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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by rty32 »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #555
massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

It's called "Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Beta" and you agree that you understand that you have to pay attention and are responsible for the safety of the car before you turn it on.

Come on, you know it's an oxymoron. "full" and "supervised" don't belong to the same sentence. Ask any 10 year old or a non native English speaker who only learned the language from textbooks for 5 years can tell you that. Just... stop defending Tesla.

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

#742

Post by renewiltord »

idiotsecant wrote: post #474
renewiltord wrote: post #462

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.

Sure, we can have a carbon tax on everything. That's fine. And then the nuclear plant has to pay for a Pripyat-sized exclusion zone around it. Just like the guy said about Tesla. All fair.

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

#743

Post by nemo44x »

matwood wrote: post #727
nemo44x wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s not doing anything activists haven’t done for years to get out the vote. In college famous rock and hip hop groups would come on campus to play shows that had voter registration tables upon entry and lots of messaging about who to vote for and then being endlessly recruited to volunteer/phone bank/canvas for some group that was supporting the event. Activism cuts both ways.

Direct payments do seem to be illegal in a way that having a rally or concert or canvassing are not. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146397

You’re not obligated to do anything like vote or vote a certain way. Money is speech and it’s an advertisement.

That’s just some random blog. I’m sure Musks’s lawyers understand what they’re doing.

Frankly I find it inspiring he cares enough about our democracy to encourage people to participate in it at great expense of his own. You love to see innovation in turning out voters who may not otherwise have their voices heard.

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

#744

Post by nh2 »

jvolkman wrote: post #726
coffeefirst wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what Waymo realized a decade ago and what helped define their rollout strategy: https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=247&si=Twi_fQJC7whg3Oey

This video is great.

It looks like Wayno really understood the problem.

It explains concisely why it's a bad idea to roll our incremental progress, how difficult the problem really is, and why you should really throw all sensors you can at it.

I also appreciate the "we don't know when it's going to be ready" attitude. It shows they have a better understanding of what their task actually is than anybody who claims "next year" every year.

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

#745

Post by hibikir »

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.

Remember that this is neural networks doing the driving, more than old expert systems: What makes a crash happen is a network that fails to read an image correctly, or a network that fails to capture what is going on when melding input from different sensors.

So the blame won't be on a guy who got an if statement backwards, but signing off on stopping training, failing to have certain kinds of pictures in the set, or other similar, higher order problem. Blame will be incredibly nebulous.

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

#746

Post by xur17 »

lolinder wrote: post #729
darknavi wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When an update comes out does that relationship get reset (does it start failing on things that used to work), or has it been a uniform upward march? I'm thinking of how every SaaS product I ever have to use regularly breaks my workflow to make 'improvements'.

For me it does, but only somewhat. I'm much more cautious / aware for the first few drives while I figure it out again.

I also feel like it takes a bit (5-10 minutes of driving) for it to recalibrate after an update, and it's slightly worse than usual at the very beginning. I know they have to calibrate the cameras to the car, so it might be related to that, or it could just be me getting used to its quarks.

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

#747

Post by bdndndndbve »

lolinder wrote: post #729
darknavi wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When an update comes out does that relationship get reset (does it start failing on things that used to work), or has it been a uniform upward march? I'm thinking of how every SaaS product I ever have to use regularly breaks my workflow to make 'improvements'.

I wouldn't take OP's word for it, if they really believe they know how it's going to react in every situation in the first place. Studies have shown this is a gross overestimation of their own ability to pay attention.

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

#748

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

f1shy wrote: post #646
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> 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. Never really understood the supposed dilemma. What happens when the brakes fail because of bad quality?

> What happens when the brakes fail because of bad quality?

Depends on the root cause of the failure. Manufacturing faults would put the liability on the manufacturer; installation mistakes would put the liability on the mechanic; using them past their useful life would put the liability on the owner for not maintaining them in working order.

Post reply on HN