 2009 would have been pretty good. They could and should have had vehicles without steering wheels anytime since then, it's just a matter of hardware development. Their steering wheel free car program was derailed when they hired traditional car company executives.

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

#433

Post by rKarpinski »

Retric wrote: post #418
rKarpinski wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s a tile not some hundred word description of what exactly happened. Calling them motorists would definitely be misleading by comparison. Using the simple “fatal crash” of the linked title implies the other people might in be responsible which is misleading. Using accident but saying Tesla was at fault could open them up to liability and therefore isn’t an option.

> I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s a tile not some hundred word description of what exactly happened.

"Pedestrian killed on freeway" instead of "pedestrian killed" doesn't take 100 words and doesn't give the impression Tesla's are mowing people down on crosswalks (although that's a feature to get clicks, not a bug).

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

#434

Post by Retric »

rKarpinski wrote: post #433
Retric wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s a tile not some hundred word description of what exactly happened. Calling them motorists would definitely be misleading by comparison. Using the simple “fatal crash” of the linked title implies the other people might in be responsible which is misleading. Using accident but saying Tesla was at fault could open them up to liability and therefore isn’t an option.

> I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s a tile not some hundred word description of what exactly happened. "Pedestrian killed on freeway" instead of "pedestrian killed" doesn't take 100 words and doesn't give the impression Tesla's are mowing people down on crosswalks (although that's a feature to get clicks, not a bug).

Without context that implies the pedestrians shouldn’t have been on the freeway.

It’s not an issue for Tesla, but it does imply bad things about the victims.

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

#435

Post by HaZeust »

JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #412
HaZeust wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contributi…

Maybe they don't care about their car to be a sports car but they surely enjoy some pleasure out of the control of being at the helm of something powerful like a car (even though it's not a sports car) Also even people in small cars they think a lot while driving already, and they also communicate, how much more productive they could be with FSD?

I really don't think you're right about the average person, or even a notable size of people, believing in the idea of their car being their "frontier of freedom" as was popular in the 70-80's media. I don't think that many people care about driving nowadays.

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

#436

Post by tensor »

therouwboat wrote: post #398
tensor wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Better that way than "Oh it tried to run red light, but otherwise it's great."

"Oh we tried to build it but no one bought it! So we gave up." - Mercedes before Tesla.

Perhaps FSD isn't ready for city streets yet, but it's great on the highways and I'd 1000x prefer we make progress rather than settle for the status quo garbage that the legacy makers put out. Also, human drivers are the most dangerous, by far, we need to make progress to eventual phase them out.

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

#437

Post by hshshshshsh »

SahAssar wrote: post #310
hshshshshsh wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the reasons they focus only on vision is basically the entire transportation infra is designed using human eyes a primary way to channel information. Useful information for driving are communicated through images in form of road signs, traffic signals etc.

We are "designed" (via evolution) to perceive and understand the environment around us. The signage is designed to be easily readable for us. The models that drive these cars clearly either have some more evolution to do or for us to design the world more to their liking.

Yes. I was talking why Tesla choose to use vision. Since they can't control designing the transport infra to their liking at least for now.

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

#438

Post by CrimsonRain »

gambiting wrote: post #300
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.

>>If autopilot is 10x safer then preventing its use would lead to more preventable deaths and injuries than allowing it. And yet whenever there is a problem with any plane autopilot it's preemptively disabled fleet wide and pilots have to fly manually even though we absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt know that it's less safe. If an automated system makes a wrong decision and it contributes to harm/death then it ca…

So your only concern is, when something goes wrong, need someone to blame. Who cares about lives saved. Vaccines can cause adverse effects. Let's ban all of them.

If people like you were in charge of anything, we'd still be hitting rocks for fire in caves.

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

#439

Post by rKarpinski »

Retric wrote: post #434
rKarpinski wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think it’s misleading. It’s a tile not some hundred word description of what exactly happened. "Pedestrian killed on freeway" instead of "pedestrian killed" doesn't take 100 words and doesn't give the impression Tesla's are mowing people down on crosswalks (although that's a feature to get clicks, not a bug).

Without context that implies the pedestrians shouldn’t have been on the freeway. It’s not an issue for Tesla, but it does imply bad things about the victims.

A title of "U.S. to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' system after pedestrian killed on freeway" would in no way imply bad things about the pedestrian who was killed.

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

#440

Post by TheCleric »

bdcravens wrote: post #431
TheCleric wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The liability for killing someone can include prison time.

Good. If you write software that people rely on with their lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that criminally.
Post reply on HN