[HN Gopher] Tesla recalls 362,758 vehicles, says full self-drivi...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla recalls 362,758 vehicles, says full self-driving beta may
cause crashes
Author : jeffpalmer
Score : 579 points
Date : 2023-02-16 17:52 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| maxdo wrote:
| FSD beta is a super weird beast. I managed to go in New York with
| 0 interventions to my friend 3-4 miles away one day, yet another
| day it can act stupid, and barely handle a trivial intersection.
| kbos87 wrote:
| The amount of hyperbole and completely uninformed takes around
| FSD is eye opening.
|
| I'll completely agree that "Full self driving" is a misleading
| name, and they should be forced to change it, full stop.
|
| That being said, it's exceptionally clear that all the
| responsibility is on you, the driver, while you are using it. The
| messaging in the vehicle is concise and constant (not just the
| wall of text you read when opting in.) Eye tracking makes sure
| you are actually engaged and looking at the road, otherwise the
| car will disengage and you'll eventually lose the ability to use
| FSD. Why is there never a mention of this in any coverage?
| Because it's more salacious to believe people are asleep at the
| wheel.
|
| Is it perfect? No, though it's a lot better than many people seem
| to want the world to believe. It's so easy to overlook the fact
| that human drivers are also very, very far from perfect.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >...."Full self driving" is a misleading name, and they should
| be forced to change it, full stop.
|
| Problem and solution.
|
| Nothing more need be said.
| culi wrote:
| This one issue is one of the primary reasons Google ended up
| deciding not to acquire Tesla really early on. Google's been
| way ahead of them for a long time and their engineers were
| extremely aware of how reckless this type of marketing from
| Musk was
|
| But the marketing worked. They sold the dream to people and
| only got sued a couple times and still got the most
| subsidization of any automaker
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >That being said, it's exceptionally clear that all the
| responsibility is on you, the driver
|
| Virtually every study ever done on human-machine interaction
| shows that users will inevitably lose reaction time and
| attention when they are engaged with half automated systems
| given that constant context switching creates extreme issues.
|
| Waymo did studies on this in the earlier days and very quickly
| came to the conclusion that it's full autonomy or nothing.
| Comparisons to human performance are nonsensical because
| machines don't operate like human beings. If factory floor
| robots had the error rate of a human being you'd find a lot of
| limbs on the floor. When we interact with autonomous systems
| that a human can never predict precision needs to _far exceed_
| that of a human being for the cooperation to work. A two ton
| blackbox moving at speeds that kill people is not something any
| user can responsibly engage with _at all_.
| alluro2 wrote:
| I generally root for Tesla as a former underdog who lit the fire
| under the asses of stagnating manufacturers, but, seeing videos
| of FSD in action, I'm fully on the side of people who think that
| calling it FSD should be considered fraud.
|
| Given how much time and data they had so far, and the state it's
| in, it really makes news like Zoox getting a testing permit for
| public roads, without any manual controls in the vehicle, seem
| crazy irresponsible and dangerous. Is it possible that they are
| just that much better at cracking autonomous driving?
| esalman wrote:
| Unlike Tesla, Mercedes will take responsibility if level-3
| autonomous system is malfunctioning. If I ever get an
| autonomous vehicle this will be the main deciding factor.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Meanwhile, the only actual L3 capable car is a Mercedes. Plenty
| of people will argue that AP is actually superior, but I don't
| think there's any way to say that for sure, given the tight
| constraints Mercedes has put on their driver assistance in order
| to lower the liability enough to make L3 not a bankruptcy event.
| For certain, however, they are more _confident_ in their
| technology than Tesla is, otherwise Tesla would release an L3
| capable car too.
|
| To be fair, though, Tesla has no sensors other than cameras, and
| I believe the Mercedes has a half dozen or so, several radars and
| even a lidar.
| lastLinkedList wrote:
| Don't LIDAR/radar sensors (I'm not familiar with exactly what
| the options are) have benefits that vision doesn't have, like
| working in poor lighting/visibility? Why would Tesla move away
| from these sensors?
| ggreer wrote:
| Lidar has advantages over cameras but it also has some
| downsides. Sunlight, rain, and snow can interfere with the
| sensors, as can other nearby lidar devices (though de-noising
| algorithms are always improving). There are also issues with
| object detection. Lidar gives you a point cloud, and you need
| software that can detect and categorize things from that
| point cloud. Because lidar is new, this problem hasn't had as
| much R&D put into it as similar problems in computer vision.
|
| Then there's the issue of sensor fusion. Lidar requires
| sensor fusion because it can't see road lines, traffic
| signals, or signs. It also can't see lights on vehicles or
| pedestrians. So you still have to solve most of the computer
| vision issues _and_ you have to build software that can
| reliably merge the data from both sensors. What if the
| sensors disagree? If you err on the side of caution and brake
| if either sensor detects an object, you get lots of false
| positives and phantom braking (increasing the chance of rear-
| end collisions). If you YOLO it, you might hit something. If
| you improve the software to the point that lidar and cameras
| never disagree, well then what do you need lidar for?
|
| I think lidar will become more prevalent, and I wouldn't be
| surprised if Tesla added it to their vehicles in the future.
| But the primary sensor will always be cameras.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Because LIDAR is expensive and available in limited
| quantities. There's no way they could sell the amount of cars
| they are selling right now if each one came with a LIDAR.
|
| Camera modules are cheap and available in huge quantities.
| drowsspa wrote:
| That Tesla was allowed to test in production without any legal
| liability with real human lives mostly because of Musk's
| personal influence is a disgrace
| worik wrote:
| > That Tesla was allowed to test in production without any
| legal liability with real human lives mostly because of
| Musk's personal influence is a disgrace
|
| I am unsure what"allowed" means in that context. They just
| did it. The lawsuits are coming, surely?
|
| Sometimes it is better to ask for forgiveness than for
| permission. This was an audacious example. Time will tell if
| there is anything that will stop them.
| drowsspa wrote:
| I mean, "ask for forgiveness than permission" for an AI
| conducting a 1 ton machine that carries live human beings
| borders on psychopathy.
| [deleted]
| naillo wrote:
| Makes me think karpathys "bet" on vision being the only sensor
| was maybe misguided
| sockaddr wrote:
| Yup. You need an AGI behind that vision for that premise to
| work.
|
| Even a fruit-fly class AGI would do it.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Flies hit windows and cars. Even much more complex animals
| cannot manage effectively moving in a complex environment
| without hitting each other (like flocks of sheep).
|
| There's no data that would support that anything than human
| level AGI is required to drive cars with how current
| infrastructure looks like.
| worik wrote:
| > Even much more complex animals cannot manage
| effectively moving in a complex environment without
| hitting each other (like flocks of sheep).
|
| No. You have to force flocking animals into extreme
| circumstances to have them start crashing,.
|
| Sounds like the Tesla cannot manage that. Not even "bird
| brained".
| panick21_ wrote:
| Again, people need to understand this L3 stuff is for an
| extremely, extremely limited amount of situations.
|
| Tesla software is used far, far, far more, in far, far more
| situation. Even compare those to things is kind of silly.
|
| Its like comparing a system designed for only race tracks
| with Honda Civic. They are simply not designed for the same
| thing.
|
| If Mercedes achieves L3 in all the places Tesla now allows AP
| (or FSD Beta) then that would prove the 'bet' on vision
| wrong.
|
| Until then, nobody has proven anything.
| scottyah wrote:
| Radar could help so much in thick fog and rain...
| LanceJones wrote:
| I've used it in Germany over the Christmas holidays. In 8 hours
| of driving it was only available for 12 minutes.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| It's probably only worth it if you have a commute in heavy
| traffic. If you're stuck in traffic on the Autobahn every
| morning, then it could be useful.
|
| Otherwise, not really.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| This is a PR stunt from Mercedes, because in practice their L3
| system is not usually available.
| lolinder wrote:
| It's available in bumper to bumper rush hour traffic on
| freeways, and they take liability for any accidents that
| happen while it's on. That's exactly the kind of system and
| guarantee that could really have a positive impact on
| someone's commute.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| No, it is rarely available even in those conditions.
| lolinder wrote:
| > To be fair, though, Tesla has no sensors other than cameras,
| and I believe the Mercedes has a half dozen or so, several
| radars and even a lidar.
|
| This doesn't mitigate Tesla's gross ethical violations in
| letting this thing loose, it makes them worse. Tesla _knew_
| that cameras alone would be harder to make work than cameras
| plus radar plus lidar, and they shouldn 't be lauded for
| attempting FSD with just cameras. It's an arbitrary constraint
| that they imposed on themselves that is putting people's lives
| in danger.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Remember that big announcement musk did where he stated, that
| going forward, Teslas would not use any additional sensors to
| aid the video---to the point of laughing at every other
| company that was still using them. Yeah.
| freejazz wrote:
| Basically criminal negligence to anyone that actually gets
| hurt by the FSD beta
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is limited to certain pre mapped roads, under 40 mph and
| requires a car in front to follow. This in no way compares to
| Tesla's Autopilot system.
|
| Edit (because HN throttling replies): > Mercedes is being
| responsible about their rollout
|
| You can always succeed if you define success. If rolling out
| something that doesn't do much of anything is success, success?
| Oh well. Less than 20 people have died related to Autopilot in
| ~5 billion miles of travel. Zero deaths is unattainable and
| unrealistic, so "responsible" and "safe" is based on whatever
| narrative is being pushed. 43k people died in US car accidents
| last year, roughly half a million deaths in the entire time
| Tesla has offered some sort of driver assistance system called
| Autopilot.
|
| How many deaths would be be okay with Mercedes' system where is
| would still be "responsible"? Because it won't be zero. Even
| assuming 100% penetration of Automatic Emergency Braking
| systems, it's only predicted to reduce fatalities by 13.2%
| (China specific study), and injuries by a similar number.
|
| TLDR "Safe" is not zero deaths. It is a level of death we are
| comfortable with to continue to use vehicles to travel at
| scale.
|
| https://www.tesladeaths.com/
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7037779/
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It is in no way comparable to Tesla's Autopilot system.
| Mercedes has an actual feature while Tesla recklessly gambles
| with other peoples' lives to juice their stock price.
|
| If Tesla believes that their feature is safe, then let them
| take legal liability for it.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The law does not require they take liability, so they
| shouldn't. If you don't like the law, change the law. If
| you don't want to use a driver assist feature, don't. But
| the data shows Autopilot is robust and regulators allow its
| continued sale and operation.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Legal isn't ethical. Musk is recklessly gambling with
| other people's lives.
|
| I don't have a choice not to use this feature. The person
| driving their Tesla death machine on the roads with me
| already made that decision for me.
| lolinder wrote:
| Mercedes is being responsible about their rollout, so people
| like you jump to the conclusion that their tech is worse. For
| my part, I see Mercedes taking liability for accidents that
| happen and think that they must have a lot of confidence in
| their tech to roll it out at all under those terms.
|
| I would not be surprised to see Mercedes beat Tesla to _safe_
| fully automated driving because they took it slow and steady
| instead of trying to rush it out to legacy vehicles that don
| 't have the right sensor arrays.
|
| Edit: It's weird to reply to a comment by editing your own.
| It feels like you're trying to preempt what your interlocutor
| is saying, rather than reply.
| reitzensteinm wrote:
| Isn't 40mph a regulatory limit?
|
| Do you have any information that it'll continue to be 40mph
| even where not required to be?
|
| I wouldn't be surprised in the answer is yes, but I've been
| paying attention and haven't come across any yet.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Calling it L3 capable is like saying Tesla is Full Self
| Driving.
|
| Neither is true, both are marketing.
|
| > but I don't think there's any way to say that for sure
|
| I mean yes there is. If you want to have an object test where
| you drop a car anywhere in the world and see if it can get
| somewhere else, then clearly one is more useful then the other.
|
| In basketball they say 'the best ability is availability'. In
| terms of that AP is in a totally different dimension. AP has
| been driven for 100s of millions of miles by know, it must be a
| crazy high number by now. Mercedes L3 system has barley driven
| at all, its available in very few cars.
|
| The only way you can reasonably compare the Mercedes L3 system
| is if you limit the comparison to the extremely limited cases
| where the Mercedes L3 system is available. If you compare them
| there, I would think they aren't that different.
|
| > otherwise Tesla would release an L3 capable car too
|
| No, because making something L3 in a extremely limited
| selection of places is simply not something Tesla is interested
| in doing. Doing so would be a lot of work that they simply
| don't consider worth doing when they are trying to solve the
| larger problem.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If Tesla's work is actually going somewhere, then they don't
| need to change the engineering to get L3 in specific places.
| They can have a list that gets added to over time.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Actually it would be a lot of work doing that. Even if not
| just work on the software itself. Something like that would
| cause a lot of work in literally all over the company.
|
| Also, they don't really have an inattentive to do that, so
| why should they.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > literally all over the company
|
| Why? The design is locked in, the manufacturing doesn't
| change, you don't need the designers to do much... I
| would expect you need a handful of people, half of which
| are lawyers.
|
| > Also, they don't really have an inattentive to do that,
| so why should they.
|
| I'm pretty sure _almost all Tesla owners_ would like the
| ability to stop looking at the road some of the time.
| That amount of customer satisfaction is not a motivation
| for the company?
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> To be fair, though, Tesla has no sensors other than cameras,
| and I believe the Mercedes has a half dozen or so, several
| radars and even a lidar.
|
| Pf. Tensors beat sensors.
|
| Just you wait for another garbanzillion miles driven. Then
| you'll see.
|
| /s
| londons_explore wrote:
| This just a few days before the much anticipated 'v11' software
| release...
|
| V11 supposedly uses neural nets for deciding the driving path and
| speed (rather than hand coded C++ rules).
| londons_explore wrote:
| I would imagine v11 will be cancelled or at least massively
| delayed to deal with this recall...
