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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by magnetowasright »

drodio wrote: post #391

I drive a 2024 Tesla Model Y and another person in my family drives a 2021 Model Y. Both cars are substantially similar (the 2021 actually has more sensors than the 2024, which is strictly cameras-only). Both cars are running 12.5 -- and I agree that it's dramatically improved over 12.3. I really enjoy driving. I've got a #vanlife Sprinter that I'll do 14 hour roadtrips in with my kids. For me, the Tesla's self-drivi…

Has this relative considered that they may not be capable of driving safely at all if they (and others) really do believe that their tesla (whose driving software drives like a freshly licensed 16 year old per your comment) is a better driver? Isn't intervening when the tesla does something stupid/dangerous more difficult than just driving?

> Even someone like me who loves doing road trips really appreciates the ability to relax and not have to be driving.

Pardon the nitpick (and please excuse me if I'm interpreting your comment wrong here) but if someone is using whatever maximum capability self driving functionality is available, they are in fact still driving and should not be 'relaxed' as if they're a passenger.

I would posit that your observation about your relative and the variance in driving skills is not commonly discussed because there's no self driving cars that can actually replace a driver yet, and an unsafe driver relying on 'self driving' software is still an unsafe driver who should not drive.

I realise that there's many understandable reasons people can't just give up their cars and carry on like normal. Helping people to stay mobile, connected, and independent is important, but an unsafe driver is, well, unsafe. It kinda terrifies me that people might be encouraging the elderly people (for example) in their lives to get teslas to keep them driving when they aren't capable of driving safely any more because it's still unsafe.

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

#912

Post by valval »

hotspot_one wrote: post #851
sokoloff wrote: post #807

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 anyone confused, this person’s statement about the EU is total bs.

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

#913

Post by valval »

peutetre wrote: post #880
eschneider wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yea he’s just dedicating his life on something that he knows won’t even work. What are you on about?

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

#914

Post by valval »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #797
rvnx wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does that mean? Tesla’s system isn’t unsupervised, so why would they take responsibility?

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

#915

Post by Dylan16807 »

jakub_g wrote: post #841
pessimizer wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a problem that gets worse as the software gets better. Having to intervene once every 5 minutes is a lot easier than having to intervene once every 5 weeks. If lack of intervention causes an accident, I'd bet on the 5 minute car avoiding an accident longer than the 5 week car for any span of time longer than 10 weeks.

I feel like the full self driving cars should have a "budget". Every time you drive, say, 1000 km in FSD, you then need to drive 100 km in "normal" mode to keep sharp. Or whatever the ratio / exact numbers TBD. You can reset the counter upfront by driving smaller mileage more regularly.

Just as driving practice?

It's not going to help the problem of keeping up vigilance when monitoring a level 3 system.

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

#916

Post by Dylan16807 »

izacus wrote: post #561
dansiemens wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that individuals should carry that liability?

The ones that are identified as making decisions leading to death, yes. It's completely normal in other fields where engineers build systems that can kill.

That's liability for defective design, not any time it fails as suggested above.

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

#917

Post by voganmother42 »

valval wrote: post #913
peutetre wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yea he’s just dedicating his life on something that he knows won’t even work. What are you on about?

Everyone else’s life seems to be completely irrelevant

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

#918

Post by Dylan16807 »

amelius wrote: post #628
LadyCailin wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people driving manually kill people all the time too. The bar for self driving isn’t «does it never kill anyone», it’s «does it kill people less than manual driving». We’re not there yet, and Tesla’s «FSD» is marketing bullshit, but we certainly will be there one day, and at that point, we need to understand what we as a society will do when a self driving car kills someone. It’s not obvious what the best solutio…

No, because every driver thinks they are better than average. So nobody will accept it.

The level where someone personally uses it and the level where they accept it being on the road are different. Beating the average driver is all about the latter.

Also I will happily use self driving that matches the median driver in safety.

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

#919

Post by Dylan16807 »

twoWhlsGud wrote: post #905
dham wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot is just adaptive cruise control with lane keep. Literally every car has this now. I don't see people on Toyota, Honda, or Ford forums complaining that a table-stakes feature of a car doesn't adjust speed or change lanes as a car is merging in. Do you know how insane that sounds. I'm assuming you're in software since you're on Hacker news.

My Audi doesn't advertise its predictive cruise control as Full Self Driving. So expectations are more controlled...

They're not talking about FSD.

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

#920

Post by Dylan16807 »

dham wrote: post #881
dreamcompiler wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place. This is what bugs me about ordinary autopilot. Autopilot doesn't switch lanes, but I like to slow down or speed up as needed to allow merging cars to enter my lane. Autopilot never does that, and I've had some close calls with ir…

Autopilot is just adaptive cruise control with lane keep. Literally every car has this now. I don't see people on Toyota, Honda, or Ford forums complaining that a table-stakes feature of a car doesn't adjust speed or change lanes as a car is merging in. Do you know how insane that sounds. I'm assuming you're in software since you're on Hacker news.

It sounds zero insane. Adaptive cruise control taking into account merging would be great. And it's valid to complain about automations that make your car worse at cooperating.
Post reply on HN