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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by shadowfacts »

nemo44x wrote: post #743
matwood wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a random blog making some conjectures, Rick Hasen is a law professor who is an expert in this area and, moreover, he cites specifics statutes and DOJ information that's not all that ambiguous.

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

#753

Post by yborg »

nh2 wrote: post #744
jvolkman wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "ne…

You don't get a $700B market cap by telling investors "We don't know."

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

#754

Post by mensetmanusman »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #661
mensetmanusman wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software requires hardware that can bit flip with gamma rays.

Which is why hardware used to run safety-critical software is made redundant. Take the Boeing 777 Primary Flight Computer for example. This is a fully digital fly-by-wire aircraft. There are 3 separate racks of equipment housing identical flight computers; 2 in the avionics bay underneath the flight deck, 1 in the aft cargo section. Each flight computer has 3 separate processors, supporting 2 dissimilar instruction s…

You can’t guarantee the hardware was properly built.

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

#755

Post by dboreham »

kingkongjaffa wrote: post #644
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…

> right turns on red This is a idiosyncrasy of the US (maybe other places too?) and I wonder if it's easier to do self driving at junctions, in countries without this rule.

Only some states allow turn on red, and it's also often overridden by a road sign that forbids. But for me the ultimate test of AGI is four-or-perhaps-three-or-perhaps-two way stop intersections. You have to know whether the other drivers have a stop sign or not in order to understand how to proceed, and you can't see that information. As an immigrant to the US this baffles me, but my US-native family members shrug like there's some telepathy way to know. There's also a rule that you yield to vehicles on your right at uncontrolled intersections (if you can determine that it is uncontrolled...) that almost no drivers here seem to have heard of. You have to eye-ball the other driver to determine whether or not they look like they remember road rules. Not sure how a Tesla will do that.

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

#756

Post by sigh_again »

viraptor wrote: post #511
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.

That's a dangerous line and I don't think it's correct. Software I write shouldn't be relied on in critical situations. If someone makes that decision then it's on them not on me. The line should be where a person tells others that they can rely on the software with their lives - as in the integrator for the end product. Even if I was working on the software for self driving, the same thing would apply - if I wrote s…

>Software I write shouldn't be relied on in critical situations.

Then don't write software to be used in things that are literally always critical situations, like cars.

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

#757

Post by KaiserPro »

misiti3780 wrote: post #401
ethbr1 wrote: post #372

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…

Tesla's sensor suite does not support safe FSD.

It relies on inferred depth from a single point of view. This means that the depth/positioning info for the entire world is noisy.

From a safety critical point of view its also bollocks, because a single birdshit/smear/raindrop/oil can render the entire system inoperable. Does it degrade safely? does it fuck.

> recognizes that training exceptional deep neural networks requires vast amounts of data,

You missed good data. Recording generic driver's journeys isn't going to yield good data, especially if the people who are driving aren't very good. You need to have a bunch of decent drivers doing specific scenarios.

Moreover that data isn't easily generalisable to other sensor suites. Add another camera? yeahna, new model.

> Tesla recently held a robotaxi event, explicitly informing investors of their plans

When has Musk ever delivered on time?

> his ability to achieve results

most of those results aren't that great. Tesla isn't growing anymore, its reliant on state subsidies to be profitable. They still only ship 400k units a quarter, which is tiny compared to VW's 2.2million.

> attract top engineering and management talent is undeniable

Most of the decent computer vision people are not in tesla. Hardware wise, their factories aren't fun places to be. He's a dick to work for, capricious and vindictive.

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

#758

Post by rvnx »

shadowfacts wrote: post #751
nemo44x wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a random blog making some conjectures, Rick Hasen is a law professor who is an expert in this area and, moreover, he cites specifics statutes and DOJ information that's not all that ambiguous.

Yes but he didn't take into consideration that laws don't apply when you are a billionaire and that you hold both state secrets (via DoD/Starlink) and connections to foreign countries.

So Musk will be fine, especially if Trump wins.

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

#759

Post by aaronmdjones »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #754
aaronmdjones wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why hardware used to run safety-critical software is made redundant. Take the Boeing 777 Primary Flight Computer for example. This is a fully digital fly-by-wire aircraft. There are 3 separate racks of equipment housing identical flight computers; 2 in the avionics bay underneath the flight deck, 1 in the aft cargo section. Each flight computer has 3 separate processors, supporting 2 dissimilar instruction s…

You can’t guarantee the hardware was properly built.

Unless Intel, Motorola, and AMD all conspire to give you a faulty processor, you will get a working primary flight computer.

Besides, this is what flight testing is for. Aviation certification authorities don't let an aircraft serve passengers unless you can demonstrate that all of its safety-critical systems work properly and that it performs as described.

I find it hard to believe that automotive works much differently in this regard, which is what things like crumple zone crash tests are for.

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

#760

Post by modeless »

latexr wrote: post #566
modeless wrote: post #312

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,…

> At the current rate of improvement it will be quite good within a year and in two or three I could see it actually reaching the point where it could operate unsupervised. That’s not a reasonable assumption. You can’t just extrapolate “software rate of improvement”, that’s not how it works.

The timing of the rate of improvement increasing corresponds with finishing their switch to end-to-end machine learning. ML does have scaling laws actually.

Tesla collects their own data, builds their own training clusters with both Nvidia hardware and their own custom hardware, and deploys their own custom inference hardware in the cars. There is no obstacle to them scaling up massively in all dimensions, which basically guarantees significant progress. Obviously you can disagree about whether that progress will be enough, but based on the evidence I see from using it, I think it will be.

Post reply on HN