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Does a recall like this actually mean owners return their car to
| Tesla for modification? Or would it be an over-the-air update to
| remove FSD?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Why does the media not make this clear in the headline?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Because it gets more clicks. Reading about how Tesla will
| lose lots of money because they have to recall 350k vehicles
| is juicy story, specially if its about removing a major
| feature, a slight software update to that feature is boring.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| They hate Musk ever since he took twitter away from them.
| natch wrote:
| Because Tesla does not pay for advertising in media outlets.
| So many media outlets tend to have it in for Tesla.
| tensor wrote:
| Almost all of these "recalls" that make the news are just
| software patches. The only difference between these and a
| normal patch is that customers get an email about it.
|
| I can understand why people might think that all these recalls
| require going back to the shop, that's how most legacy makers
| work to this day.
| gowld wrote:
| It's also the word "recall", as opposed to "urgent patch",
| that makes people think that the car is going back to
| manufacturer.
|
| Non-Tesla automakers are not "legacy".
| idop wrote:
| The solution being (supposedly) easy doesn't discount the
| severity of the issue. Owners must be informed and aware.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| That was my first thought.
|
| Also what percentage of people who paid for "FSD" needed their
| car recalling?
| acchow wrote:
| This is 100%. It's a required software update on all the FSD
| vehicles.
| lattalayta wrote:
| Seems like they should come up with a new phrase to distinguish
| between making modifications to the car at a dealer or service
| provider vs. a downloadable update, right?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Yes, this is just a historical term that nobody bothered to
| change.
|
| We have to remember that Tesla was the first company to
| really do this and even today almost no other company does
| it. Most can update some parts of their system, but almost
| non have anywhere close to the integration Tesla has.
|
| So for 99% of recalls, it is a physical recall, its just
| Tesla where most of the time it isn't.
| kube-system wrote:
| > The auto safety regulator said the Tesla software allows a
| vehicle to "exceed speed limits or travel through intersections
| in an unlawful or unpredictable manner increases the risk of a
| crash." Tesla will release an over-the-air (OTA) software
| update, free of charge.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
|
| Sounds like it's just a patch release with regulators involved.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| I'm not sure how to reconcile that statement with how FSD
| beta works. Fine, the speed limit thing is easy to fix-- just
| cap the max speed to the speed limit.
|
| But the "[traveling] through intersections in an unlawful or
| unpredictable manner" is _inherent_ to the FSD beta. Most of
| the time it does "fine", but there's some intersections
| where it will inexplicably swerve into different lanes and
| then correct itself. And this can change beta-to-beta (one in
| particular used to be bad, it got fixed at some point, then
| went back to the old swerving behavior).
| vilhelm_s wrote:
| If they accepted a software update, I would assume it would
| be about things that are deliberately programmed in, rather
| than just fundamental limitations? But I agree it's a bit
| odd. The longer description says
|
| > The FSD Beta system may allow the vehicle to act unsafe
| around intersections, such as traveling straight through an
| intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop
| sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete
| stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady
| yellow traffic signal without due caution. In addition, the
| system may respond insufficiently to changes in posted
| speed limits or not adequately account for the driver's
| adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed
| limit. [https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2020/TESLA/MODEL%2525
| 20Y/SUV/A...]
|
| "entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without
| coming to a complete stop" sounds a lot like the thing they
| _already_ issued a recall over in Janary 2020 (further down
| the same web page), so it seems a bit odd that it would
| still be an issue. And "due caution" to yellow lights
| seems like it could just be tuning some parameter. On the
| other hand, failing to recognize turn-only lanes sounds
| more like a failure of the computer vision system...
| starbase wrote:
| I believe the stop sign adjustment is to increase dwell
| time at empty intersections. i.e. stop and count to two
| before proceeding.
| shoelessone wrote:
| This is what I'm most interested in.
|
| I'm hopeful about Tesla FSD, and don't think it necessarily
| needs to be perfect, just significantly better than humans.
| So I'm rooting for Tesla FSD/Autopilot overall. I just
| don't see how given the findings there is a solution
| without removing removing the entire FSD feature.
| autonomousErwin wrote:
| I had the same question. I think this is the original report:
| https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF
|
| On Page 4 it mentions the "Description of Remedy" as an OTA
| update. Gives a new meaning to a recall!
|
| https://howtune.com/recalls/ford/ford/1980/
|
| Software > Stickers
| lolinder wrote:
| Note that this recall just means that there's a regulator-
| mandated patch, not that FSD is being removed.
| [deleted]
| mdeeks wrote:
| Both of my cars patched last night with "Bug fixes" as the
| changelog. I don't think I've seen an update that only said
| that before. I suspect that was this "recall". If that's the
| case, then the recall (patch) is probably mostly done by now.
| linsomniac wrote:
| I've had 4-6 "misc bug fixes" patches since 2016, just FYI.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| If the changelog to my car's safety critical system was
| limited to "misc bug fixes", I would never touch it again.
| Either have extreme transparency into the system, or don't
| have the system.
|
| I leverage this complaint against my own car. The AEB radar
| just stopped passing start up self tests for a while, and I
| had no idea why, and could not find out without going to
| the dealership. While waiting to be able to do that, it
| started working again. I don't consider it a backup, or a
| helper or anything. It's an independent roll of the dice
| for an upcoming crash that I already failed to prevent. If
| it does anything in that case then that's probably an
| improvement, but I don't exactly trust it to save my bacon.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| I had that update message, too, though I thought I was just
| installing that "adjustments to the steering wheel warmer"
| update. I don't have FSD.
| Groxx wrote:
| Crash -> fire -> steering wheel is warmed.
|
| Could still be related.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| For sure. Just another genius move in Elon's 4D chess
| game.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I thought emperically, statistically, the number of crashes from
| FSD was drastically lower than human drivers. Was this number
| hogwash or is this just lawboys saying the number must be 0
| before it's allowed on the road?
|
| If so, that's pretty crazy and people will die because of this
| decision.
| pja wrote:
| You can't compare FSD crashes / mile with human data for a
| couple of reasons.
|
| The primary one is:
|
| 1) FSD turns itself off whenever things get too difficult or
| complex for it. Human drivers don't get to do this. Recent
| crowdsourced data suggests a disengagment every 6 miles of
| driving:
| https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1602774341602639872
|
| If you eliminate all the difficult bits of driving I bet you
| could eliminate a lot of human driver crashes from your
| statistics too!
|
| A secondary issue, but relevant if you care about honesty in
| statistical comparisons is
|
| 2) The average vehicle & driver in the non-Tesla population is
| completely different. Unless you correct for these differences
| somehow, any comparison you might make is suspect.
| Xylakant wrote:
| The number was problematic for various reasons:
|
| The usual comparison is vs. all cars on the road, but Teslas
| are comparatively new cars with a lot of recent and expensive
| safety features not available in older cars. They're also
| likely to be maintained better. On top, they're also a driven
| by a different demographic which skews accident statistics.
|
| Teslas autopilot can only be enabled in comparatively safe and
| simple circumstances, yet the comparison is made against all
| driver in all situations. When autopilot detects a situation it
| can't handle, it turns off and hands over to the human who gets
| a few seconds warning. Human drivers can't just punt the issue
| and then crash.
|
| Tesla FSD may be safer than Human drivers for the limited set
| of environments where you can use it, but last time I checked,
| the numbers that Tesla published are useless to demonstrate
| that.
| valine wrote:
| > Teslas autopilot can only be enabled in comparatively safe
| and simple circumstances
|
| This is incorrect. FSD can be enabled everywhere from dirt
| road to parking lots, even highways and dense urban
| environments like NYC. There is no geofence on FSD, you can
| turn it on anywhere the car can see drivable space.
| Xylakant wrote:
| Does it enable in heavy rain or snow, on ice, fog? Does it
| work in storm conditions with leaves and objects blown over
| the street? Does it work in confusing traffic situations,
| invalid signage, ...?
| valine wrote:
| I didn't say it works in those scenarios, I said it lets
| you enable it.
|
| It enables in snow and rain yes. The only time it refuses
| to engage is in extreme weather that obstructs the
| cameras.
|
| It gets confused a lot in heavy traffic but it will
| attempt anything.
| jdelman wrote:
| The confusion from multiple HN posters here confirms that the
| "recall" language is inadequate to capture what is happening
| here.
|
| Obviously attention should be drawn to the fact that there is a
| critical safety update being pushed OTA, but "recall" is too
| overloaded a term if it means both "we're taking this back and
| destroying it because it's fundamentally flawed" vs. "a software
| update is being pushed to your vehicle (which may or may not be
| fundamentally flawed...)"
|
| I do think something beyond "software update" is necessary,
| though - these aren't your typical "bug fixes and improvements"
| type release notes that accompany many app software releases
| these days. I don't think it would be too difficult to come up
| with appropriate language. "Critical Safety Update"?
| redundantly wrote:
| In this scenario 'recall' is a legal/compliance term. It's
| appropriately used.
| [deleted]
| 2h wrote:
| I think recall is just fine. Recall offers no ambiguity in my
| mind. It means the manufacturer fucked something up, big time.
| Everything else is just details.
|
| In the current world of forced updates (looking at you
| Android), the word "update" itself is kind of toxic, and
| doesn't (and I would argue cant) represent what has happened
| here, even if its technically more correct.
| tsgagnon wrote:
| _Obviously attention should be drawn to the fact that there is
| a critical safety update being pushed OTA, but "recall" is too
| overloaded a term if it means both "we're taking this back and
| destroying it because it's fundamentally flawed" vs. "a
| software update is being pushed to your vehicle (which may or
| may not be fundamentally flawed...)"_
|
| How many times in history has a vehicle recall meant the cars
| were returned and destroyed?
|
| What makes this situation any more confusing than all the
| previous times vehicles were recalled?
| tevon wrote:
| These articles really need to add a denominator to their numbers.
| woeirua wrote:
| Remains to be seen what the OTA patch will actually do. If they
| could make FSD work correctly they would have _already_ done it.
| So, my guess is more smoke and mirrors to mislead the NHTSA, and
| then NHTSA will come down with the ban hammer on FSD and require
| them to disable it entirely.
| pellucide wrote:
| Folks with Tesla FSD, please find an empty parking lot and drive
| all you want. It helps Tesla's mission. Please don't test it on
| real roads. At least not on busy roads
| idlewords wrote:
| I love that this is the same guy who wants to send people to Mars
| one-way and then figure out the return trip later.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| MOVE FAST
|
| BREAK THINGS
|
| (including people)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Remember, if you consider other human beings as simply
| objects for you to do what you like with, you won't feel as
| bad when you inevitably get them killed
| moomoo11 wrote:
| dont forget you better like dank memes
|
| like physically hit the like button
| SCLeo wrote:
| Once they are there, can't you just recall them back with OTA
| updates?
| dshpala wrote:
| You'd be surprised how many people want a one-way ticket to
| Mars. I think Elon can make good money from that alone.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I'm not sure that the people who want one of those will want
| them if:
|
| * they are not the first (or in the first ~50 or so) to get
| there
|
| * they have a lot of money and a lot of income on Earth
|
| This is kind of a glory-seeking thing for people who haven't
| made a name for themselves otherwise. Rich people would want
| to have a return flight. That is not a recipe for making a
| ton of money.
| maxdo wrote:
| Think of it as a startup, everyone who will go first will
| use benefits, own land, know how to do business of
| constantly growing colony.
| kibwen wrote:
| Of all the possible reasons to go to Mars, "economic
| opportunity" is not even remotely one of them.
| hospadar wrote:
| Gosh we can only hope all the rich people shoot themselves
| to mars with no return trip though. What a dream that would
| be for the rest of us.
| maxdo wrote:
| think of it this way: you go there, work for a company, in
| a spare time, you find gold, raise capital to start mining
| it, got rich, build a huge house with swimming pools, and
| all the rich attributes, but on Mars. Mars will be
| colonized with great mixture of science and initiative
| people. Your kids will grew up in this environment, they'll
| receive best education and endless room for possibilities.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Surely elon will allow lots of other people to get rich,
| instead of just capturing any possible value for himself,
| since he would literally be a god emperor.
|
| There are no rules on mars, except the ones that the
| people who could simply push you out the airlock make.
| Look how elon treats his workers and you will understand
| how a mars colony with his backing will look, except even
| worse.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Sure buddy. You will be able to prospect for and mine
| gold in your spare time after your one-way trip to Mars,
| including building all of the equipment you need, or
| having it sent over by rocket. And you'll be able to own
| land there too, because homestead laws and stuff will
| definitely carry over.
|
| If you are already rich on Earth, you don't need to take
| risks that insane to try. In other words, nobody who can
| afford a ticket to Mars will pay for one.
| p_j_w wrote:
| I hate that I don't know if this is satire or not.
| deckard1 wrote:
| I feel like _The Expanse_ will probably be a more
| accurate picture of the realities of a Mars colony
| reaperducer wrote:
| _You 'd be surprised how many people want a one-way ticket to
| Mars._
|
| Can I nominate someone?
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Isn't Antarctica just Mars-lite? Do you think a mere treaty
| is hampering settlement there? That's where my mind goes when
| people talk about colonizing another planet.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| These people are incredibly stupid. They somehow think
| colonizing mars is easier than regulating the environment
| here on earth, somehow think elon as dictator is better
| than any earth government, are interested in putting
| undertested and sketchy implants into their brain even
| without a proposed use case, and seem to think that the
| only reason we don't regularly visit mars is because we
| don't have a big enough rocket, as if easy access to tons
| of powdered rust is economically useful.
| [deleted]
| dmix wrote:
| Flying to another planet on a rocket is obviously very
| different, the goal is way more interesting than the
| challenge of living in a hostile environment. Even if it's
| ultimately a useless exercise for humanity.
| brhsagain wrote:
| I get that gloating when your enemies fail is one of life's big
| pleasures, but would your opinion on the guy change if we lived
| an alternate universe where Tesla had gotten FSD working?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| To answer your question, no, I am utterly unenthusiastic
| about FSD. When I want to leave the driving to someone else
| I'll take the train.
|
| I suppose I think that's better in the long run, better for
| society in addition to being better for the planet. I know
| it's not a popular take.
| brhsagain wrote:
| * * *
| scottyah wrote:
| Colonization is his goal, guaranteeing a return trip for
| everyone seems pretty dumb.
| ryandvm wrote:
| > Colonization is his goal
|
| Bullshit. Colonization _might_ be a side effect. Bilking
| various governments out of subsidies and fat contracts is the
| goal. Just like every other single Musk venture, it is based
| entirely on feeding at the trough of federal largesse.
| facorreia wrote:
| Right, but to be eligible for the return trip you'd first need
| to pay the loan you took to go there by working as an
| indentured servant and buying your oxygen and food at company-
| set prices, right?
| Reki wrote:
| What, you think people should be able to breathe for free?
| [deleted]
| stonogo wrote:
| A scene in Heinlein's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls has
| the protagonist sternly lecturing a ruffian on the
| importance of paying for air in a domed city on the moon. I
| still can't tell if Heinlein was serious; a later scene has
| the same character demanding a transplanted foot be cut off
| because he felt it indebted him.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Heinlein might be the kind of person to genuinely believe
| that. He also was the kind of person who would write a
| book as an excuse to write a manifesto. Starship Troopers
| was just him bitching about "kids these days"
| shagie wrote:
| Part of the plot of the episode Oxygen (Series 10, episode
| 5) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_(Doctor_Who)
|
| It's an interesting watch (especially with the context of
| labor relations in mind).
