Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861
post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the current rate of improvement it will be quite good within a year I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure "quite good" is the next step after "feels dangerous".

"Just round the corner" (2016)

Musk in 2016 (these are quotes, not paraphrases): "Self driving is a solved problem. We are just tuning the details."

Musk in 2021: "Right now our highest priority is working on solving the problem."

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

#862
post #762
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…

> So the gradual rollout strategy is actually great.

I think you misunderstood, or it's a terminology problem.

Waymo's point in the video is that in contrast to Tesla, they are _not_ doing gradual rollout of seemingly-working-still-often-catastropically-failing tech.

See e.g. minute 5:33 -> 6:06. They are stating that they are targeting directly the shown upper curve of safety, and that they are not aiming for the "good enough that the average user will stop paying attention, but not actually good enough to be left alone".

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

#863

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,…

i have the same experience 12.5 is insanely good. HN is full of people that dont want self driving to succeed for some reason. fortunately, it's clear as day to some of us that tesla approach will work

I would love self-driving to succeed. I should be a Tesla fan, because I'm very much a fan of geekery and tech anywhere and everywhere.

But no. I want self-driving to succeed, and when it does (which I don't think is that soon, because the last 10% takes 90% of the time), I don't think Tesla or their approach will be the "winner".

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

#864
post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, the problem has been solved. If a consensus mechanism similar to those used in blockchain were implemented, vehicles could cross-reference the data they receive with data from multiple other vehicles. If inconsistencies are detected (for example, a car reporting a different speed than what others are observing), that data could be flagged as potentially fraudulent. Just as blockchain technologies can provide…

This is a complicated, technical solution looking for a problem. Simple, asymmetrically-authenticated signals and felonies for the edge cases solve this problem without any futuristic computer wizardry.

I did not intend to state that we ought to use the blockchain, at all, for what it is worth. Vehicles should cross-reference the data they receive with data from multiple other vehicles and detect inconsistencies, any consensus mechanism could work, if we could call it that.

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

#865
post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this. The number of people conflating Tesla's Autopilot with an airliner's autopilot, and expecting that use and policies and situations surrounding the two should be directly comparable, is staggering. You'd think people would be better at critical thinking with this, but... here we are.

Ah. Few people realize how dumb aircraft autopilots really are. Even the fanciest ones just follow a series of waypoints. There is one exception - Garmin Safe Return. That's strictly an emergency system. If it activates, the plane is squawking emergency to ATC and and demanding that airspace and a runway be cleared for it.[1] This has been available since 2019 and does not seem to have yet been activated in an emerge…

It does do that and it's pretty neat, if you have one of the very few modern turboprops or small jets that have G3000s & auto throttle to support it.

Airliners don't have this, but they have a 2nd pilot. A real-world activation needs a single-pilot operation where they're incapacitated, in one of the maybe few hundred nice-but-not-too-nice private planes it's equipped in, and a passenger is there to push it.

But this is all still largely using the current magenta line AP system, and that's how it's verifiable and certifiable. There's still no cameras or vision or AI deciding things, there are a few new bits of relatively simple standalone steps combined to get a good result.

- Pick a new magenta line to an airport (like pressing NRST Enter Enter if you have filtering set to only suitable fields)

- Pick a vertical path that intersects with the runway (Load a straight-in visual approach from the database)

- Ensure that line doesn't hit anything in the terrain/obstacle database. (Terrain warning system has all this info, not sure how it changes the plan if there is a conflict. This is probably the hardest part, with an actual decision to make).

- Look up the tower frequency in DB and broadcast messages. As you said it's telling and not asking/listening.

- Other humans know to get out of the way because this IS what's going to happen. This is normal, an emergency aircraft gets whatever it wants.

- Standard AP and autothrottle flies the newly prescribed path.

- The radio altimeter lets it know when to flare.

- Wheel weight sensors let it know to apply the brakes.

- The airport helps people out and tows the plane away, because it doesn't know how to taxi.

There's also "auto glide" on the more accessible G3x suite for planes that aren't necessarily $3m+. That will do most of the same stuff and get you almost, but not all the way, to the ground in front of a runway automatically.

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

#866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stupid point. I've been in a Tesla that's driven a mile by itself. It makes no difference if a person is in the seat.

"It makes no difference if a person is in the seat." It does when Musk is claiming that Tesla is going to sell a car with no steering wheel! The current Tesla FSD fails so often that a human HAS to be in the driver seat ready to take over at any moment. You really don't understand the enormous difference between the current crappy level 2 Tesla FSD and Waymo's level 4 system?

Who said anything about Waymo? Waymo is building a very high cost commercial grade system intended for use on revenue generating vehicles. Tesla is building a low cost system intended for personal vehicles where Waymo's system would be cost prohibitive. Obviously Waymo's system is massively more capable. But that is about as surprising as the fact that a Ferrari is faster than a Ford Ranger.

But this is all irrelevant to my point. You said a Tesla is not capable of driving itself for a mile. I have personally seen one do it. Whether a person is sitting in the driver's seat, or the regulators will allow it, has nothing to do with the fact that the vehicle does, in fact, have that capability.

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

#867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, polarized sunglasses work fine. I drive into a setting sun probably once a week to no incident.

That doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, polarization is irrelevant when looking at the sun. It only affects light that is reflected off things like other cars' windows, or water on the street. In fact, it's often recommended not to use polarized sunglasses while driving because you can miss wet or icy patches on the road. Secondly, standard sunglasses don't let you look directly at the sun, even a setting on…

I’m not looking directly at the sun I am looking at the road. Either way it makes a big difference and you don’t get much black ice here in sunny southern california.

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

#868

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…

But it’s clearly statistically much safer (https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport) 7 million miles before an accident w FSD vs. 1 million when disengaged. I agree I didn’t like the feel of FSD either, but the numbers speak for themselves.

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

#869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so . What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?

> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training. For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

> For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

In my EU country it's theoretically at least 3 seconds before initiating the move.

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

#870
post #868

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…

But it’s clearly statistically much safer ( https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport ) 7 million miles before an accident w FSD vs. 1 million when disengaged. I agree I didn’t like the feel of FSD either, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Teslas numbers have biases in them which paint a wrong picture:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-...

They compare incomparable data(city miles vs highway miles), autopilot is also mostly used on higways which is not where most accidents happen.

Post reply on HN