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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by japhyr »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #366
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…

> 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…

> Just means that when I'm cruising in the right lane with autopilot I have to take over if a car tries to merge.

Which brings it right back to the original criticism of Tesla's "self driving" program. What you're describing is assisted driving, not anything close to "full self driving".

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

#622

Post by rvnx »

londons_explore wrote: post #610
snypher wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just a few more years of death and injury until they reach a finished product?

So far, data points to it having far fewer crashes than a human alone. Teslas data shows that, but 3rd party data seems to imply the same.

It disconnects in case of dangerous situations, so every 33 miles to 77 miles driven (depending on the version), versus 400'000 miles for a human

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

#624

Post by mensetmanusman »

TheCleric wrote: post #440
bdcravens wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Software requires hardware that can bit flip with gamma rays.

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

#625

Post by masklinn »

Retric wrote: post #117
mbernstein wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate change.

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wa…

> Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin.

Hydro is not evenly distributed and mostly tapped out outside of a few exceptions. Hydro literally can not solve the issue.

Even less so as AGW starts running meltwater sources dry.

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

#626

Post by LadyCailin »

mrjin wrote: post #583
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?

Even if it does, can it resurrect the deceased?

But people driving manually kill people all the time too. The bar for self driving isn’t «does it never kill anyone», it’s «does it kill people less than manual driving». We’re not there yet, and Tesla’s «FSD» is marketing bullshit, but we certainly will be there one day, and at that point, we need to understand what we as a society will do when a self driving car kills someone. It’s not obvious what the best solution is there, and we need to continue to have societal discussions to hash that out, but the correct solution definitely isn’t «don’t use self driving».

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

#627

Post by heisenbit »

UltraSane wrote: post #125

I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.

"I'm a technologist, I know a lot about computers," Musk told the crowd during the event. "And I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program, because it's just too easy to hack."

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

#628

Post by amelius »

LadyCailin wrote: post #626
mrjin wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it does, can it resurrect the deceased?

But people driving manually kill people all the time too. The bar for self driving isn’t «does it never kill anyone», it’s «does it kill people less than manual driving». We’re not there yet, and Tesla’s «FSD» is marketing bullshit, but we certainly will be there one day, and at that point, we need to understand what we as a society will do when a self driving car kills someone. It’s not obvious what the best solutio…

No, because every driver thinks they are better than average.

So nobody will accept it.

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

#629

Post by rvnx »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #624
TheCleric wrote: post #440

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.

Software requires hardware that can bit flip with gamma rays.

[flagged]

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

#630

Post by averageRoyalty »

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…

I'm not disagreeing with your experience. But if it's as bad as you say, why aren't we seeing tens or hundreds of FSD fatalities per day or at least per week? Even if only 1000 people globally have it on, these issues sound like we should be seeing tens per week.
Post reply on HN