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Life imitates art, you ever seen _Total Recall_?
| Tade0 wrote:
| Or _Spaceballs_ for that matter? Wouldn 't be the first
| idea inspired by that film.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| yeah wonder how will the OTA updates work for MARS spacecrafts,
| 'cause there is no air in between. Checkmate Musk!
| james_pm wrote:
| No need to worry about the return trip if it's unlikely that
| anyone would survive the trip there, right?
| pavlov wrote:
| "Six days after the radiation-wrecked colonists emerged from
| the battered Starship, the Emperor of Mars condemned them all
| to death by suffocation for 'insufficiently engaging with his
| tweets'. Historians debate the meaning of this expression
| found carved in a rock outside the base."
| [deleted]
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The settlement communication log will be just a series of
| "I need people to be even more hardcore" declarations
| coupled with lists of people thrown out of airlocks.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| My Name is Elon Musk and I Want to Help You Die in Space
|
| https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/my-name-is-elon-musk-and...
| mometsi wrote:
| Anybody else reminded of that story where the guy gets a
| sketchy neural implant, then goes to a dystopian mars
| settlement, and then rips the self-driving feature out of a car
| with his bare hands?
|
| What was that called again?
|
| / _puts on sunglasses preemptively /_
| b1zguy wrote:
| Um, what is it?
| joaogui1 wrote:
| Total Recall
| culi wrote:
| Having never seen it, I have no context for which details
| were left out or bent to fit the narrative, but this
| still feels amazing. Well-earned sunglasses
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I Don't Recall
| [deleted]
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| I don't think the one-way thing is real. SpaceX wants to re-use
| their vehicles. It wouldn't make sense to leave spacecraft on
| Mars.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Considering the energy cost of the return trip, it makes
| abundant sense.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Propellant for the return trip can be made on Mars using
| the Sabatier process. This has been known for decades.
|
| (This is why the engines for Starship are designed to use
| methane).
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
| londons_explore wrote:
| But it's probably cheaper to just make a new ship.
|
| It's mostly made of iron and steel, that we have here on
| earth in abundance.
|
| One day, the economics of return trips will work out. But
| to begin with at least, all trips will be one-way.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The CONCEPT has been known for decades. Who has put a
| fuel processing facility on mars? I think there was some
| minor chemistry experiment on one of the rovers to go in
| that direction.
|
| The raw energy required to make that fuel, using ANY
| conceivable process, is extreme though. What energy
| solution has been proposed? How much solar acreage do you
| need? How will you keep the dust off the panels? Will
| there be any option other than sending panels from earth?
|
| All the needed prereqs have zero practical knowledge with
| them. Nobody has even had the chance to work out kinks
| yet. It doesn't matter how much elon wants to do
| something, new shit takes a lot of time, money, and
| effort to shakedown.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| > How will you keep the dust off the panels?
|
| Assuming there are people involved, give them a broom. ;)
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| Under promise, over deliver
| jskrablin wrote:
| Over promise, never deliver.
| hospadar wrote:
| Over promise, accidentally buy a huge social media company
| way over market value because of a prank, never deliver
| Kiro wrote:
| Why do you hate the idea of going to Mars so much?
|
| https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm
|
| I would love to go there, even if it meant I died the second I
| step foot on it. Getting back would be the last thing on my
| mind.
| Tostino wrote:
| There are plenty of other places you could go travel to where
| you get to see some amazing wonders right before your
| guaranteed death. Right here on earth too. Why no go for some
| of those? You can likely do it for cheaper too.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| My last thoughts as I gasped for air in the gripping cold
| of the Martian plain was, "Wait, this is it?"
| robswc wrote:
| Not OP but IMO, nothing on earth would compare to another
| planet.
|
| I'm not into space exploration but sometimes I look up at
| the moon and it blows my mind that we actually went there.
| Almost feels impossible even. Mars is that x100.
|
| I personally wouldn't want to die on Mars but I understand
| the appeal.
| starbase wrote:
| There are plenty of people who would give their lives to
| advance civilization for the sake of future generations.
| The brief pleasure of seeing some amazing wonders is, in
| comparison, irrelevant.
|
| Death is guaranteed either way.
| kibwen wrote:
| There is no "advancement" to be gained by merely sending
| tourists to die uselessly on a tomb world.
| starbase wrote:
| Colonization is not tourism.
| maxlamb wrote:
| That literally describes suicide, after 9 months of being
| trapped in a small spacecraft ("even if it meant I died the
| second I step foot on it").
| gnulinux wrote:
| > Why do you hate the idea of going to Mars so much?
|
| Because there is so much to do on earth? Literally everyone
| is here. What other answer does anyone else need? All this
| Mars fandom sounds to me like clinically depressed sci-fi.
| w0mbat wrote:
| An automatic software update is not a recall.
| freejazz wrote:
| Apparently, it is!
| asdff wrote:
| Why is it not? a recall just means there is something wrong
| that needs to be fixed in all models. Whether the fix is a
| software update or a new screw is irrelevant.
| therealcamino wrote:
| IANAL! But maybe it's a recall when 49 CFR 573 says it is.
| Defects or noncompliance with motor vehicle safety standards
| are what make it a recall. It's not defined as whether you have
| to take it to the dealer or not.
| clouddrover wrote:
| It's irrelevant anyway. None of those cars will be retrofit with
| Hardware 4:
|
| https://electrek.co/2023/02/15/tesla-self-driving-hw4-comput...
|
| So much for the "full self-driving" fantasy all those people paid
| for but will not get.
| oblib wrote:
| Splitting hairs on the definition of "recall" of a potential
| deadly flaw in 362,758 automobiles is silly. But is is the
| correct word for that industry when there is one.
|
| I worked at a Oldsmobile dealer in the 80s and fixed all kinds of
| issues on cars that were "recalled" and that is what we called it
| way back then and long before it. Some were trivial and others
| were serious safety issues.
|
| https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-...
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The news headlines coming out are also interesting. 'Tesla
| Recalls' vs 'Tesla Voluntary Recalls' are technically both
| true, however the former is a much more popular headline while
| being less precise.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| It seems like there is a huge disconnect between people who know
| about FSD from _using it_ and people who know about FSD from
| things they read on the internet.
|
| I have FSD, I use it every single day. I love it. If every car on
| the road had this the road would be a _substantially_ safer
| place.
| system16 wrote:
| As advanced cruise control? It's great. As what it's marketed
| as? It's fraud.
| rvnx wrote:
| Wait til they repack a variant of ChatGPT as Tesla bot and
| take all the credit for it.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Didn't Musk partly create OpenAI?
| ghqst wrote:
| Pretty on brand for Elon
| rvnx wrote:
| AI model improvements:
|
| * Optimus cannot say bad things about Elon Musk anymore.
|
| * Added support for Donald Trump.
|
| * Added support for The Boring Company flamethrower.
|
| * Advertising for Dogecoin.
| ghqst wrote:
| * ChatGPT will now cite Elon Musk tweets as a source for
| 50% of questions.
| rvnx wrote:
| Twitter as ultimate source of truth
| bandyaboot wrote:
| I suspect that the NHSTA know about FSD from all of the above
| and more.
|
| Even if Tesla's current implementation were objectively safer
| than the average human driver, it would still represent a net
| negative on safety because of the negative impact the glaring
| flaws will have on peoples' confidence in self driving tech.
| [deleted]
| aredox wrote:
| Like Wozniak? https://www.techspot.com/news/97563-steve-
| wozniak-slams-dish...
| yumraj wrote:
| It seems there's a huge disconnect between people who know how
| to drive and are confident in their skills, and those who are
| scared to drive and want to offload it to Musk.
|
| I'm actually afraid to drive behind a Tesla and either keep
| extra distance or change lanes if possible. I still have more
| faith in humans to not randomly brake them in _beta_ FSD.
|
| It's one thing to put your own life in the hands of this _beta_
| model, and it's another to endanger the life and property of
| others.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > I'm actually afraid to drive behind a Tesla and either keep
| extra distance or change lanes if possible.
|
| Irrespective of the Teslas or FSD:
|
| If you're afraid of an accident due to the vehicle in front
| of you braking regardless of the circumstances, then you're
| following too closely. It doesn't matter if the braking event
| is anticipated or unexpected. If you're not confident in your
| ability to avoid an accident if the vehicle in front of you
| slams on their brakes then you are following to closely.
| yumraj wrote:
| > If you're afraid of an accident due to the vehicle in
| front of you braking regardless of the circumstances, then
| you're following too closely.
|
| I know what you're saying, but that is not what I'd meant.
| Also, I don't follow too closely.
|
| The difference here is that _almost always_ a driver will
| brake depending on the happenings in front of them. So, if
| you pay attention to not only the car in front, but in
| front of them and in the neighboring lanes and so on, you
| can sense and also detect patterns in how a particular
| driver is driving. There are many skittish drivers who
| brake every 1 second and some don 't, and so on. Basically
| based on your driving experience you can predict a little.
|
| The problem here is that this stupid POC FSD will brake
| randomly or change lane randomly or whatever, so there is
| no way you can predict, and hence my concern and issue with
| it. I just prefer to change the lane, but that's not always
| an option.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > Basically based on your driving experience you can
| predict a little.
|
| Yes, we all do that AND you're using that predictability
| to take liberties in safety such as following too
| closely. FSD's unpredictability exposes the vulnerability
| in your driving process and makes you feel uneasy.
|
| You (and everyone else) can follow too closely AND FSD
| can be an unsafe steaming pile of crap. It's not an
| either or situation.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Yeah it's not that I'm scared of my own driving, I mean that
| if _other_ people had it it would be safer. Things which have
| happened in the last 3 _days_ of moderate driving around a
| city:
|
| 1) A car gets impatient at some traffic turning right on a
| green light in a construction zone, and comes _into my lane_
| meaning into _oncoming traffic_. We have to swerve out of the
| way and slam on the brakes to avoid them.
|
| 2) A guy gets impatient behind me slowing down over a
| speedbump, tailgates me a few _inches_ behind and then passes
| me by cutting into oncoming traffic in a no passing zone,
| then cuts me off, again with a few inches to spare, and
| speeds through the neighborhood where we eventually meet at
| the stoplight at the end of the road.
|
| 3) Every single day people run red lights. Almost every light
| where there are people turning left at a green there are 4-5
| cars that go through the red light after it turns.
|
| My safety score on my tesla is 99. I am an extremely safe
| driver. I wish FSD was more common because so many people are
| _terrible_ drivers.
| bena wrote:
| Your Tesla tells you you're a safe driver. Well, geez, I'm
| convinced that the $55,000 (maybe+?) you spent tells you
| things you like to hear. I mean, one of the criteria is
| "Late Night Driving". Why not driving between the hours of
| 4pm and 6pm? When there are a lot more cars on the road,
| which is just statistically less safe.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/support/safety-score#version-1.2
|
| And looking at the rest of the criteria, they're ok, but
| hardly comprehensive. This is like, the bare minimum. It
| doesn't measure what I would call "doing stupid shit". Like
| crossing several lanes of traffic to get in a turn lane.
| Forcibly merging where you shouldn't. Nearly stopping in
| the middle of traffic before merging into a turn lane at
| the last minute. Straddling lanes because you're not sure
| if you really want to change lanes or not. Making a left
| turn from a major artery onto a side street at a place that
| is not protected by a light. Coming to a near complete stop
| for every speed bump, then rushing ahead to the next.
|
| And a host of other things that demonstrates the person
| does not consider other people on the road at all.
|
| Here's an entire article about how to game the safety
| score:
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/14/three-quick-tips-
| for-a-...
|
| One of the tips is to "drive around the neighborhood when
| traffic is light".
|
| And the car doesn't ding autopilot for behaviors it would
| knock a human for. Because the assumption is that the car
| would know better I guess. But then why isn't the safety
| score simply a deviation from what autopilot _would_ do in
| a situation? If autopilot would brake hard to avoid a
| collision, shouldn 't you?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| The Tesla doesn't just tell me I'm a safe driver, it also
| gives me a cheaper insurance rate due to the safe
| driving. The safety score is related to my monthly
| insurance premium.
|
| So maybe it's to stroke my ego? But they're also putting
| their proverbial money where their mouth is.
| bena wrote:
| The insurance you get from Tesla, which has a vested
| interest in its own Safety Score. It's not giving a
| cheaper insurance rate "due to the safe driving", it's
| giving a cheaper rate due to having a better score on the
| metrics it decided.
|
| You see how that's circular, right. It does not mean you
| are a safe driver.
| screye wrote:
| In fact, there is a huge disconnect between people who design
| similar systems (Vision, safety, self driving, robotics,
| simulations) and those who use them. The criticism of Tesla is
| coming from experts, not jealous competitors.
|
| The problem with systems where 99% is a failing grade, is that
| 99% of the time, they work great. The other 1% you die. No one
| is against FSD or safer tech. They are against Tesla's
| haphazard 2d vision-first FSD.
