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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by freejazz »

valval wrote: post #925
kelnos wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's absolutely not how this works. Confounding factors are things that make your data not tell you what you are actually trying to understand. You can't just hand-wave that away, sorry. Consider: what I expect is actually true based on the data is that Tesla FSD is as safe or safer than the average human driver, but only if the driver is paying attention and is ready to take over in case FSD does something uns…

Like I said, the time for studies is in the future. FSD is a product in development and they know which stats they need to track in order to track progress. You’re arguing for something that: 1. Isn’t under contention and 2. Isn’t rooted in the real world. You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system. It’s not meant to be, right now.

> You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system

Oh, weird. Are you not aware it's called Full SELF Driving?

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

#972

Post by jeffbee »

ethbr1 wrote: post #910
jeffbee wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who believes Tesla beats Google because they are better at collecting and handling data can be safely ignored.

The argument wouldn't be "better at" but simply "more". Sensor platforms deployed at scale, that you have the right to take data from, are difficult to replicate.

For most organizations data is a burden rather than a benefit. Tesla has never demonstrated that they can convert data to money, while that is the sole purpose of everything Google has built for decades.

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

#973

Post by andrewaylett »

f1shy wrote: post #647
andrewaylett wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The responsibility doesn't shift, it always lies with the human. One problem is that humans are notoriously poor at maintaining attention when supervising automation Until the car is ready to take over as legal driver, it's foolish to set the human driver up for failure in the way that Tesla (and the humans driving Tesla cars) do.

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

The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again?

In this case, the behaviour of the system and the responsibility of the driver is well-established. I'd actually quite like it if Tesla were held responsible for their software, but they somehow continue to skirt the line wherein they require the driver to retain vigilance and any system failures are therefore the (legal) fault of the human not the car despite advertising it as "Full Self Driving".

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

#974

Post by crazygringo »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #902
crazygringo wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When we get rain in socal its a deluge. The first couple months of 2024 we had more rain than seattle. That being said there is a big difference wearing sunglasses and not. Actually I was in a parking garage today and thought of this very thread, because the sun was shining on the cement ground through the side and was literally blinding. To my naked eye it was like a blown out photograph, just pure light on the grou…

You're confusing three things here.

Yes, sunglasses are necessary because the white cement is blinding. That situation is literally what sunglasses are for.

But polarized sunglasses are no better than regular sunglasses in this regard. Polarization does nothing extra for rough surfaces like cement.

And you're talking entirely about reflected sunlight, which is what sunglasses are designed for.

But the topic was direct sunlight straight into your eyeball while driving, and sunglasses provide no help or safety here. Polarized or not.

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

#975

Post by dragonwriter »

andrewaylett wrote: post #973
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!!!

The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again? In this case, the behaviour of the system and the responsibility of the driver is well-…

> The point at which we decide that a defect is serious enough to transfer liability is quite case-dependent. If you knew that the throttle was glitchy but hadn't done anything to fix it, yes. If it affected every car from the manufacturer, it's obviously their fault -- but if you ignore the recall then it might be your fault again?

In most American jurisdictions' liability law, the more usual thing is to expand liability, rather than transferring liability. The idea that exactly one -- or at most one -- person or entity should be liable for any given portion of any given harm is a common popular one in places like HN, but the law is much more accepting of the situation where lots of people may have overlapping liability for the same harm, with none relieving the others.

The liability of a driver for maintenance and operation within the law is not categorically mutually exclusive with the liability of the manufacturer (and, indeed, every party in the chain of commerce) for manufacturing defects.

If a car is driven in a way that violates the rules of the road and causes an accident and a manufacturing defect in a driver assistance system contributed to that, it is quite possible for the driver, manufacturer of the driver assistance system, manufacturer of the vehicle (if different from that of the assistance system) and seller of the vehicle to the driver (if different from the last two), among others, to all be fully liable to those injured for the harms.

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

#976

Post by Dylan16807 »

dham wrote: post #964
Dylan16807 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This entire thread is people complaining about automation and FSD. Then you want an advanced feature, that requires a large amount of AI to do, as a toss-in feature to basic adaptive cruise control. Do you realize how far ahead Tesla is to everyone else?

A large amount of AI to shift slightly forward or backward based on turn signals? No.

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

#977

Post by lowbloodsugar »

hilux wrote: post #908
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems an odd take. This is a technologist website, and a good number of technologists believe in building robust systems that don’t fail in production. We don’t stand for demos, and we have to fight off consultants peddling crapware that demos well but dies in production. I own a Tesla, despite my dislike of Musk, because it is an insanely fun car. I will never enable FSD, did not even do so when it was free. I…

> ... systems that don’t fail in production. I'll say it again: "compared to what?"

A minimum bar, for societal harm, would be against an identical data set of US drivers. The data for human drivers covers vastly more situations than FSD does. FSD refuses to activate in those situations. So an apples-to-apples comparison doesn't exist. The FSD data is effectively cherry picked for ideal driving conditions. Tesla's claims that FSD is safer than the average driver are not supported by their data, and as others have said, either their statisticians are incompetent or liars. This is basic stuff.

However the minimum bar for me to activate it is "compared to me". I've never come close to driving under a truck or into a divider. I slow down driving into the sunset and use a baseball hat if necessary to make sure I can see.

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

#978

Post by valval »

voganmother42 wrote: post #917
valval wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You and I might have a different view of reality. Teslas are among the safest vehicles on the road.

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

#979

Post by valval »

freejazz wrote: post #971
valval wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, the time for studies is in the future. FSD is a product in development and they know which stats they need to track in order to track progress. You’re arguing for something that: 1. Isn’t under contention and 2. Isn’t rooted in the real world. You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system. It’s not meant to be, right now.

> You’re right FSD isn’t an autonomous driving system Oh, weird. Are you not aware it's called Full SELF Driving?

Does the brand name matter? The description should tell you all you need to know when making a purchase decision.

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

#980

Post by testfrequency »

averageRoyalty wrote: post #634
testfrequency wrote: post #256

I was in a Model 3 Uber yesterday and my driver had to serve onto and up a curb to avoid an (idiot) who was trying to turn into traffic going in the other direction. The Model 3 had every opportunity in the world to brake and it didn’t, we were probably only going 25mph. I know this is about FSD here, but that moment 100% made me realize Tesla has awful obstacle avoidance. I just happen to be looking forward and it w…

Was the Uber driver using FSD or autopilot? Obstacle avoidance and automatic braking can easily be switched on or off by the driver.

Neither, they were…driving.

Also, I’d be shocked if they turned off either of those emergency features (and why would you, especially an uber driver).

Those settings are also reset every trip, it’s not realistic to assume that this guy configured his car to act less safe.

Post reply on HN