481–490 of 502 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A century ago horses had Full Self Driving with the human having to be vigilant and in charge. The horse could go crazy in scary situations endangering others but you could train that out and make a good war horse. Basic stuff like following the road around a bend was something the horse could do but you could not tell it to autonomously go across town to pick someone up. People were okay with horses and knew what to…
Horses do not run into concrete pillars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ft9OXQ03qE (you can stop after the first hit because it repeats in loop) (I chose the less shocked one, some of them are terrible).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A century ago horses had Full Self Driving with the human having to be vigilant and in charge. The horse could go crazy in scary situations endangering others but you could train that out and make a good war horse. Basic stuff like following the road around a bend was something the horse could do but you could not tell it to autonomously go across town to pick someone up. People were okay with horses and knew what to…
Horses could at least make their own way back home, and they were self-fueling to boot!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Horses do not run into concrete pillars.
Yeah. For the purpose of behavior prediction while driving, horses can be approximated as very dull, very easily panicked humans. They have all the regular instincts (collision avoidance, fear of heights etc) that keep animals alive. FSD is a complete alien that might try to kill itself for the most trivial and inscrutable reason like the sensor noise excited the neural network in a certain way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rub in Tesla's safety report is it compares Teslas to all makes of vehicles, including motorcycles and trucks, and all costs. A fair comparison would be to newer vehicles in a similar price range. Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.
Yes, this is the retort every time someone posts these numbers, which is why I said they are not apples to apples comparisons. But in the context of the OP comment that Tesla ADAS software makes driving 1000x more dangerous it is clear evidence to the contrary. Mostly the Tesla numbers are comparing accident rates of just Teslas. You can ignore average accident rate across all vehicles if you like. If would be truly…
The point being that the failure rates society accepts for cars are actually pretty amazingly low and human drivers are surprisingly good. These things are measured with 6-7 9s as a non-negotiable minimum, so positing hypotheticals at the 99-99.99% is highly non-representative of what is actually acceptable.
Anybody discussing things at that level is making a pretty fundamental category error and any conclusion that anyone might draw from those thought experiments are largely invalid due to the multiple order of magnitude difference between such a thought experiment and reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would the screen show the column if functioning correctly? I don't know this ui.
It's possible they have no classifier for "monorail column" so I don't think anything would show up even if it recognized an obstacle was in the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rub in Tesla's safety report is it compares Teslas to all makes of vehicles, including motorcycles and trucks, and all costs. A fair comparison would be to newer vehicles in a similar price range. Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.
Yes, this is the retort every time someone posts these numbers, which is why I said they are not apples to apples comparisons. But in the context of the OP comment that Tesla ADAS software makes driving 1000x more dangerous it is clear evidence to the contrary. Mostly the Tesla numbers are comparing accident rates of just Teslas. You can ignore average accident rate across all vehicles if you like. If would be truly…
Given the telemetry the car is equipped with they absolutely have the data to control for some of these factors yet they make no attempt to do so. Why is that? My take is that after doing so autopilot doesn't look so good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The high level problem was the whole mess that Boeing and the FAA forced themselves into by lying to pilots about the plane being like the old plane. This motivated Boeing to solve everything in a sort of clandestine way, which meant there was no proper error handling, and Boeing simply covered their asses by pointing to the runaway stabilizer checklist, which they claimed was sufficient to handle MCAS problems. This…
It's the unfortunate case that they succumbed to schedule pressure. This is similar to the Space Shuttle Challenger decision that led to catastrophe. I think "lying" may be too strong of a word, but they were certainly incentivized to believe it was just a modification of an existing airframe. If I remember correctly, Boeing was essentially told by an airline that if they don't come up with a design quickly the airli…
It goes eyes-shut-closed full-throttle balls-to-the-walls against safety. You don't rush nuclear power plants, why are we doing it with planes? (And yes we should use reuse already approved, known, standardized - modular, components. But they should be indistinguishably the same, not "we certified it the same by introducing so much complexity, so many new failure modes, that we have to hide those".)
And if safety costs a lot, then we can work on improving our processes (design, safety evaluation), but the process itself should lead to better stuff, not probably-not-that-worse but marginally cheaper so we can keep our semi-vendor-locked-in clients.
I'm aware of the Boeing-Airbus US-EU cockfight, and that as usual a coordination problem is at the root of this. But the way forward should be a healthier market, more competition, not a monoculture. (Or duo.) Or, if costs force us into such a pathological state of the airplane market, then we should treat it as such. (It should be viewed as one big problem. The total lack of healthy competition must be factored into the approval process. And a high-level Market Authority should step in to prevent regulatory capture and the usual - almost guaranteed to happen - shenanigans.)
Some of the issues shown in these videos make me wonder about Tesla's strategy of using non-professional driver (customer) data to train FSD. Things like changing lanes at the last second is a thing that (obnoxious) humans do, and would be a bad example to learn from. There might be a lot of subtle garbage in Tesla's dataset.
Tesla can easily filter these cases out, automatically. They have triggers to catch things they want (e.g sudden lane changes) and campaigns have conditions too (only from prudent drivers, if lane change is forced, etc). FSD does not learn from all drivers all the time.