|
| Wanna hear about this new fangled tech that avoids 100% of
| accidents, has fully-coordinated swarm robotics between all the
| cars, never swerves and can operate in all weather + lighting
| conditions ? It's called a street car.
|
| The words 'road' and 'safety' should never be uttered in the
| the same sentence.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yep, I used to be in this field back in 2018, and everyone
| was extremely dismissive of the rest of the industries
| skepticism
| ajross wrote:
| > The other 1% you die
|
| Um... no one died. I understand your point is hyperbole, but
| you're deploying it in service to what you seem to claim is
| serious criticism coming from experts. Which experts are
| claiming FSD beta killed someone? They aren't. So... maybe
| the "experts" aren't saying what you think they're saying?
|
| > Wanna hear about this new fangled tech that avoids 100% of
| accidents, has fully-coordinated swarm robotics between all
| the cars, never swerves and can operate in all weather +
| lighting conditions ? It's called a street car.
|
| And this is just laughably wrong. Street cars (because they
| operate on streets) get into accidents every day, often with
| horrifying results (because they weigh 20+ tons). They are
| surely safer than routine passenger cars, but by the
| standards you set yourself they "aren't safe" and thus must
| be banned, right?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I have it (subscription, just wanted to try it out). I won't
| use it again. It confidently attempted to drive me into a
| rather solid object with very little warning. If every other
| car on the road had this, I would sell all my cars and forbid
| family members from getting anywhere near the road.
|
| It's nice on the freeway though.
| qup wrote:
| To me it's weird you can voice an opinion like "I won't use
| it" and then say it's nice on the highway, as if you've given
| it enough of a trial there to endorse it when you think
| otherwise it's going to be killing people.
| CharlesW wrote:
| How is it weird that FSD might work well on extremely
| simple, boring stretches of road but fall apart as
| complexity increases?
| bdcravens wrote:
| Pretty sure almost crashing into a solid object seems good
| enough for giving it a failing score.
| ajross wrote:
| Ditto. Most fun I've had in a vehicle in my whole life. A robot
| drives me around every day, and the worst misfeatures are that
| it's too timid at stop signs and left turns, makes poor lane
| choices sometimes (oops, can't turn, will go around),
| occasionally zipper merges like a jerk (yes, technically you
| can use that lane, but if you try you'll get honked at -- car
| doesn't care).
|
| But the company is run by an asshole who people love to hate,
| so... everything it does is Maximally Wrong. There's no space
| for reasoned discourse like "FSD isn't finished but it's very
| safe as deployed and amazingly fun". It's all about murder and
| death and moral absolutism. The internet is a terrible place,
| but I guess we knew that already. At least in the meantime we
| have a fun car to play with.
| baguettefurnace wrote:
| This has been my experience as well - I use autopilot a lot and
| find it works great
| helf wrote:
| Until your car decides to randomly slam on its brakes and cause
| a pile up.
| mrdatawolf wrote:
| Because only a FSD car causes piles up... your right, I NEVER
| saw 90 car pileups on the news before FSD. /s
|
| I'm pointing this out because he said (in italics)
| "substantially".
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It doesn't really matter, we have multiple incidents of FSD
| causing accidents due to outright mistakes, not even "a
| human would have messed up here too" situations.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Humans also mess up in situations that aren't "a human
| would have messed up here too".
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Sure, but say I consider myself a diligent driver and
| I've never caused an accident... what does FSD have to
| offer me? Yet another random opportunity for a car to
| fail me. Why would I surrender control for that?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Do we? Becuase most of the news reports about claims
| blamed on Autopilot or FSD turn out after investigation
| not to be cases.
|
| In one famous case the policy claimed that the driver was
| '100% not in the driver seat'. This caused a huge media
| storm and anti-Tesla wave.
|
| Just recently the full report came out and stated that
| Tesla AP was not used at all and the drive was driving
| normally.
|
| https://electrek.co/2023/02/09/tesla-cleared-highly-
| publiciz...
|
| There are quite few such cases, this one maybe being the
| one that caused the most media attention.
|
| So I tend to discredit all such reports unless its
| several months after and a full investigation report has
| been done.
|
| Do you have links to verified reports of FSD causing such
| crashes.
|
| It seems to me that phantom breaking could lead to such
| issues, but I have not yet seen a real report that claims
| this happened.
| 12345hn6789 wrote:
| If someone brake checks and you hit them, you're just as much
| of a problem. Learn defensive driving and stop driving so
| close to another driver. Keep a safe distance.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I'm reminded of a thread on HN where someone did a cross
| country trip and their car only phantom-braked a couple of
| times, and called that a huge success.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Ha, my new Model 3 phantom braked the first time on the
| trip home from the service center, which was only 10 miles.
| I doubt it had even gone over 10 miles on the odometer at
| that moment.
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| How were you able to put it into autopilot? Typically,
| the autopilot is calibrating itself the first 60 or so
| miles of driving, and it does not let you engage it.
| nanidin wrote:
| My 2022 Model Y didn't require any calibration to use
| autopilot after initially picking it up. IIRC there were
| 7 miles on the odometer at the time.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Good question! It didn't argue one bit, literally drove
| it off the lot at the service center and hit the freeway
| and turned AP on (it's my second Model 3, so I already
| have such habits).
|
| It's entirely possible it had more miles than 5 on the
| odometer when I picked it up. Officially the paperwork
| says 15, the associate who gave me the car said it was
| actually less, and the odometer isn't very prominent so I
| never even looked. Maybe it had 50 miles and was a reject
| ;). I should go check TeslaFi, since I reenabled that the
| day I bought the car. I confess that the only way I ever
| know how many miles my car has is when I see it on
| TeslaFi.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| If my car slams on its brakes, and this causes you to hit me,
| then you are _exactly_ the type of person I wish was using
| FSD.
|
| You're following too close to me for the conditions, you're
| distracted, or some combination of both.
|
| My car might have to emergency brake for any number of
| reasons. This should never cause a pileup, and if it does
| it's your fault, not mine.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Works on my machine!"
| AYBABTME wrote:
| It really depends where you drive, it behaves super well in
| some conditions, and awfully in others. Hence the wide
| disparity in experience.
| mbreese wrote:
| I have a feeling the differences between experiences is heavily
| influenced by where you are located. There is no way they are
| adequately able to train across all of the locations FSD is
| expected to be able to work.
| natch wrote:
| Because of this, if Tesla solves it they are going to have an
| almost insurmountable moat.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Australian here. We drive on the "wrong" side of the road. I
| have no idea if FSD even accommodates this different
| scenario. And if it did, and being from Melbourne, having
| diabolical yet somewhat logical hook turns (turning from the
| furthest left lane to turn right) I will bet would not even
| fall in FSD scope.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn?wprov=sfla1
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| I have the same experience. I think if there was more
| transparency in the data around FSD related accidents the
| conversation would be different. The last evidence we have is
| Tesla stating that there have been no fatalities in 60 million
| miles of driving under FSD. Pretty good so far.
| pxx wrote:
| Regardless of whether or not that's true, that's also not the
| impressive number you think it is. Human-driven cars have a
| fatality rate of about 1 per 100 million miles travelled, and
| that's including drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, and all
| environments, not just the ones people are comfortable
| turning on these features in.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Yes. The data collection continues. But this initial report
| indicates that FSD is probably not massively worse that a
| human.
| Veserv wrote:
| There is no such evidence beyond unsupported proclamations by
| the vendor who, by the way, has compulsively misrepresented
| the capabilities of the product for years. The only evidence
| available that is not completely tainted by a complete
| conflict of interest is basically Youtube videos and self
| reported information [1] by investors and super fans that on
| average show critical driving errors every few minutes and
| even those are tainted by self interest to over-represent the
| product.
|
| Tesla's statements should only be believed if they stop
| deliberately hiding the data from the CA DMV by declaring
| that FSD does not technically count as a autonomous driving
| system and is thus not subject to the mandatory reporting
| requirements for autonomous systems in development. If they
| did that then there could actually be a sound independent
| third party statements about their systems. Until that time
| their claims should be as trusted as Ford's were on the
| Pinto.
|
| [1] https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| Absolutely need more data, but if a public company makes
| untruthful claims about the past they are in big trouble.
| They are mostly free to make claims about the future
| without much consequence.
|
| This is why startups are allowed to project massive sales
| next year but Elizabeth Holmes is headed to jail.
|
| If it turns out that FSD has had a fatal crash and Tesla
| lied about it Musk is headed to jail too.
| rvnx wrote:
| Yes if we forget that the FSD may conveniently disconnect
| right before an accident
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yeah, let's now hear the stats on "fatal accidents within
| 30s of FSD being enabled".
|
| You really just can't trust Tesla at all, about anything.
| There's no integrity there. They won't even be honest with
| the name of their headline feature!
| bhauer wrote:
| For Tesla's collection of data on accidents with Autopilot
| technologies, they considers Autopilot to have been enabled
| during the crash if it was on several seconds beforehand.
| These systems may hand control back to the driver in crash
| scenarios moments before impact, but that doesn't mean the
| data will report that the system was not enabled for the
| incident.
| breck wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I think a lot of "people" online are paid shills.
|
| HN should severely downrank any "opinion" posts from anon
| accounts.
|
| I have a Tesla with FSD and it's incredible. Though it drives
| way worse than me, it drives pretty darn good, and will save a
| ton of lives and change the world by freeing up a lot of time
| for people to do more important things.
| gg-plz wrote:
| Is your post supposed to be read as genuine or sarcastic? It
| looks to me like a strawman of a Tesla owner stereotype, and
| I don't want to accidentally eat the onion here by taking it
| at face value.
|
| Your post appears to be saying that Tesla's FSD is way worse
| than human drivers, not safer than them, but we should still
| welcome it for the convenience. Again, this reads like a
| strawman. I would like to think the average Tesla owner would
| not endorse that statement.
|
| The goal isn't to save time at the cost of lives, it's to
| save both, non?
| breck wrote:
| > is way worse than human drivers
|
| No, I said it's way worse than _me_. Probably around
| performance of the average human driver.
|
| I am training to be an astronaut, so on the advanced side.
| gg-plz wrote:
| A lot of people say they're significantly better than
| average driver. It's such a stereotypical thing to say,
| that it probably has negative truth value on average,
| since it reflects broad personal confidence more than
| actual driving skill.
|
| You still sound like you're trying to present the weakest
| possible straw man for Tesla critics to attack. Stop this
| bad faith attempt to make Tesla look bad; you're dragging
| down the discourse. Nobody is going to take your bait and
| feed you the expected counter arguments to the nonsense
| you expressed up-thread.
| root_axis wrote:
| FSD is terrible. I have it, it's dangerous. If I had to go 5
| miles through city streets I'd sooner trust a human after 3
| shots of tequila before I'd trust FSD every time.
| alfor wrote:
| Do you have the latest beta?
|
| How did it improve in the last 12 months?
| psychomugs wrote:
| That other drivers are beta testers for software
| controlling a large mass of metal and combustibles hurtling
| down asphalt at _ludicrous_ speeds is something you'd write
| into a dystopia story.
|
| The fact of the fiction is terrifying.
| alfor wrote:
| It's a choice, you are in control all the time.
| CharlesW wrote:
| You can _re-take_ control, which may take seconds
| depending on the mental and physical state of the driver.
| A lot can happen in a second.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The other drivers on the road, and pedestrians, aren't
| getting to make that choice.
| psychomugs wrote:
| https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-
| papers/content/20...
|
| "This study investigated the driving characteristics of
| drivers when the system changes from autonomous driving
| to manual driving in the case of low driver alertness.
|
| ...
|
| In the results, a significant difference was observed in
| the reaction time and the brake pedal force for brake
| pedal operation in the low alertness state, compared to
| the normal alertness state of the driver, and there were
| instances when the driver was unable to perform an
| adequate avoidance operation."
| cma wrote:
| Musk has the latest internal release that will fix every
| problem at the end of the month, every month.
| root_axis wrote:
| Not sure if it's the latest, and nowadays I rarely use it,
| and when I do it's just to show off to curious friends, but
| I live in an east coast metro and I've _never_ been able to
| use FSD for more than 20 minutes without it making a
| dangerous mistake - 90% of the time it 's been a mistake
| making a left turn, turning into the wrong lane or oncoming
| traffic after making the left, not correctly respecting the
| traffic lines or the left turn lights and other very scary
| situations.
| alfor wrote:
| So it's good enough that you let it control and become
| less attentive?
|
| I was thinking that you feel in what kind of conditions
| it behave correctly (highway), low traffic and then use
| it in progressively more difficult situations as it prove
| to you it can handle them consistently.
|
| I know it's not ready yet. I heard as saw so many
| positive reviews (but still with corner cases and strange
| behaviours)
| root_axis wrote:
| I've not had any FSD issues on the highway besides
| phantom braking, it keeps lanes correctly, safely adjusts
| to traffic speeds and it merges into offramp lane without
| issue (though it still makes me nervous), once it gets
| into city streets though...
| billfor wrote:
| Disagree. I've had the beta for a year and drive in NYC. It
| has been mostly flawless considering all scenarios it has to
| handle. It does make the occasional mistake but (1) it's a
| beta and (2) I'm responsible for monitoring and correcting
| it. Agree that those that expected more should be entitled to
| a refund if they so desire.
| root_axis wrote:
| > _It does make the occasional mistake_
|
| Yeah, that's what I mean by "dangerous".
| panick21_ wrote:
| Ok but don't you have to weigh that against the potential
| of avoiding accidents by reacting quicker then you as a
| human can?
|
| I have defiantly seen cases where FSD Beta stopped and
| the driver didn't understand instantly understand why.
|
| Or simpler cases where the car follows a lane while the
| driver wasn't paying attention (adjusting the radio or
| whatever). Those can easily lead to an accident but are
| unlikely to if you are in FSD.
|
| How do you make that calculation?
| root_axis wrote:
| The calculation is easy, FSD does the wrong thing so
| often that there's no question a human driver is safer.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The question is not if FSD makes mistakes, its if FSD+a
| human driver monitoring is worse then a human driver.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Consider the possibility that you might _both_ be right.
