561–570 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. If you write software that people rely on with their lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that criminally.
Are you suggesting that individuals should carry that liability?
It's completely normal in other fields where engineers build systems that can kill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have yet to see a difference. I let it highway drive for an hour and it cut off a semi, coming within 9 to 12 inches of the bumper for no reason. I heard about that one believe me. It got stuck in a side street trying to get to a target parking lot, shaking the wheel back and forth. It's no better so far and this is the first day.
Is it possible you have a lemon? Genuine question. I’ve had nothing but positive experiences with FSD for the last several months and many thousands of miles.
Please stop presenting arguments of the form "I haven't seen problems so people who have problems must be extreme outliers". At best it's ignorant, at worst it's actively in bad faith.
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…
> criminally liable for every death. The fact that people generally consume drugs voluntarily and make that decision after being informed about most of the known risks probably mitigates that to some extent. Being killed by someone else’s FSD car seems to be very different
Would you want FSD software to be developed or not? If you do, do you think holding devs or companies criminally liable for half of all crashes is the best way to ensure that progress happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, expl…
Sounds like Tesla drivers have been at the Kool-Aid then.
But to be a bit more serious, the problem isn't necessarily that people don't think it's improving (I do believe it is) or that they will likely succeed (I'm not sure where I stand on this). The problem is that every year Musk says the next year will be the Year of FSD. And every next year, it doesn't materialize. This is like the Boy Who Cried Wolf; Musk has zero credibility with me when it comes to predictions. And that loss of credibility affects my feeling as to whether he'll be successful at all.
On top of that, I'm not convinced that autonomous driving that only makes use of cameras will ever be reliably safer than human drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla jumped the gun on the FSD free trial earlier this year. It was nowhere near good enough at the time. Most people who tried it for the first time probably share your opinion. That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD 12.3 that you experienced earlier this year and the latest version 12.6. It will still make mistakes from time to time but the improvement is massive and obvious. More importantly,…
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
I would love for self-driving to succeed. I do long-ish car trips several times a year, and it would be wonderful if instead of driving, I could be watching a movie or working on something on my laptop.
I've tried Waymo a few times, and it feels like magic, and feels safe. Their record backs up that feeling. After everything I've seen and read and heard about Tesla, if I got into a Tesla with someone who uses FSD, I'd ask them to drive manually, and probably decline the ride entirely if they wouldn't honor my request.
> fortunately, it's clear as day to some of us that tesla approach will work
And based on my experience with Tesla FSD boosters, I expect you're basing that on feelings, not on any empirical evidence or actual understanding of the hardware or software.
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…
Tesla jumped the gun on the FSD free trial earlier this year. It was nowhere near good enough at the time. Most people who tried it for the first time probably share your opinion. That said, there is a night and day difference between FSD 12.3 that you experienced earlier this year and the latest version 12.6. It will still make mistakes from time to time but the improvement is massive and obvious. More importantly,…
That’s not a reasonable assumption. You can’t just extrapolate “software rate of improvement”, that’s not how it works.
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…
> It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place. This is what bugs me about ordinary autopilot. Autopilot doesn't switch lanes, but I like to slow down or speed up as needed to allow merging cars to enter my lane. Autopilot never does that, and I've had some close calls with ir…
(That's for merging onto a highway from an entrance ramp, at least. If you're talking about a zipper merge due to a lane ending or a lane closure, sure, cooperation with other drivers is always the right thing to do.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how I feel about nuclear energy. Every single plant should need to form a full insurance fund dedicated to paying out if there’s trouble. And the plant should have strict liability: anything that happens from materials it releases are its responsibility. But people get upset about this. We need corporations to take responsibility.
While we're at it how about why apply the same standard to coal and natural gas plants? For some reason when we start taking about nuclear plants we all of a sudden become adverse to the idea of unfunded externalities but when we're talking about 'old' tech that has been steadily irradiating your community and changing the gas composition of the entire planet it becomes less concerning.
Realistically speaking, nuclear power is pretty safe. In the history of nuclear power, there were two major incidents. Considering the number of nuclear power plants around the planet, that is pretty good. However, as those two accidents demonstrated, the potential fallout of those incidents is pretty severe and widespread. I think this massively contributes to the perceived risks. The warnings towards the public were pretty clear. I remember my mom telling stories from the time the Chernobyl incident became known to the public and people became worried about the produce they usually had from their gardens. Meanwhile, everything that has been done to address the hazards of fossil based power generation is pretty much happening behind the scenes.
With coal and natural gas, it seems like people perceive the risks as more abstract. The radioactive emissions of coal power plants have been known for a while and the (potential) dangers of fine particulate matters resulting from combustion are somewhat well known nowadays as well. However, the effects of those danger seem much more abstract and delayed, leading people to not be as worried about it. It also shows on a smaller, more individual scale: people still buy ICE cars at large and install gas stoves into their houses despite induction being readily available and at times even cheaper.
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.
There are many reasons why a pedestrian might be on the freeway. It’s not common but I see it at least once a month and I drive extra carefully when I do, moving over if I can and slowing down.
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.
How often does an autonomous driving system get the driver into a dicey situation, but the driver notices the bad behavior, takes control, and avoids a crash? I don't think we have publicly-available data on that at all.
You admit that you ran into some of these sorts of situations during your trial. Those situations are unacceptable. An autonomous driving system should be safer than a human driver, and should not make mistakes that a human driver would not make.
Despite all the YouTube videos out there of people doing unsafe things with Tesla FSD, I expect that most people that use it are pretty responsible, are paying attention, and are ready to take over if they notice FSD doing something wrong. But if people need to do that, it's not a safe, successful autonomous driving system. Safety means everyone can watch TV, mess around on their phone, or even take a nap, and we still end up with a lower crash rate than with human drivers.
The numbers that are available can't tell us if that would be the case. My belief is that we're absolutely not there.