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

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by ywvcbk »

ryandrake wrote: post #485
dmix wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug companies and the FDA (circa 1906) play a very dangerous and delicate dance all the time releasing new drugs to the public. But for over a century now we've managed to figure it out without holding pharma companies criminally liable for every death. > If you write software that people rely on with their lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that criminally. Easy to type those words on the internet t…

Your take is understandable and not surprising on a site full of software developers. Somehow, the general software industry has ingrained this pessimistic and fatalistic dogma that says bugs are inevitable and there’s nothing you can do to prevent them. Since everyone believes it, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy and we just accept it as some kind of law of nature. Holding software developers (or their companies) li…

Punishing individual developers is of course absurd (unless intent can be proven) the company itself and the upper management on the hand? Would make perfect sense.

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

#542

Post by Schiendelman »

carimura wrote: post #26
MadnessASAP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The why is pretty well understood, no investigation needed. I don't like the design but it's because the doors are electronic and people don't know where the manual release is. In a panic people go on muscle memory, which is push the useless button. They don't remember to pull the unmarked unobtrusive handle that they may not even know exists. If it was up to me, sure have your electronic release, but make the manual…

it's worse than that, at least in ours, the backseat latches are under some mat, literally hidden. i had no idea it was there for the first 6 months.

That's at the behest of the federal government. Child lock rules require they aren't accessible.

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

#543

Post by buzzert »

aanet wrote: post #15

About damn time NHTSA opened this full scale investigation. Tesla's "autonowashing" has gone on for far too long. Per Reuters [1] "The probe covers 2016-2024 Model S and X vehicles with the optional system as well as 2017-2024 Model 3, 2020-2024 Model Y, and 2023-2024 Cybertruck vehicles. The preliminary evaluation is the first step before the agency could seek to demand a recall of the vehicles if it believes they p…

> I treat every Tesla driver as a drunk driver, steering away whenever I see them on highways.

Would you rather drive near a drunk driver using Tesla's FSD, or one without FSD?

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

#544

Post by buzzert »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #298

Tesla testing and developing FSD with normal consumer drivers frankly seems criminal. Test drivers for AV companies get advanced driver training, need to filed detailed reports about the cars response to various driving scenarios, and generally are paid to be as attentive as possible. The fact that any old tech-bro or un-assuming old lady can buy this thing and be on their phone when the car could potentially turn in…

> can buy this thing and be on their phone when the car could potentially turn into oncoming traffic is mind boggling

This is incorrect. Teslas have driver monitoring software, and if the driver is detected using a phone while driving, will almost immediately give a loud warning and disable FSD.

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

#545

Post by Arn_Thor »

rKarpinski wrote: post #309
Retric wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More clarity may change people’s opinion of the accident, but IMO pedestrian meaningfully represents someone who is limited to human locomotion and lacks any sort of protection in a collision. Which seems like a reasonable description of the type of failure involved in the final few seconds before impact.

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

Why? I would hope we all expect pedestrian detection (and object detection in general) to be just as good on a freeway as on a city street? It seems the Tesla barreled full-speed into an accident ahead of it. I would call it insane but that would be anthropomorphizing it.

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

#546

Post by Arn_Thor »

Retric wrote: post #477
potato3732842 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd make the argument that people are very good at dealing with random things that shouldn't be on freeways as long as they don't coincide with blinding sun or other visual impairment. Tesla had a long standing issue detecting partial lane obstructions. I wonder if the logic around that has anything to do with this.

17 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur on freeways. Considering how rarely pedestrians are on freeways that suggests to me people aren’t very good at noticing them in time to stop / avoid them. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/06/09/why-20-of-pedestrians...

That, and/or freeway speeds make the situation inherently more dangerous. When the traffic flows freeway speeds are fine but if a freeway-speed car has to handle a stationary object…problem.

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

#547

Post by dboreham »

pelorat wrote: post #471
wstrange wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 2024 Model 3, and it's a a great car. That being said, I'm under no illusion that the car will ever be self driving (unsupervised). 12.5.6 Still fails to read very obvious signs for 30 Km/h playgrounds zones. The current vehicles lack sufficient sensors, and likely do not have enough compute power and memory to cover all edge cases. I think it's a matter of time before Tesla faces a lawsuit over continual FS…

The board is family and friends, so them ousting him will never happen.

At some point the risk of going to prison overtakes family loyalty.

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

#548

Post by Schiendelman »

wg0 wrote: post #111
vineyardmike wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise as thought experiment, imagine just a tiny 1 Inch tall person glued to the grocery trolley and another sitting on each shelf - just these two alone are all you need for "automated checkout". I don’t think this would actually work, as silly a thought experiment as it is. The problem isn’t the vision, it’s state management and cost. It was very easy (but expensive) to see and classify via CV if a person pic…

Yeah - that's exactly is my point that humans were required to recognize and computer vision is NOT a solved problem regardless of tech bros misleading techno optimism. Distributed communication and state management on the other hand is a solved problem already mostly with known parameters. How else do you think thousand and thousands of Kubernetes work in the wild.

I think you're missing the point GP made: humans couldn't do it. They tried to get humans to do it, and humans had an unacceptable error rate.

This is important. The autonomous driving problem and the grocery store problem are both about trade-offs, one isn't clearly better than the other.

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

#549

Post by Schiendelman »

dyauspitr wrote: post #506
BobaFloutist wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of Elon, Tesla, or "FSD", but for what it's worth, that's absolutely the fault of the person behind you for not maintaining appropriate stopping distance.

I would say less than 5% of people maintain the required 30-50ft of recommended distance needed to stop safely at those speeds.

The stopping distance required at 75mph is at least 250-300 feet, in optimal conditions.

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

#550

Post by AlchemistCamp »

gambiting wrote: post #251
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? The answer is zero. An airplane autopilot has increased the overall safety of airplanes by several orders of magnitude compared to human pilots, but literally no errors in its operation are tolerated, whether they are deadly or not. The exact same standard has to apply to cars or any automated machine for that matter. If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then…

> ”The answer is zero…”

> ”If there is any issue discovered in any car with this tech then it should be disabled worldwide until the root cause is found and eliminated.”

This would literally cost millions of needless deaths in a situation where AI drivers had 1/10th the accident injury rate of human drivers.

Post reply on HN