| Two people may have vastly different experiences with FSD,
| depending on the routes they take and other variables.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Also some people may have a very low tolerance for the
| car not driving like they would. It does make you
| uncomfortable .
| conductr wrote:
| I've never used it but in my book "Full Self-Driving Beta" is
| an oxymoron
| joewadcan wrote:
| Recall = Over the Air Update.
|
| Not nothing, but not as big as CNBC is making it out to be.
| peoplearepeople wrote:
| So at what point is a refund required?
| causi wrote:
| I'm astonished consumers are _still_ paying fifteen thousand
| dollars to be guinea pigs for this bullshit. No car that
| currently has tires on the road is going to let you fall asleep
| in your driveway and wake up at work.
| valryon wrote:
| But you can fall asleep and wake up at work with public
| transportation.
| millzlane wrote:
| Noone is waking you for your stop lol.
| toast0 wrote:
| They might if you live and work at the end of the line.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| When I had the luxury of taking public transportation to
| work, I did wake someone up once.
|
| I personally can't fall asleep on trains.
| panki27 wrote:
| Have you tried asking other passengers?
| kevincox wrote:
| You could set an alarm. Worst case there is a delay and you
| wake up slightly early. The subway isn't going to magically
| go significantly faster.
| vel0city wrote:
| I've missed trains that left a station ahead of schedule
| by a minute or two in my regional metro system. I've also
| had busses go past a bus stop earlier than the posted
| time.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This seems like a cool app. A bus route aware, "wake me 3
| minutes before my stop" vibrate app.
| jakear wrote:
| You can do this pretty easily with the Shortcuts app
| built in to iOS. I have a flow to text my friend whenever
| I'm near their house.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The Swiss train up already does this. It also tells you
| exactly where to go with a plan of the station, how full
| it is where in the train, where the wagon for food is and
| tons of other things.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| CityMapper notifies you a stop or 2 before yours.
| kgermino wrote:
| There's a few. I use one called Transit
| kgermino wrote:
| Your phone can.
|
| Beyond that, you may be surprised how many people would
| wake you up for your stop. Especially in US Commuter Rail
| systems people tend to follow similar habits and get to
| know each other over the years. Even on a normal city bus I
| quickly (months) got used to the pattern of the same people
| getting on and off at their various stops. If you're asleep
| at your stop someone can usually nudge you
| neither_color wrote:
| Only if you can even get a seat, and don't have to change
| buses/trains.
| mdasen wrote:
| The "still" is what surprises me. Back in 2016 or 2017, I was
| excited. Musk still seemed like a pretty stable person back
| then and Tesla had basically executed on its promises and Musk
| said that by the end of 2017 you'd be able to drive from NY to
| LA without a single touch on the wheel. Everyone had said that
| EVs were doomed and Tesla really showed otherwise. Why not
| believe him? I like being hopeful about the future.
|
| At this point, it's looking pretty far off, especially for
| Tesla. Even Cruise and Waymo are having issues and they have
| far better sensors than Teslas. It seems silly to be paying
| $15,000 for something that realistically might not happen
| during my ownership of the vehicle.
|
| Even if it does happen, I can purchase it later. Sure, it's
| cheaper to purchase with the car because Tesla wants the money
| now. However, I'd rather hedge my bets and with investment
| gains on that $15,000 it might not really cost more if it
| actually works in the future. 5 years at 9% becomes $23,000 and
| I don't think Tesla will be charging more than $25,000 for the
| feature as an upgrade (though I could be wrong). If we're
| talking 10 years, that $15,000 grows to $35,500 and I can
| potentially buy a new car with that money.
|
| Plus, there's the genuine possibility that the hardware simply
| won't support full self driving ever. Cruise and Waymo are both
| betting that better sensors will be needed than what Tesla has.
| Never mind the sensors, increased processing power in the
| future might be important. If current Teslas don't have the
| sensors or hardware ultimately needed, one has paid $15,000 for
| something that won't happen. Maybe we will have self driving
| vehicles and the current Teslas simply won't be able to do that
| even if you paid the $15,000.
|
| It just seems like a purchase that isn't prudent at this point
| in time. The excitement has worn off and full self driving
| doesn't seem imminent. Maybe it will be here in a decade, but
| it seems to make a lot more sense to save that $15,000 (and let
| it grow) waiting for it to be a reality than paying for it
| today.
| jehb wrote:
| I mean, to be honest, I'm completely unwilling to pay _any_
| additional cost for a license to proprietary software that on
| my vehicle, and I won 't even consider a brand that _offers_
| paid software upgrades to their vehicles, entirely on
| principle. See the recent case around BMW offering
| subscriptions for heated seats. Just no, absolutely not. Reject
| faux ownership.
| Izkata wrote:
| Taking the bus is pretty close, just don't sleep on another
| passenger / through your stop.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| After having a Tesla with Enhanced Autopilot for 4 years, I
| decided it wasn't worth the $7,000 extra and stuck with
| ordinary autopilot.
|
| It's just too damn glitchy to be worth thousands of dollars
| extra.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Hell, right now I'd pay a few bucks to disable AP so I could
| use the old school cruise control. I still don't understand
| Tesla's opposition for making that an option whether you have
| AP or not.
| noduerme wrote:
| Teslas don't have _cruise control_?! The arrogance...
| xeromal wrote:
| They do.
| xdavidliu wrote:
| they meant "save a few thousand dollars so my Tesla can
| just have the ordinary cruise control that it comes with,
| without the autopilot which I believe to be unusable"
| gwbas1c wrote:
| No, I didn't mean that at all.
|
| All Teslas come with Autopilot. It's adaptive cruise
| control and automatic steering that will keep you in your
| lane. It's awesome, and I love it.
|
| "Enhanced" autopilot, which currently is $6000 extra, is
| automatic lane change, automatically taking exits,
| summon, and automatic parking.
|
| The automatic lane change is nice, but it fails too often
| to be worth thousands of dollars. All the rest of the
| features are basically party tricks.
|
| If I could have automatic lane changes for much less, I'd
| happily pay extra for it.
|
| Edit: Enhanced Autopilot was $7k extra when I bought my
| 2nd Tesla, now it's $6k extra.
| vel0city wrote:
| > All Teslas come with Autopilot. It's adaptive cruise
| control and automatic steering that will keep you in your
| lane.
|
| So like every Honda Accord as well.
| ggreer wrote:
| To engage traffic aware cruise control, pull the right
| stalk down once.
| 15155 wrote:
| But make sure you have your seatbelt on first!
| [deleted]
| adampk wrote:
| When someone can drive from Palm Springs to SF with no
| intervention does that not make it bullshit anymore?
| olliej wrote:
| FSD requires you to be 100% in control of the vehicle for the
| entire drive, and paying full attention to the driving, and
| also do nothing.
|
| This is demonstrably not a task that anyone can do, let alone
| Joa[n] Average car driver. Highly trained pilots are not
| expected to do that, and that's when autopilot is being used
| in a vehicle that can provide significant amounts of time to
| handle the autopilot going wrong - seriously, when autopilots
| go wrong in aircraft at cruising altitude pilots can have 10s
| of seconds, or even minutes, to handle whatever has gone
| wrong, Tesla's FSD provides people a couple of seconds prior
| to impact.
|
| That said in countries other than the US people can reliably
| use trains and buses, which also means that they don't have
| to intervene in driving the vehicle.
| xdavidliu wrote:
| > Joa[n]
|
| nit: Jo[a]n
| olliej wrote:
| nooooo! :D
| trinix912 wrote:
| > That said in countries other than the US people can
| reliably use trains and buses, which also means that they
| don't have to intervene in driving the vehicle.
|
| Most of Europe doesn't have ideal public transport either,
| I'd imagine South America, Africa being the same or even
| worse in this aspect. It gets drastically worse the moment
| you want to go somewhere in the countryside.
| causi wrote:
| Yeah I don't understand the "legitimate" use case. I would
| imagine people who actually shell out the money get their
| car onto the interstate then strap a weight to the steering
| wheel until their exit comes up. Having to watch the road
| without the stimulation of actively driving is worse than
| having no assistance at all.
| [deleted]
| vore wrote:
| Sure, but they can't.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| If you have a 99% chance of death - 1% of people are still
| going to make it.
|
| You obviously don't have a 99% chance of death - but just by
| virtue of it being possible does not also mean it is not BS.
|
| You can drive drunk from PS to SF also.
|
| What's your point?
| RajT88 wrote:
| I know a Tesla owner. The chance of death (well, a crash
| anyways) is more like 1%, according to him.
|
| Those odds are good enough for the occasional trip home
| from a cocktail party, but hardly cost-competitive with
| Rideshares/Taxis.
|
| How many 9's do we need before we can say it's reliable
| enough to trust it? A few more, for sure.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > How many 9's do we need before we can say it's reliable
| enough to trust it? A few more, for sure.
|
| Yeah, 1% is definitely not going to cut it. What are the
| odds of dying when a human is at the wheel? Something
| like 0.000025% if my napkin math is right and my
| assumptions in the right ballpark.
| latchkey wrote:
| I'd love to see how one would do in the streets of Saigon.
| Just a couple blocks would be enough... if it gets that far.
|
| Update: https://insideevs.com/news/498137/autopilot-defeated-
| congest...
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| The technology is mostly fine. The bullshit is mostly the
| false expectations they set, and the subsequent risks they
| choose to take in implementation in order to minimize their
| expectations miss. Other driving assistance systems try to do
| less, but they do it honestly.
| causi wrote:
| _When someone can drive from Palm Springs to SF_
|
| Does that mean "stay in the correct lane on the interstate
| and take the proper exits without hitting anything" or does
| that mean "begin inside your garage and end inside another
| garage five hundred miles away without touching anything"?
| The first one is nearly trivial.
|
| It stops being bullshit when they stop telling the user they
| need to pay attention to the road, and not one second before.
| smachiz wrote:
| I wouldn't describe it as trivial. My Tesla would phantom
| brake consistently in a lot of spots - overpasses were a
| very big trigger.
|
| Also anytime I'd pass an exit I wasn't taking in the right
| lane it would veer and slow down aggressively, same with
| trying to speed match a car rapidly accelerating on an on
| ramp.
|
| Bottom line, there's absolutely nothing that isn't driver
| assist; everything requires a significant amount of
| vigilance when you aren't driving in a straight line, in
| the left lane, on an empty highway with no one entering and
| exiting.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Imagine a scenario: someone's on a bike, running down the
| street towards the pedestrian crossing. There's a vehicle
| (truck, bus...) on the left covering the view. The cyclist
| swiftly crosses the road, the car doesn't detect anything
| as there's nothing to detect (because of the truck/bus),
| bam!
|
| Many drivers would see the cyclist before and be very
| careful when passing the other vehicle (although we don't
| predict correctly 100% of the time either). I haven't had a
| chance to test any self-driving system yet so I'm
| legitimately interested, do those systems reliably detect
| such things?
|
| Not to mention people (esp. kids) racing through
| intersections on electric scooters, casually ignoring
| traffic rules...
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| If this comment were aimed at any other company it would be
| flagged and dead as flamebait.
| TekMol wrote:
| Waymo does.
| idlewords wrote:
| Only a horse can do that.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| How about asleep in your driveway to ER hospital bed? does that
| qualifies, it might excel in that.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I found an interesting phrase in the official report. NHTSA
| formally says that not respecting 'local driving customs' is a
| defect: ...the feature could potentially
| infringe upon local traffic *laws or customs* while executing
| certain driving maneuvers...
|
| Do they want Tesla to create a DB with 'allowed' and 'locally
| faux pas' driving maneuvers? It sure reads like they do.
| idop wrote:
| Yes, and good that they do.
| swyx wrote:
| is this the largest car recall in history? holy crap
|
| edit: looks like no.. the largest was 578607 cars... also by
| Tesla lol
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's definitely not the largest.
|
| Toyota, 2.9M: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-
| defects/toyota-r...
|
| Ford, 21M: https://247wallst.com/autos/2021/07/24/this-is-the-
| largest-c...
|
| Takata airbags, possibly 100M+:
| https://www.carvertical.com/blog/top-10-worst-car-recalls-in...
|
| > Yet even after the company declared bankruptcy in 2017, the
| Takata recall kept on giving. 65-70 million vehicles with
| faulty Takata airbags were recalled by the end of 2019, with
| approx. 42 million still to be recalled.
| mdeeks wrote:
| The word recall is misleading. It's a software update. My cars
| both updated last night. I'm guessing it was this patch. If
| that's the case then the "recall" is probably largely already
| done.
| swyx wrote:
| well yeah if thats the case its not really a recall, agreed
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Where do you anti-Tesla folks get your information? Just wow
| jeffbee wrote:
| The word "assertive" does not appear in the comments but this
| recall is about the "Assertive" FSD profile, which speeds and
| runs stop signs. It is not a defect it is a design flaw.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It's a defect in Tesla's engineering teams to release that kind
| of thing. Their self driving is a fraud, it does not work.
|
| Their CEO has claimed "it will be ready next year" for
| literally 8 years now. How much more bullshit is he going to
| sell?
