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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by modeless »

kelnos wrote: post #564
misiti3780 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's evident to Tesla drivers using Full Self-Driving (FSD) that the technology is rapidly improving and will likely succeed Sounds like Tesla drivers have been at the Kool-Aid then. But to be a bit more serious, the problem isn't necessarily that people don't think it's improving (I do believe it is) or that they will likely succeed (I'm not sure where I stand on this). The problem is that every year Musk says the…

I have consistently been critical of Musk for this over the many years it's been happening. Even right now, I don't believe FSD will be unsupervised next year like he just claimed. And yet, I can see the real progress and I am convinced that while it won't be next year, it could absolutely happen within two or three years.

One of these years, he is going to be right. And at that point, the fact that he was wrong for a long time won't diminish their achievement. As he likes to say, he specializes in transforming technology from "impossible" to "late".

> I'm not convinced that autonomous driving that only makes use of cameras will ever be reliably safer than human drivers.

Believing this means that you believe AIs will never match or surpass the human brain. Which I think is a much less common view today than it was a few years ago. Personally I think it is obviously wrong. And also I don't believe surpassing the human brain in every respect will be necessary to beat humans in driving safety. Unsupervised FSD will come before AGI.

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

#772

Post by theptip »

ricardobeat wrote: post #765
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.

Five seconds is a long time in driving, usually you’ll need to react in under 2 seconds in situations where it disengages, those never happen while going straight.

Not if you are reading your emails…

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

#773

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

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

I'm sure his lawyers know what they're doing, but did that stop their client from calling a cave diver a pedophile for objecting to his submarine design?

Musk is basically a valueless chaos monkey with a perfect 18 score in Luck. Even he doesn't know what he'll do, say, or believe next. He has the luxury of not caring because it doesn't matter anyway; he'll just continue to get away with things that would shut the rest of us down for good. Not surprising that he's found a kindred spirit in Trump.

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

#775

Post by f1shy »

kgermino wrote: post #733
f1shy wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?! So if there is a failure and the car goes full throttle (no autonomous car) it is my responsibility?! You are pretty wrong!!!

You are responsible (Legally, contractually, morally) for supervising FSD today. If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. The whole point is that is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation but it’s what Tesla expects you to do today

My example was clear about NOT about autonomous driving. Because the previous comment seems to imply for everything you are responsible

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

#776

Post by theptip »

TheCleric wrote: post #374
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…

> 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?

Presumably that is exactly when their taxi service rolls out?

While this has a dramatic rhetorical flourish, I don’t think it’s a good proxy. Even if it was safer, it would be an unnecessarily high burden to clear. You’d be effectively writing a free insurance policy which is obviously not free.

Just look at total accidents / deaths per mile driven, it’s the obvious and standard metric for measuring car safety. (You need to be careful to not stop the clock as soon as the system disengages of course. )

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

#777

Post by nemo44x »

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.

He gets basic facts wrong in his blog though. For instance the rewards are for referring people to sign a petition that says you support 1a and 2a. You need to be registered for your voice to count. He’s not paying them to register but rather to refer registered people to sign it. So it’s up to an individual to find registered voters to sign it so they can collect their $47 bounty per referred signee.

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

#778

Post by llamaimperative »

londons_explore wrote: post #703
llamaimperative wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla does not release the data required to substantiate such a claim. It simply doesn’t and you’re either lying or being lied to.

tesla releases this data: https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

Per the other comment: no, they don't. This data is not enough to evaluate its safety. This is enough data to mislead people who spend You've been lied to.

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

#779

Post by trompetenaccoun »

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…

All their sensors didn't prevent them from crashing into stationary object. You'd think that would be the absolute easiest to avoid, especially with both radar and lidar on board. Accidents like that show the training data and software will be much more important than number of sensors.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/12/waymo-second-robotaxi-reca...

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

#780

Post by IX-103 »

ben_w wrote: post #457
modeless wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo went driverless in 2020, maybe you weren't that far off. Predicting that in 2009 would have been pretty good. They could and should have had vehicles without steering wheels anytime since then, it's just a matter of hardware development. Their steering wheel free car program was derailed when they hired traditional car company executives.

Waymo for sure, but I meant also without any geolock etc., so I can't claim credit for my prediction. They may well best Tesla to this, though.

Waymo is using full lidar and other sensors, whereas Tesla is relying on pure vision systems (to the point of removing radar on newer models). So they're solving a much harder problem.

As for whether it's worthwhile to solve that problem when having more sensors will always be safer, that's another issue...

Post reply on HN