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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by mglz »

throw627004 wrote: post #675
TheAlchemist wrote: post #558

Tesla released a promotional video in 2016 saying that with FSD a human driver is not necessary and that "The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons". The video was staged as we've learned in 2022. 2016 folks... Even with today's FSD which is several orders of magnitude better than the one in the video, you would still probably have a serious accident within a week (and I'm being generous here) i…

[flagged]

> Why is he trying to buy a president in the first place?

Because he can make more money under one than the other.

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

#682

Post by coffeefirst »

darknavi wrote: post #640
rootusrootus wrote: post #518

I'm on my second free FSD trial, just started for me today. Gave it another shot, and it seems largely similar to the last free trial they gave. Fun party trick, surprisingly good, right up until it's not. A hallmark of AI everywhere, is how great it is and just how abruptly and catastrophically it fails occasionally. Please, if you're going to try it, keep both hands on the wheel and your foot ready for the brake. W…

You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail. I drive my 20-30 minute commutes largely with FSD, as well as our 8-10 hour road trips. It works great, but 100% needs to be supervised and is basically just nicer cruise control.

This feels like the most dangerous possible combination (not for you, just to have on the road in large numbers).

Good enough that the average user will stop paying attention, but not actually good enough to be left alone.

And when the machine goes to do something lethally dumb, you have 5 seconds to notice and intervene.

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

#683

Post by ywvcbk »

ekianjo wrote: post #658
ywvcbk wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> make that decision after being informed about most of the known risks Like for the COVID-19 vaccines? Experimental yet given to billions without ever showing them a consent form.

Yes, but worse. Nobody physically forced anyone to get vaccinated so you still had some choice. Of course legally banning individuals from using public roads or sidewalks unless they give up their right to sue Tesla/etc. might be an option.

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

#684

Post by ywvcbk »

kalenx wrote: post #645
ywvcbk wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone gets killed because of some clear bug/error and the jury decides to award 100s of millions just for that single ? I’m not sure it’s trivial to insurance companies to account for that sort of risk

It is trivial and they've done it for ages. It's called reinsurance. Basically (_very_ basically, there's more to it) the insurance company insures itself against large claims.

I’m not sure Boeing etc. could have insured any liability risk resulting from engineering/design flaws in their vehicles?

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

#685

Post by bossyTeacher »

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.

Doesn't seem to happen in the medical and airplane industries, otherwise, Boeing would most likely not exist as a company anymore.

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

#686

Post by krisoft »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #596
krisoft wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a ridiculous argument. If a construction firm takes an arbitrary design and then tries to build it in a totally different environment and for a different purpose, then the construction firm is liable, not the original designer. It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeroplane design and making a passenger jet out of it and then blaming the child when it inevitably fails.

> That's a ridiculous argument.

Not making an argument. Asking a clarifying question about someone else’s.

> It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeroplane design and making a passenger jet out of it and then blaming the child when it inevitably fails.

Yes exactly. You are using the same example I used to say the same thing. So which part of my message was ridiculous?

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

#687

Post by chgs »

dylan604 wrote: post #331
Retric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve made dams long before we knew about electricity. At which point tacking hydropower to a dam that would exist either way has basically zero environmental impact. Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant environmental impact.

I just don't get the premise of your argument. Are you honestly saying that stopping the normal flow of water has no negative impact on the ecosystem? What about the area behind the dam that is now flooded? What about the area in front of the dam where there is now no way to traverse back up stream? Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with the risk…

You are asserting building a dam has downsides. That’s correct (there are upsides too - flood control, fresh water storage etc)

However you are conflating dam building with hydro generation.

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

#688

Post by llamaimperative »

kelnos wrote: post #567
dreamcompiler wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

While I certainly wouldn't object to how you handle merging cars (it's a nice, helpful thing to do!), I was always taught that if you want to merge into a lane, you are the sole person responsible for making that possible and making that safe. You need to get your speed and position right, and if you can't do that, you don't merge. (That's for merging onto a highway from an entrance ramp, at least. If you're talking…

More Americans should go drive on the Autobahn. Everyone thinks the magic is “omg no speed limits!” which is neat but the really amazing thing is that NO ONE sits in the left hand lane and EVERYONE will let you merge immediately upon signaling.

It’s like a children’s book explanation of the nice things you can have (no speed limits) if everyone could just stop being such obscenely selfish people (like sitting in the left lane or preventing merges because of some weird “I need my car to be in front of their car” fixation).

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

#689

Post by chgs »

mbernstein wrote: post #140
UltraSane wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.

When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power. She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous" https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%... . CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three o…

She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.

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

#690

Post by llamaimperative »

dlisboa wrote: post #631
dboreham wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no risk of going to prison. It just doesn’t happen, never have and never will, no matter how unfair that is. Board members and CEOs are not held accountable, ever.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-enron-ceo-jeffrey-skil...
Post reply on HN