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It's a defect in the US legal system that Musk didn't see the
| inside of a jail cell five minutes after that feature was
| inflicted upon public roads.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah. I'm just saying it's not a mistake, they did this on
| purpose.
|
| Whatever PEs were involved in shipping this need to have
| their licenses reviewed.
| nmca wrote:
| Because this is a mandatory OTA patch and does not involve stock
| being physically returned or taken for repair (as is typically
| implied by "recall") this headline is clearly very misleading.
| [deleted]
| panick21_ wrote:
| I wish all the ink spilled on controversy over Tesla would
| instead be spilled on doing basic safety improvement to the road
| system that are cheap and proven to save many lives.
|
| Lets be real here, automated driving or not, having actually save
| roads helps prevent death and harm in many cases.
|
| The hyper focus on high tech software by all the agencies engaged
| in 'automotive security' is totally wrongly focused. What they
| should actually do is point out how insanely unsafe and broken
| the infrastructure is, specially for people outside of cars.
|
| See: "Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: Transportation for a
| Strong Town"
| 2h wrote:
| I disagree. If someone is a bad driver, and causing crashes, we
| don't say "we need to improve the road system". We suspend the
| drivers license until they can prove they are capable of being
| a safe driver. We should hold this software to the same
| standard. Until it can demonstrate safety at or above human
| level, it should be outlawed.
|
| Road systems should always be worked on, but when a crash
| happens its usually the drivers fault, except in a minority of
| cases where bad road engineering is to blame. this self driving
| is fucking up enough that it cannot be blamed on the roads
| anymore, if it ever could.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > I disagree. If someone is a bad driver, and causing
| crashes, we don't say "we need to improve the road system".
|
| Well yes, and that is literally exactly the problem. That is
| exactly why its so unsafe in the US. Because instead of
| building a safe system everything is blamed on people.
|
| In countries that take road safety seriously, every crash is
| analyzed and often the road system is changed to make sure it
| does not happen again. That is why places like Finland,
| Netherlands and so on have been consistently improving in
| terms of death and harm caused by the road system.
|
| Again, the book I linked goes into a lot of detail about road
| safety engineering.
|
| > We suspend the drivers license until they can prove they
| are capable of being a safe driver.
|
| An unsafe designed street often leads to situation where even
| good drivers intuitively do the wrong thing. Again, this is
| exactly the problem.
|
| If you build a system where lots of avg. drivers make
| accidents, then you have a lot of accidents.
|
| > We should hold this software to the same standard. Until it
| can demonstrate safety at or above human level, it should be
| outlawed.
|
| Yes, but its a question of how much limited resources should
| be invested in analyzing and validating each piece of
| software by each manufacturer. In general software like Tesla
| AP would likely pass this test.
|
| I am not against such tests but the reality is that resources
| are limited.
|
| > Road systems should always be worked on, but when a crash
| happens its usually the drivers fault, except in a minority
| of cases where bad road engineering is to blame.
|
| I strongly disagree with this statement. Its a totally false
| analysis. If a system is designed in a way known to be non-
| intuitive and leading to a very high rate accidents then its
| a bad system. Just calling everybody who makes a mistake a
| bad drive is a terrible, terrible approach to safety.
|
| Once you have a safe road system, if somebody is an extremely
| bad driver, yes taking that person of the road is good.
| However in a country where so much of the population depends
| on a car, that punishment can literally destroy a whole
| family. So just applying it to anybody who makes a mistake
| isn't viable, specially in system that makes it incredibly
| easy to make mistakes.
|
| The numbers don't even show the problem, the unsafe road
| system leads to less people walking in the US, and somehow
| still creating a high rate of deaths for people who walk.
| jjcon wrote:
| Tesla publishes their safety data quarterly no need for your
| many assumptions and speculations - Teslas are already much
| safer than the average driver, especially when autopilot is
| on
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| super_flanker wrote:
| Autopilot is not FSD, this report is clearly about
| Autopilot, they haven't mentioned anything about FSD in it.
| dmix wrote:
| One interesting bit from a different 3rd party study:
|
| > Cambridge Mobile Telematics also found that people
| driving Teslas were 21% less likely to engage in distracted
| driving with their phone in their Tesla compared to when
| they drove their other car.
|
| Maybe the software integration helps avoid this? Lots of
| other cars have much more complicated interfaces to hook up
| calls and reading texts. My mom struggled to figure out her
| car even supported Android Auto.
|
| It might just be it's a higher end car, but they didn't see
| it for an EV Porsche
|
| > These findings include an analysis of Tesla drivers who
| also operate another vehicle. These drivers are nearly 50%
| less likely to crash while driving their Tesla than any
| other vehicle they operate. We conducted the same analysis
| on individuals who operate a Porsche and another vehicle.
| In this case, we observed the opposite effect. Porsche
| drivers are 55% more likely to crash while driving their
| Porsche compared to their other vehicle.
|
| The reduction in speed is likely influenced by automated
| driving, especially considering how fast a Tesla car can
| accelerate vs normal cars:
|
| > They were 9% less likely to drive above the speed limit.
|
| https://electrek.co/2022/05/27/tesla-owners-less-likely-
| cras...
| normaljoe wrote:
| > Maybe the software integration helps avoid this?
|
| With auto pilot on the car is watching you. If you take
| eyes off the road it issues more pay attention nags.
| Failure to comply removes FSD Beta. So you have a
| feedback loop where paying attention becomes more
| important then your phone.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I spent 6 months driving a 2019 Hyundai with lane assist and
| radar cruise control. Personally it's almost perfect. If you
| added some smart road features - to improve lane assist and
| better sign readability (to drop the speed as I enter town or
| curve and increase when I leave one). I don't need full self
| driving, just an improvement on speed control and some lane
| assist.
|
| Would smart roads be expensive? RFID responders seem super
| cheap compared to how much actual asphalt costs. Authorities
| are currently unable to remotely control flows, speeds and
| safety which is completely bonkers.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > Would smart roads be expensive? RFID responders seem super
| cheap compared to how much actual asphalt costs. Authorities
| are currently unable to remotely control flows, speeds and
| safety which is completely bonkers.
|
| Yeah its not actually that easy. Go and look into train
| signaling. And cars are not even able to do coupling.
|
| Making a train system operate like a super-railway with cars
| is crazy difficult and has never been done before.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| If we're actually serious about this, we should get rid of
| roads altogether and replace them with rail tracks. That solves
| 95% of the automation problem anyway.
| SomaticPirate wrote:
| US passenger rail is unsafe. We have no way near the level of
| sophistication of European passenger rail transport.
|
| We have a significantly higher number of derailments. Even
| the worst European rail is more safe than US rail.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >US passenger rail is unsafe.
|
| US passenger automobiles are more unsafe.
| [deleted]
| jjk166 wrote:
| In the US trains have 17 times fewer deaths per passenger-
| mile than cars, and even then less than 1% of deaths from
| trains are passengers (the overwhelming majority are
| trespassers).
|
| That it could be even better does not mean it is not a
| substantial improvement.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Yes I am absolutly for that in a lot of cases. But lets be
| real, you are not gone end cars anytime soon. Lots of cars
| exist, more will exits.
|
| Even with the largest possible investment in rail, cars will
| exists in large numbers.
|
| So yeah, rail and cargo tram ways in cities are great. But we
| can't just leave car infrastructure unchanged.
|
| Specially because existing car infrastructure is already
| there and cheap to modify. Changing a 6 lane road into a 3
| lane road with large space for bikes and people is pretty
| easy.
| marricks wrote:
| Something is changing and it's very broken so people are paying
| attention to it.
|
| If people really wanted to fix transportation that's great,
| high speed rail and public transportation reducing the number
| of cars on the road seem to be the best solution.
|
| But hey, Elon's hyper loop was a publicity stunt to discourage
| investment in that. So I say, whether you want to shit on Tesla
| or public roads, shit on Elon.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > reducing the number of cars on the road seem to be the best
| solution.
|
| No actually its actually not. Less concession in a system
| that depends on concession for safety will lead to more
| accident not less.
|
| That is what was shown during Covid, less driving, but
| accidents per mile went up.
|
| So yes, of course public transport, bikes are great, but if
| you don't fix the underlying problem in the road system, you
| are gone have a whole lot of accidents.
|
| > But hey, Elon's hyper loop was a publicity stunt to
| discourage investment in that.
|
| This is a claim some guy has made, not the truth. What is
| more likely is that Musk actually thinks Hyperloop is great
| (its his idea after all) and would have wanted investment in
| it.
|
| > shit on Elon
|
| I prefer not to shit on people most of the time.
|
| Musk is the outcome of a South Africa/American way of thought
| that is more in line with the US avg then most people who
| advocate for public transport. That is the sad reality.
|
| And the problem in the US road system or the US bad public
| transport can 100% not be blamed on him. There are many
| people with far more responsibility that deserve to be shit
| on far more.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| What is the underlying problem? I keep looking for it in
| your comments
| apnew wrote:
| > The FSD Beta system may cause crashes by allowing the affected
| vehicles to: "act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling
| straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane,
| entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a
| complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady
| yellow traffic signal without due caution," according to the
| notice on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety
| Administration.
|
| Does anyone have insights on what QA looks like at Tesla for FSD
| work? Because all of these seem table-stakes before even thinking
| about releasing the BETA FSD.
| varjag wrote:
| That's the thing about neural networks: any QA is going to be
| superficial due to their statistical black box nature.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| What? Black box testing has plenty of techniques:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-box_testing
|
| Whether it's a neural network inside or not is completely
| irrelevant. That's why it's called "black box".
| varjag wrote:
| Practical neural networks operate in enormous parameter
| spaces that are impossible to meaningfully test for all
| possible adversarial inputs and degraded outputs. Your FSD
| could well recognize stop signs in your battery of tests
| but not when someone drew a squirrel on it with green
| sharpie.
| dtheodor wrote:
| Your run of the mill computer program also "operates in
| enormous parameter spaces that are impossible to
| meaningfully test for all possible adversarial inputs and
| degraded outputs".
| varjag wrote:
| This is hardly similar as the state of a typical computer
| program can be meaningfully inspected, allowing both
| useful insights for adversarial test setups and designing
| comprehensive formal tests.
| dtheodor wrote:
| Right, if you consider the internal state, it is hardly
| similar. You talked about black box and QA though. Black
| box by definition holds the internal state as irrelevant,
| and QA mostly treats the software it tests as a black
| box, or in other words the tests are "superficial" as you
| call it.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| Black box testing in typical software is, however, _less_
| superficial, because the tester can make inferences and
| predictions about what inputs will affect the results.
| When you 're testing a drawing program, for example, you
| may not know how the rectangle tool actually works
| internally, but you can make some pretty educated guesses
| about what types of inputs and program state affect its
| behavior. If the whole thing is controlled by a neural
| network with a staggering amount of internal state, the
| connections you can draw are much, much more tenuous, and
| consequently the confidence in your test methodology is
| significantly harder to come by.
| [deleted]
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| Something a bit similar is clinical trial and it is
| accepted without problem.
|
| You make a black box test on several thousands (sometimes
| only hundreds) patients, and if patients who received the
| drug perform better the patients who received the
| placebo, then the drug is usually accepted for
| commercialization.
|
| Yet one isolated patient may be subject to several
| comorbidities, her environment could be weird, she could
| ingest other drugs (or coffee, OTC vitamins or even
| pomelo) without having declared it. In a recent past
| women were not part of clinical trials because being
| pregnant makes them very _" non-standard'_.
| 988747 wrote:
| First of all, clinical trials are typically longer and
| more thorough than you imagine, they span years. The fact
| that COVID vaccines were fast-tracked gives people wrong
| idea about it.
|
| Secondly, even after the product hits the market the
| company is still responsible for tracking any possible
| adverse effects. They have a hotline where a patient or
| doctor can report it, and every single employee or
| contractor (including receptionists, cleaning staff,
| etc.) is taught to report such events through proper
| internal channels if they accidentaly learn about them.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > Something a bit similar is clinical trial and it is
| accepted without problem.
|
| Clinical trials also have strict ethical oversight and
| are opt-in. If clinical trials were like Teslas, we'd
| yeet drugs into mailboxes and see what happened.
| erikerikson wrote:
| This seems to ignore that if you look inside the box at
| code you could understand it whereas looking at the
| activation values is unlikely to illuminate.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Exactly. It's the same reason that no amount of unit tests
| can replace formal methods for safety-critical software, and
| we cannot apply formal methods to neural nets [yet].
| IshKebab wrote:
| That's not really true. Most safety critical software is
| tested without formal verification. They are just really
| really thorough and rigorous.
|
| Formal verification is obviously _better_ if you can do it.
| But it 's still really really difficult, and plenty of
| software simply can't be formally verified. Even in
| hardware where the problem is a lot easier we've only
| recently got the technology to formally verify a lot of
| things, and plenty of things are still out of reach.
|
| And even if you _do_ formally verify some software it doesn
| 't guarantee it is free of bugs.
| [deleted]
| yumraj wrote:
| > Does anyone have insights on what QA looks like at Tesla for
| FSD work?
|
| Yes. An army of Tesla owners perform the QA, in production.
| [deleted]
| dawnerd wrote:
| Well first it goes to influencers that say it's perfect and
| good for stable release no matter what the car does!
|
| But in all seriousness they do have some small team that
| validates then it goes to employees.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I suspect they have thousands of tests, but ship code that
| passes only most of the tests...
|
| That's what makes it unfinished...
|
| It's never passed the 'drive from new York to LA with nobody
| touching the controls' test...
| jabagonuts wrote:
| As a human being and motor vehicle operator of many decades I
| have done all of the above, multiple times (very infrequently),
| both on purpose and on accident. I'm looking forward to the
| days when self-driving vehicles are normal, and human drivers
| are the exception. Until then, I'm glad companies and
| regulators are holding the robots to a higher standard than the
| meat computers.
| worik wrote:
| > As a human being and motor vehicle operator of many decades
| I have done all of the above, multiple times
|
| Time to stop driving. That is not normal
| justapassenger wrote:
| > Does anyone have insights on what QA looks like at Tesla for
| FSD work? Because all of these seem table-stakes before even
| thinking about releasing the BETA FSD.
|
| Tesla is not exactly in love with QA. Especially for FSD.
|
| FSD is mainly 2 things: 1. (By far most important) shareholder
| value creating promise, that's been solved for 6 years
| according to their CEO. 2. Software engineering research
| project
|
| What FSD is not is a safety critical systems (which it should
| be). They focus on cool ML stuff and getting features, with any
| disregard for how to design, build and test safety critical
| systems. Validation and QA is basically non-existent.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Do you have actual knowlage of Tesla internal QA processes,
| any kind of source at all?
|
| Based on there presentation, they for sure have a whole load
| of tests, many built directly from real world situation that
| the car has to handle. They simulate sensor input based on
| the simulation and check the car does the right thing.
|
| They very likely have some internal test drivers and before
| the software goes public it goes to the cars of the
| engineers.
