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

Post by the8472 » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 11:53 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #628

LadyCailin wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by kingkongjaffa » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 11:58 AM UTC

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…

Post by f1shy » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 12:04 PM UTC

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #592

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?

> As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. That makes a lot of sense and not just from a selfish point of view. When a person drives a vehicle, then the person is held responsible for how the vehicle behaves on the roads, so it's logical that when a machine drives a vehicle that the machine's manufacturer/designer is held responsible. It's a complete con that Tesla is promoting their a…

Post by f1shy » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 12:07 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #643

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?

Note that Mercedes does take liability for accidents with their (very limited level) level 3 system: https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/27/23892154/mercedes-benz-dr...

Post by f1shy » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 12:10 PM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #578

kergonath wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that complicated or outlandish. That’s how most engineering fields work. If a building collapses because of design flaws, then the builders and architects can be held responsible. Hell, if a car crashes because of a design or assembly flaw, the manufacturer is held responsible. Why should self-driving software be any different? If the software is not reliable enough, then don’t use it in a context where it c…

I think the example here is that the designer draws a bridge for a railway model, and someone decides to use the same design and sends real locomotives across it. Is the original designer (who neither intended nor could have foreseen this) liable in your understanding?