US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash • Hacker News Board

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

#791

Post by rvnx » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:26 PM UTC

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #779

nh2 wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The issue was fixed, now handling 100'000 trips per week, and all seems to go well in the last 4 months, this is 1.5 million trips.

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

#792

Post by michaelt » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:26 PM UTC

deergomoo wrote: post #787

This is an opinion almost certainly based more in emotion than logic, but I don't think I could trust any sort of fully autonomous driving system that didn't involve communication with transmitters along the road itself (like a glideslope and localiser for aircraft approaches) and with other cars on the road. Motorway driving sure, there it's closer to fancy cruise control. But around town, no thank you. I regularly…

> If it's difficult as a human to work out what the intent is, I don't trust a largely computer vision-based system to work it out.

Most likely, every self-driving car company will send drivers down every road in the country, recording everything they see. Then they'll have human labellers figure out any junctions where the road markings are ambiguous.

They've had sat nav maps covering every road for decades, and the likes of Google Street View, so to have a detailed map of every junction is totally possible.

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

#793

Post by paulcole » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:28 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #770

paulcole wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you feel while riding isn’t an objective thing. It’s entirely subjective. You and I can sit side by side and feel differently about the same experience. I don’t see how this is in any way objective besides the fact that you want it to be objective. You can support things for society that scare you and feel unsafe because you can admit your feelings are subjective and the thing is actually safer than it feels to y…

I also did write about times when the car would have damaged itself or likely caused an accident, and those are indeed objective problems.

> It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

I’ll give you this one.

> In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste

Subjective.

> 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.

Since you intervened and don’t know what would’ve happened, subjective.

> It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles

Subjective.

> It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

Objective.

You’ve got some fair complaints but the idea that feeling safe is what’s needed remains subjective.

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

#794

Post by kylecordes » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:31 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #393

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,…

If I had a dime for every hackernews who commented that FSD version X was like a revelation compared to FSD version X-ε I'd have like thirty bucks. I will grant you that every release has surprisingly different behaviors. Here's an unintentionally hilarious meta-post on the subject https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29531915

On one hand, it really has gotten much better over time. It's quite impressive.

On the other hand, I fear/suspect it is asymptotically, rather than linearly, approaching good enough to be unsupervised. It might get halfway there, each year, forever.

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

#795

Post by ben_w » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:35 PM UTC

IX-103 wrote: post #780

ben_w wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Indeed.

While it ought to be possible to solve for just RGB… making it needlessly hard for yourself is a fun hack-day side project, not a valuable business solution.

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

#796

Post by deergomoo » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:38 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #792

deergomoo wrote: post #787

This is an opinion almost certainly based more in emotion than logic, but I don't think I could trust any sort of fully autonomous driving system that didn't involve communication with transmitters along the road itself (like a glideslope and localiser for aircraft approaches) and with other cars on the road. Motorway driving sure, there it's closer to fancy cruise control. But around town, no thank you. I regularly…

> If it's difficult as a human to work out what the intent is, I don't trust a largely computer vision-based system to work it out. Most likely, every self-driving car company will send drivers down every road in the country, recording everything they see. Then they'll have human labellers figure out any junctions where the road markings are ambiguous. They've had sat nav maps covering every road for decades, and the…

In that case I hope they're prepared to work with local authorities to immediately update the map every time road layouts change, temporarily or permanently. Google Maps gets lane guidance wrong very often in my experience, so that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

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

#797

Post by mattgreenrocks » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:44 PM UTC

rvnx wrote: post #762

yborg wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ironically, Robotaxis from Waymo are actually working really well. It's a true unsupervised system, very safe, used in production, where the manufacturer takes the full responsibility. So the gradual rollout strategy is actually great. Tesla wants to do "all or nothing", and ends up with nothing for now (example with Europe, where FSD is sold since 2016 but it is "pending regulatory approval", when actually, the prob…

Does Tesla take full responsibility for FSD incidents?

It seemed like most players in tech a few years ago were using legal shenanigans to dodge liability here, which, to me, indicates a lack of seriousness toward the safety implications.

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

#798

Post by tjpnz » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:46 PM UTC

deergomoo wrote: post #796

michaelt wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's difficult as a human to work out what the intent is, I don't trust a largely computer vision-based system to work it out. Most likely, every self-driving car company will send drivers down every road in the country, recording everything they see. Then they'll have human labellers figure out any junctions where the road markings are ambiguous. They've had sat nav maps covering every road for decades, and the…

In that case I hope they're prepared to work with local authorities to immediately update the map every time road layouts change, temporarily or permanently. Google Maps gets lane guidance wrong very often in my experience, so that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

And the contractors employed by the local authorities to do roadworks big and small.

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

#799

Post by Teknomancer » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:49 PM UTC

This is just an opinion. The only way forward with automated and autonomous vehicles is through industry cooperation and standardization. The Tesla approach to the problem is inadequate, lacking means for interoperability, and relying on inferior detection mechanisms. Somebody who solves these problems and does it by offering interoperability and standards applied to all automakers wins.

Sold Tesla investments. The company is on an unprofitable downward spiral trajectory. The CEO is a total clown. Reinvested on advise in Diamler, after Mercedes-Benz and Diamler Trucks North America demonstrated their research and work into creating true autonomous technology and safe global industry standardizations.

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

#800

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 4:50 PM UTC

deergomoo wrote: post #796

michaelt wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's difficult as a human to work out what the intent is, I don't trust a largely computer vision-based system to work it out. Most likely, every self-driving car company will send drivers down every road in the country, recording everything they see. Then they'll have human labellers figure out any junctions where the road markings are ambiguous. They've had sat nav maps covering every road for decades, and the…

In that case I hope they're prepared to work with local authorities to immediately update the map every time road layouts change, temporarily or permanently. Google Maps gets lane guidance wrong very often in my experience, so that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

I kind of assumed that already happened. Does it not? Is anyone pushing for it?

Honestly it seems like it ought to be federal law by now that municipalities need to notify a designated centralized service of all road/lane/sign/etc. changes in a standardized format, that all digital mapping providers can ingest from.

Is this not a thing? If not, is anyone lobbying for it? Is there opposition?