|
| Those are just some of things we know about.
|
| I have no source on their approach to testing safety critical
| systems, but we do know that they have a lot of software that
| has based all test by all the major governments. They are one
| of the few (or only) car maker fully compliant to a number of
| standards on automated breaking in the US. We have many real
| world example of videos where other cars would have killed
| somebody and the Tesla stopped based on image recognition.
|
| So they do clearly have some idea of how to do this stuff.
|
| So when making these claims I would like to know what they
| are based on. It might very well be true that their processes
| are insufficient but I would actual know some real data. Part
| of what a government could do, is forcing car maker to open
| their QA processes.
|
| Or the government could (should) have its own open test suit
| that a car needs to be able to handle, but clearly we are not
| there yet.
| JoshCole wrote:
| I strongly feel people ought to have these discussions
| while consistently citing actual data sources relevant to
| the discussion.
|
| For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of
| Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that they
| have the lowest probability of injury scores of any car
| manufacturer? Because they do.
|
| Did you predict, based on speculation about Elon Musk's
| incompetence in predicting that self-driving would happen,
| that there are millions of self-driving miles each quarter?
| Because there are.
|
| Did you predict, based on speculation about Tesla
| incompetence in full self-driving, that the probability of
| accident per mile is lower rather than higher in cars that
| have self-driving capabilities? Because they do.
|
| I know this sort of view is very controversial on Hacker
| News, but I still think it is worth stating, because I
| think people are actually advocating for policies which
| kill people because they don't actually know the data
| disagrees with their assumptions.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
| justapassenger wrote:
| Unaudited (internal Tesla data), cherry-picked (comparing
| with average cars in USA, which are 12 years old beaters,
| to their very young fleet of expensive cars) data, that
| doesn't correct for any bias (highway driving vs non-
| highway driving being one of the many issues) is not
| exactly the magic bullet you think it is.
|
| Also, none of that is self driving. This data talks about
| AP, not FSD. FSD is also not self driving by any means
| (it's level 2 driver assist), but that's a detail at this
| point.
| super_flanker wrote:
| This report is for Autopilot, not FSD which everyone else
| is talking about on HN.
| prewett wrote:
| Interesting graph, I like that it's broken out into
| quarters. But,
|
| 1) those are statistics for the _old_ version, the new
| version might be completely different. I 've had enough
| one-line fixes break entire features I was not aware of
| that my view is that _any_ change invalidates all the
| tests. (Including the tests that Tesla should have but
| doesn 't) Now probably a given update does not cause
| changes outside its local area, but I can't rely on that
| until it's been tested.
|
| 2) the self-driving is presumably preferentially enabled
| for highway driving, which I assume has fewer accidents
| per mile than city driving, so comparing FSD miles to all
| miles is probably not statistically valid.
| JoshCole wrote:
| I agree with you. I would really like to see datasets
| that reflect how things actually are. I think it would be
| really dangerous to jump to FSD being safe on the basis
| of the data I shared. However I would hope that whatever
| opinions people shared were congruent with the observed
| data. I don't feel like the prediction that Elon Musk and
| Tesla not caring about safety is congruent with the
| observed data, which shows the autopilot has improved
| safety, best explains the observations of improved
| safety.
|
| Just for context - I've been in a self-driving vehicle.
| Anecdotally, someone slammed on the breaks. The car
| stopped for me, but I was shocked: for hours before this
| the traffic hadn't changed, it was a cross country trip.
| I think I would have probably gotten in an accident
| there. Also anecdotally, there are times where I felt the
| car was not driving properly. So I took over. I think it
| could have gotten into an accident.
|
| Basically, for me, the best explanation I have for the
| data I've seen right now is that human + self-driving is
| currently better than human and currently better than
| self-driving.
| freejazz wrote:
| Please ignore all the times I'm wrong in favor of all the
| times I'm right!
| JoshCole wrote:
| I agree that people who don't cite the evidence are
| ignoring the evidence? Are you trying to say I'm doing
| that by pointing to relevant datasets which track the
| number of accidents and the probability of injury? If so,
| why are there accidents tracked in the datasets such that
| the rate can be calculated? This kind of contradicts the
| claim that I'm asking to ignore, but I definitely agree
| that other people are ignoring the data if that is what
| you are trying to say.
| freejazz wrote:
| No, your argument is just ridiculous. The standard isn't
| and shouldn't be how much they get right. It should be
| what they get wrong and how they do that. I completely
| disagree with your point, and phrasing it obtusely just
| makes you obnoxious from a conversational standpoint.
| JoshCole wrote:
| My position is that we ought to include assertions backed
| by the evidence. Your views probably do have evidence
| that supports them. I want to see the evidence you are
| using, because I think that is important.
|
| I'm not sorry that annoys you, because it shouldn't.
| freejazz wrote:
| >Oh. So you don't like the data, because it disagrees
| with you. So you are trying to pretend I'm ignoring data,
| even though I'm linking to summary statistics which by
| their nature summarize the statistics rather than
| ignoring the statistics.
|
| Oh the data is great. I like the data. I'd take the data
| out to dinner. It's completely besides my point, and you
| continuing to be obtuse and rephrasing things this way,
| is not only a strawman, but it's rude.
|
| > Your views probably do have evidence that supports
| them. I want to see the evidence you are using, because I
| think that is important.
|
| Not every policy decision is driven by data. Some are
| driven by reasoning and sensibility, as well as deference
| to previous practices. So your whole data-driven shtick
| is just that... a shtick.
| JoshCole wrote:
| You claim that I said that we should ignore evidence, but
| I didn't. I claimed that we should look at it.
|
| You claim that I said that we should focus on the good,
| but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at the data.
|
| Now I feel as if you are trying to argue that looking at
| data is wrong because not all decisions should be made on
| the basis of the data. This seems inconsistent to me with
| your previous assertion that my ignoring data was bad,
| because now you argue against your own previous position.
|
| That said, uh, datasets related to bayesian priors
| support your assertions about deference in decision
| making. So you could, if you cared to, support that claim
| with data. It would contradict your broader point that I
| should not want to have data, but you could support it
| with data and I would agree with you, because contrary to
| your assertion I was making an argument for evidence
| informed statements. Your inference about whether I think
| the evidence leans should not be taken as an argument
| that I believe my positions would always be what was
| reached by looking at the evidence, because I don't think
| that is true. I'm obviously going to be wrong often.
| Everyone is.
|
| Unfortunately, I think you lie too much and shift your
| goalposts too much. So I'm not going to talk to you
| anymore.
| freejazz wrote:
| I never said you shouldn't want to have data. I said that
| the data isn't the only story, so appeals to data aren't
| dispositive. Data is clearly the only thing you are
| capable or willing to talk about. There isn't a point in
| furthering this conversation if you are just going to
| repeatedly misrepresent my comments and converse in this
| incredibly obtuse manner.
|
| I also caught you editing out what was an excessively
| rude comment. I'm gonna pass on further conversation,
| thanks.
| bischofs wrote:
| A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a
| system that I want on public roads because I don't want
| to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are
| basically making the assumption that everyone is okay
| with this.
|
| The probability of an accident for any driver assistance
| system will ALWAYS be lower than a human driver - but
| that doesn't mean the system is safe for use with the
| general public!
|
| People like me are not advocating for "killing people"
| because we aren't looking at data - it's that no company
| has the right to make these tradeoffs without the
| permission and consent of the public.
|
| Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of
| dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can
| kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?
| JoshCole wrote:
| > A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a
| system that I want on public roads because I don't want
| to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are
| basically making the assumption that everyone is okay
| with this. > > The probability of an accident for any
| driver assistance system will ALWAYS be lower than a
| human driver - but that doesn't mean the system is safe
| for use with the general public!
|
| Totally we should be wary of a system that protects 400
| and kills 1. Thank you for providing the numbers. It
| helps me show my point more clearly.
|
| If you are driving on a road you encounter cars. Each car
| is a potential accident risk. You probably encounter a
| few hundred cars after ten or so miles. Not every car
| crash kills, but lets just assume they all do to make
| this simpler. For the stat you propose, you are talking
| about feeling uncomfortable with an accident per mile of
| something around the ballpark of ten miles.
|
| Now lets look at the data. The data suggests the actual
| miles per accident is closer to 6,000,000 miles per
| accident. This is six orders of magnitude diverged from
| the number of miles per accident that you imply would
| make you feel uncomfortable.
|
| Lets try shifting that around to a context people are
| more familiar with: a one dollar purchase would be a soft
| drink and a six million dollar purchase would be
| something like buying a house in the bay area. This is a
| pretty big difference I think. I feel very differently
| about buying a soft drink versus buying a house in the
| Bay Area. If someone told me they felt that buying a
| house was cheap, then gave a proposed price for the house
| that was more comparable to the cost of buying a soft
| drink, I might suspect they should check the dataset to
| get a better estimate of the housing prices, because it
| might give them a more reasonable estimate.
|
| So I very strongly feel we should cite the numbers we
| use. For example, I feel like you should really try and
| back up the use of the 400 to 1 number so I understand
| why you feel that is a reasonable number, because I do
| not feel that it is a reasonable number.
|
| > Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of
| dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can
| kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?
|
| Uh, we are a on venture capitalist adjacent forum. You
| obviously know. But... well, the price of FSD is tuned to
| ensure the company is profitable despite the expense of
| creating it as is common in capitalist economies with
| healthy companies seeking to make a profit in exchange
| for providing value. It is actually pretty common for
| high effort value creation, like creation of a self-
| driving car or the performance of surgery, for the prices
| to be higher.
| mcguire wrote:
| As any Tesla supporter will tell you, Autopilot != FSD.
|
| (Is Autopilot still limited to divided, limited access
| highways? Those are significantly safer than other
| roadways.)
| justapassenger wrote:
| 2 sources.
|
| 1. I know people working at Tesla.
|
| 2. Much more important one - Elon's Twitter feed. They're
| doing last minute changes, and once it compiles and passes
| some automated tests, it's tested internally only over few
| days before it's released to the customers. Even if they
| had world class internal testing (they don't), for
| something having to work in such a diverse environment like
| self driving system without any geo-fencing, those
| timelines are all you need to know.
| esalman wrote:
| Some manufacturers hold off on newer, untested tech for
| years before adding that to their vehicles. This is what
| happens when safely is a priority.
|
| That's why I bought/will keep buying Toyota/Lexus.
| julianlam wrote:
| > We have many real world example of videos where other
| cars would have killed somebody and the Tesla stopped based
| on image recognition.
|
| I think you and I must've watched a different video.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Yes I have also seen many videos where it makes mistakes.
| But also many where it prevented them.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| The person above you has no idea what they're talking
| about. There's literally hundreds of people at Tesla whose
| job is QA and tools to support QA
| justapassenger wrote:
| And how does that change anything about my statements?
|
| Yeah, they have QA. But for the problem they claim
| they're solving (robotaxis) and speed of pushing stuff to
| customers (on the order of days) it vastly, vastly
| insufficient. And it lacks any safety lifecycle process
| regards - again, just look at the timelines. Even if
| you're super efficient, you cannot possibly claim you can
| even such a basic things like proper change management
| (no, commit message isn't that) or validation.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > and speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order
| of days)
|
| well, if you don't get the software pushed to the QA team
| (the customers), how else are they going to get it
| tested?
| 93po wrote:
| can we please stop with this disinformation? the
| customers are not the QA team.
| dylan604 wrote:
| what do you call them? there's no way possible that they
| can make changes to the software and have them thoroughly
| vetted before the OTA push. Tesla does not have enough
| cars owned by the company driving on public roads to vet
| these changes. The QA team at best can analyze the data
| received from the customers. That makes the customers the
| testers in my book.
| 93po wrote:
| > it lacks any safety lifecycle process
|
| completely demonstrably false
|
| > speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order of
| days)
|
| this is also false and doesn't happen
|
| > you cannot possibly claim you can even such a basic
| things like proper change management (no, commit message
| isn't that) or validation.
|
| you know absolutely nothing about the internal timelines
| of developments and deployments at tesla and to suggest
| it's impossible without that knowledge is just dishonest
| justapassenger wrote:
| > > it lacks any safety lifecycle process > completely
| demonstrably false
|
| Head of AP, testified under oath, that they don't know
| what's Operational Design Domain. I'll just leave it at
| that.
|
| > > speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order of
| days) > this is also false and doesn't happen
|
| Never ever Musk tweeted about .1 fixing some critical
| issues coming in next few days? I must live in a
| different timeline.
|
| > > you cannot possibly claim you can even such a basic
| things like proper change management (no, commit message
| isn't that) or validation. > you know absolutely nothing
| about the internal timelines of developments and
| deployments at tesla and to suggest it's impossible
| without that knowledge is just dishonest
|
| Let's assume I have no internal information. If it looks
| like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
| then it probably is a duck.
| Veserv wrote:
| It also does not know what one way street, do not enter, road
| closed, and speed limit signs are. Really, the only signs it
| appears to know about are stop signs.
|
| As for their QA process, in 2018 they had a braking distance
| problem on the Model 3. They learned of it, implemented a
| change that alters the safety critical operation of the brakes,
| then pushed it to production to all Model 3s without doing any
| rollout testing in less than a week [1]. So, their QA process
| is probably: compiles, run a few times on the nearby streets (I
| am pretty sure they do not own a test track as I have never
| seen a picture of tricked out Teslas doing testing runs at any
| of their facilities), ship it.
|
| [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/tesla-
| model-3-get...
| ggreer wrote:
| Teslas have understood speed limit signs since 2020.[1]
|
| 1. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/upcoming-tesla-
| software-2020-...
| freejazz wrote:
| Not according the recall the NHTSA posted that is the
| subject of this entire thread....
| Veserv wrote:
| It uses maps for that.
|
| I have a winding road near me with a speed limit of 35 mph,
| but 15 mph on certain curves as indicated by a speed limit
| sign. It ignores those speed limit signs and will attempt
| to make the turns at 35 mph resulting in it wildly swerving
| into the other lane and around a blind turn with maybe 30
| feet of visibility. It has also attempted to do it so
| poorly that it would have driven across the lane and then
| over the cliff without immediate intervention.
