Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871
post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can believe what you want to believe. It works fantastic for me whether you believe it or not. I do wonder if people who have wildly different experiences than I have are living in a part of the country that, for one reason or another, Tesla FSD does not yet do as well in.

I think GP is going too far in calling you a liar, but I think for the most part your FSD praise is just kinda... unimportant and irrelevant. GP's aggressive attitude notwithstanding, I think most reasonable people will agree that FSD handles a lot of situations really well, and believe that some people have travel routes where FSD always handles things well. But ok, great, so what? If that wasn't the case, FSD would…

Open discussion and sharing different experiences with technology is “annoying noise” to you but not to me. Slamming technology that works great for others should receive no counter points and become an echo chamber or what?

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

#872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't drive but I would think it would be worse than actually paying attention all the time

You are required to pay attention all the time. That's what the "supervised" in "FSD (supervised)" means.

FSD stands for Fully Supervised Driving, right?

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

#873
post #467
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Oh we tried to build it but no one bought it! So we gave up." - Mercedes before Tesla. Perhaps FSD isn't ready for city streets yet, but it's great on the highways and I'd 1000x prefer we make progress rather than settle for the status quo garbage that the legacy makers put out. Also, human drivers are the most dangerous, by far, we need to make progress to eventual phase them out.

2-ton blocks of metal that go 80mph next to me on the highway is not the place I would want people to go "fuck it let's just do it" with their new tech. Human drivers might be dangerous but adding more danger and unpredictability on top just because we can skip a few steps in the engineering process is crazy. Maybe you have a deathwish, but I definitely don't. Your choices affect other humans in traffic.

It sounds like you are the one with a deathwish, because objectively by the numbers Autopilot on the highway has greatly reduced death. So you are literally advocating for more death.

You have two imperfect systems for highway driving: Autopilot with human oversight, and humans. The first has far far less death. Yet you are choosing the second.

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

#874
post #816

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?

Defensive driving is to assume they might not check their blindspot, etc. And just generally ease off in this situation if they would merge in tight if they began merging now.

That’s the issue: I would immediately slow a little bit to let the other one merge. FSD seems to be noticing something, and eventually slow down, but the action is too subtle (if at all) to signal the other guy that you’re letting them merge.

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

#875
post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. Fuck. I just watched higher ups sign off on a project I know for a fact has defects all over the place going into production despite our very explicit: don't do it ( not quite Tesla level consequences, but still resulting in real issues for real people ). The sooner we can start having people in jail for knowingly approving half-baked software, the sooner it will improve.

Should we require Professional Engineers to sign off on such projects the same way they are required to for other safety critical infrastructure (like bridges and dams)? The Professional Engineer that signed off is liable for defects in the design. (Though, of course, if the design is not followed then liability can shift back to the company that built it)

I hesitate, because I shudder at government deciding which algorithm is best for a given scenario ( because that is effectively is where it would go ). Maybe the distinction is, the moment money changes hands based on product?

I am not an engineer, but I have watched clearly bad decisions take place from technical perspective so that a person with title that went to their head and a bonus that is not aligned with right incentives mess things up for us. Maybe some proffesionalization of software engineering is in order.

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

#876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are required to pay attention all the time. That's what the "supervised" in "FSD (supervised)" means.

FSD stands for Fully Supervised Driving, right?

yeah, that sounds like Elon’s marketing to me.

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

#877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During power outages, having natural gas in your home is a huge benefit. Many in my area just experienced it with Helene. You can still cook. You can still get hot water. If you have gas logs you still have a heat source in the winter too. These trade offs are far more important to a lot of people.

Granted, that is a valid concern if power outages are more frequent in your area. I have never experienced a power outage personally, so that is nothing I ever thought of. However, I feel like with solar power and battery storage systems becoming increasingly widespread, this won't be a major concern for much longer

They aren’t frequent but in the last 15-16 years there have been 2 outages that lasted almost 2 weeks in some areas around here. The first one was in the winter and the only gas appliance I had was a set of gas logs in the den.

It heated my whole house and we used a pan to cook over it. When we moved the first thing I did was install gas logs, gas stove and a gas water heater.

It’s nice to have options and backup plans. That’s one of the reasons I was a huge fan of the Chevy Volt when it first came out. I could easily take it on a long trip but still averaged 130mpg over 3 years (twice). Now I’ve got a Tesla and when there are fuel shortages it’s also really nice.

A friend of ours owns a cybertruck and was without power for 9 days, but just powered the whole house with the cybertruck. Every couple of days he’d drive to a supercharger station to recharge.

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

#878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the scenario we're talking about is when the sun is just a few degrees away from the road. It's still entering your eyeball directly. It's still literally blinding, so I just... don't understand how you can do that? Like, I certainly can't. Sunglasses -- polarized or otherwise -- don't make the slightest difference. It's why sun visors exist.

Also, I'm assuming you get rain in SoCal at least sometimes, that then mostly dries up but not completely? Or leaking fire hydrants and so forth? It's the unexpected wet patches.

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

#879
post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's not an endorsement but we allow chronically bad drivers on the road as long as they're legally bad and not illegally bad.

We do that for reasons of practicality: the US is built around cars. If we were to revoke the licenses of the 20% worst drivers, most of those people would be unable to get to work and end up homeless. So we accept that there are some bad drivers on the road because the alternative would be cruel. But we don't have to accept bad software drivers.

Oh, I'm well aware how things work.

But we should look down on them and speak poorly of them same as we look down on and speak poorly of everyone else who's discourteous in public spaces.

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

#880

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.

"You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail." I spent over a decade working on production computer vision products. You think you can do this, and for some percentage of failures you can. The thing is, there will ALWAYS be some percentage of failure cases where you really can't perceive anything different from a success case. If you want to trust your life to that, fine, but I certainly…

Elon Musk is a technologist. He knows a lot about computers. The last thing Musk would do is trust a computer program:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pushes-debunked-...

So I guess that's game over for full self-driving.

Post reply on HN