|
| Unsupported claims by a manufacturer that compulsively lies
| about the capabilities of their products except when
| directly called on it are the opposite of compelling
| evidence.
| ggreer wrote:
| I'm talking about standard speed limit signs. You're
| talking about the signs that warn about sharp turns and
| advise maximum speeds. Yes it would be good if the
| software understood those signs, but that's a different
| issue.
|
| Teslas definitely read speed limit signs. I've had mine
| correctly detect and follow speed limits in areas without
| connectivity or map data. It also follows speed limits on
| private drives (if there is a sign) and obeys temporary
| speed limit signs that have been put up in construction
| zones.
| Veserv wrote:
| So they read some, but not all speed limit signs, and
| especially not the really important ones that inform you
| that you will be going dangerously fast if you do not
| read and follow them. That is criminally unacceptable.
| freejazz wrote:
| These are not the speed limit signs you are looking for!
| [deleted]
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Andrej Karpathy was the AI lead for most of the project and he
| has talked about the general system design.
|
| They have a set of regression tests they run on new code
| updates either by feeding in real world data and ensuring the
| code outputs the expected result, or running the code in
| simulation.
|
| It does seem worrying that they would miss things like this.
|
| Here's a talk from Karpathy explaining the system in 2021:
|
| https://youtu.be/aNVbp0WKYzY
|
| Though I don't recall if he explains the regression testing in
| this talk, there's a few good ones on YouTube.
| ertian wrote:
| It's not even a bit surprising they'd miss things like this,
| IMHO. They do tests with a few (maybe even a lot of)
| intersections, but there are _thousands upon thousands_ of
| intersections out there, including some where bushes are
| obscuring a stop sign, or the sign is at a funny angle, or
| sunlight is reflecting off the traffic lights, or heavy rain
| obscuring them, or plain old ambiguous signage...there 's
| _bound_ to be mistakes. Human drivers make similar mistakes
| all the time.
|
| I used to think that fact was going to delay self-driving
| cars by a decade or more, because of the potential bad press
| involved in AI-caused accidents, but then along comes Tesla
| and enables the damn thing as a beta. I mean...good for them,
| but I've always wondered if it was going to last.
|
| I've been using it pretty consistently for a few months now
| (albeit with my foot near the brake at all times). I haven't
| experienced any of the above. Worst thing I've seen is the
| car slamming on the breaks on the freeway for...some reason?
| There was a pile-up in a tunnel caused by exactly that a
| month or so ago, so I've been careful not to use FSD when I'm
| being tailgated, or in dense traffic.
| rvnx wrote:
| There are many of such tests in the open.
|
| There is even a former Tesla AI engineer that throws objects in
| front of the car on YouTube, as a demonstration.
|
| The results are not glorious at all :| (trying to find the
| channel back if someone knows).
|
| And random public tests too:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnG_Gbxf_w
|
| This is a basic safety auto-braking. Just feels very wrong to
| even accept it goes into release.
| Veserv wrote:
| You are probably thinking of:
| https://www.youtube.com/@AIAddict
| panick21_ wrote:
| This is not a former Tesla engineer. This is competitor who
| wants to discredit Tesla and sell its own solution.
|
| The guy behind this is known to be untrustworthy, and many of
| the videos don't actually do what he claims. Notably he
| refused to release the videos that would prove his claims
| right.
|
| The reality is that Tesla scores high on all the automated
| breaking test done by government. The driver however can
| override this, and that is exactly what is being done in this
| video.
| diggernet wrote:
| So they scored high on whatever version of software was on
| the specific car tested by government at some point in
| time. Has any government done any testing at all on the
| version of software actually in use today?
| [deleted]
| can16358p wrote:
| So are they recalling, or releasing a software fix?
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| I think this is a legitimate question, and a reflection of how
| the NHTSA needs to adjust their wording for modern car
| architectures.
|
| It's technically a recall, but it's fixed with an OTA update.
| But the fact that any "defect" that can be fixed with an OTA
| update is called a "recall" is confusing to consumers and
| contributes to media sensationalism.
|
| There absolutely needs to be a process overseen by regulators
| for car manufacturers to address software-based defects, but
| the name would benefit from being changed to reflect that it
| can be done without physically recalling the vehicle to the
| dealer.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The problem is that almost no other car company is yet
| seriously fixing things with OTA. And 99% of cars on the road
| don't have OTA. So fixing the naming will likely happen but
| it will take a while.
|
| Its crazy that Tesla has been doing OTA for 10+ years and
| today many cars are released that are not capable of being
| upgraded.
|
| And even those few cars that do support OTA only support it
| for a very limited amount of system. Often they still need to
| go to the shops because lots of software lives on chips and
| sub-components that can't be upgraded.
| deckard1 wrote:
| What is made easy will become inevitable.
|
| OTA updates carry a perverse set of incentives. Look at the
| gaming industry. They went from putting out rock solid
| games because of necessity (the reality of publishing
| physical cartridges and CD-ROMs without network updates) to
| the absolute dogshit of No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077.
| Gamers have effectively become an extension of QA to the
| point that some game devs simply stop doing QA at all.
| Which we are seeing clearly with the "beta" version of
| self-driving software.
|
| To make matters worse, firmware devs are on the lower totem
| pole of the developer hierarchy. They live more on the cost
| center side than the profit center side (think airbag
| control vs. the guy that did the whoopee cushion sounds).
| The quality of firmware is already incredibly poor across
| the range of consumer devices. OTA incentivizes
| corporations to release software earlier than they
| currently do knowing that they can always fix it later if
| necessary.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Game developers don't face the same level regulatory and
| potential legal issues.
|
| I do share your concern, but I still likely prefer it to
| that to software that can never be updated at all.
| tsgagnon wrote:
| _It 's technically a recall, but it's fixed with an OTA
| update. But the fact that any "defect" that can be fixed with
| an OTA update is called a "recall" is confusing to consumers
| and contributes to media sensationalism._
|
| Would it be sensationalism if the same recall happened to
| cars not capable of the OTA update?
|
| Because I think there should be media "sensationalism" about
| these types of issues, regardless of whether they can be
| fixed with physical or OTA repairs.
| justin66 wrote:
| I get why Elon Musk objects to the use of the word recall,
| but I don't understand why anyone else is going along with
| that.
|
| > But the fact that any "defect" that can be fixed with an
| OTA update is called a "recall" is confusing to consumers
|
| What is confusing about this to you?
|
| > contributes to media sensationalism
|
| Why do you think this recall is more sensationalistic than
| many of the other recalls issued recently? Automotive recalls
| often address serious issues with cars. "Fix this or you
| could die" is a common enough theme when, you know, if you
| don't fix it you could die.
|
| > but the name would benefit from being changed to reflect
| that it can be done without physically recalling the vehicle
| to the dealer.
|
| Why? Information related to how, when, and where the recall
| can be addressed is contained in the text of the recall
| notice, same as it ever was.
| robomartin wrote:
| If Tesla are not careful with this, drivers of other vehicles
| will have serious reservations being anywhere around a Tesla. I
| have to say, I already do.
|
| I will not stay behind or next to a Tesla if I can avoid it. I'll
| avoid being in front of one if the distance is such that I cannot
| react if the thing decides to suddenly accelerate or, while
| stopping, not break enough or at all.
|
| In other words, I have no interest in risking my life and that of
| my family based on decisions made by both Tesla drivers (engaging
| drive-assist while not paying attention, sleeping, etc.) or Tesla
| engineering.
|
| Will this sentiment change? Over time. Sure. If we do the right
| things. My gut feeling is program similar to crash testing safety
| will need to be instituted at some point.
|
| A qualified government agency needs to come-up with a serious
| "torture" test for self-driving cars. Cars must pass a range of
| required scenario response requirements. Cars will need to be
| graded based on the result of running the test suite. And, of
| course, the test suite needs to include an evaluation of scenario
| response under various failure modes (sensor damage, impairment,
| disablement and computing system issues).
|
| I am not for greatly expanded government regulation over
| everything in our lives. However, something like this would, in
| my opinion, more than justify it. This isn't much different from
| aircraft and aircraft system certification or medical device
| testing and licensing.
| skullone wrote:
| I was driving behind a Tesla which I can only assume was on FSD
| mode down a narrow side street coming up to a turn to a busy
| intersection. The car/driver almost drove straight into cross
| traffic, ended up blocking a lane without moving for like 15
| seconds before it turned right (while signalling left) and
| almost crashed again into the oncoming traffic coming the other
| way. Seriously unsafe
| supernova87a wrote:
| I wonder what severity / frequency of incidents or regulator
| awareness required them to actually come out and say that they're
| issuing a recall, rather than just quietly putting it into an
| upcoming release like they probably would otherwise do?
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| > A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at
| 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and
| burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a
| recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply
| by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average
| out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is
| less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
| panick21_ wrote:
| As far as I know pretty much all update to critical system will
| always be told to the government and cause a 'recall'. But I'm
| not 100% on what the actual regulatory requirement are.
| slt2021 wrote:
| Knowing how software engineers write code - I would never ever
| trust my life to the BS that is FSD.
|
| It is not so much software, as well as <other people on the road>
| problem.
| [deleted]
| coding123 wrote:
| Lets all guess on the countdown to the laser approach being
| announced.
| totalhack wrote:
| Thanks to the Tesla owners on the front lines risking their lives
| for the greater good (of Tesla)!
|
| Jokes aside, it's gotta be damn tough to QA a system like this in
| any sort of way that resembles full coverage. Can't even really
| define what full test coverage means.
| foepys wrote:
| If it just were only Tesla owners.
|
| A autonomous Tesla driving into a group of people or swerving
| into oncoming traffic is potentially killing other people.
| jlv2 wrote:
| There really needs to be a distinction between an actual recall
| (my Model S had one to change the latch on the frunk) and this
| type of "recall" that is nothing more than an OTA software
| update.
| ScottEvtuch wrote:
| I think this is splitting hairs. Would it still be a recall if
| a mechanic drives to your house to fix a mechanical problem?
| buildbot wrote:
| Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked
| publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not mean
| much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean your
| car does not stop accelerating or something.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| To me "recall" clearly implies that I have to drive it to the
| dealership and let them fix or install something. "Mandatory
| software update" might be a better term.
| JaggerJo wrote:
| I'm leasing a Honda E and software wise literally nothing
| except apple car play works/ is usable.
|
| Some things are absolutely safety relevant. But no one cares.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Recall implies something being returned. This should be
| called a mandatory software patch, or something like that.
|
| The problem is Tesla owners repeatedly see "recall" to mean
| "software update", so this might lead to a lot of confusion
| if a physical recall is actually required in the future.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| I work in the medical device space, and we will often have
| "recalls", which usually result in a software patch. Recall
| != return.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Are these delivered directly to the device and installed
| overnight automatically (like an iPhone iOS update) or do
| they have to be hooked up to a computer to install the
| software update?
| vitaflo wrote:
| Depends on the device. Some require connection to a host
| system, some can be done over the air. 100% depends on
| the security profile of the device in question and what
| the FDA allows.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| I've primarily worked with Software as a Medical Device,
| so recalls generally involve a config tweak, upgrade, or
| downgrade.
| buffington wrote:
| If Tesla replaced the actual computer that runs the
| software that they're recalling, would you consider that
| a recall? What if there was no actual physical fault with
| the computer, but it just had firmware flashed to a chip
| that couldn't be reflashed?
|
| I'm looking at a piece of mail right now that's an
| official recall notice for a different make/model of car
| I own. The issue? Improperly adjusted steering
| components. The company is offering to make the correct
| adjustments for free. Nothing is being replaced.
|
| Whether the recall is to replace a poorly designed
| physical component, or to make an adjustment, or to apply
| a software update doesn't make a difference to
| regulators.
|
| A recall is a legal process that's designed to encourage
| manufacturers to fix safety issues while also limiting
| their liability. Companies avoid recalls if they can
| because it's costly, time consuming, and isn't good PR.
| But it's worth it if the issue is bad enough that it
| risks a class action lawsuit, or individual lawsuits, and
| most desirable when someone like the US government is
| demanding a recall or risk legal consequences.
|
| When a company issues a recall, they make their best
| effort to notify consumers of the issue, provide with
| clear descriptions of how consumers can have the issue
| fixed, and make it clear that it will be paid for by the
| manufacturer. In return, the manufacturer is granted
| legal protections that drop their risk of being sued to
| nearly zero.
| joshuahaglund wrote:
| Recall is the word we use when a defect was found and
| must be repaired or retrofit. The actual process of
| repair could involve customer action or not.
|
| Teslas are basically digitally tethered to the dealer, so
| they can be "recalled" anytime (without your approval,
| fwiw), but it doesn't make the word not apply.
| eecc wrote:
| Well in computing the term "Security Update" is in use, why
| not call this a "Safety Update".
| now__what wrote:
| In auto recalls, "recall" more generally implies something
| being repaired than returned, IME
| buffington wrote:
| It implies neither.
|
| A recall is a legal process only. Whether the recall
| repairs, replaces, adjusts something doesn't matter.
| Whether a fix is applied as software, or labor, or
| replacement parts doesn't matter. Whether a customer
| needs to do something or not doesn't matter.
|
| A recall simply says: as a manufacturer, working with
| government authorities, while taking specific prescribed
| steps to communicate and correct an issue at the cost of
| the manufacturer, the manufacturer is then immune from
| lawsuits that could arise were they to ignore the issue.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Yeah, but the reason why they used the word "recall" is
| that "recall" was already a word that means to officially
| demand that something (or someone) be returned to a
| previous location. Of course, before over the air
| software updates, essentially anything on an automobile
| that needed to be replaced/repaired/modified would need
| to be returned to a dealer/mechanic to do so. So now it
| sounds a little weird to some people to refer to an over
| the air software update as a recall.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| My Honda had 2 recalls on it recently: one was a software
| update and the other was over the fact that a few of the
| cables on the audio system were slightly too short. This
| sounds like the same thing other than the fact that I had
| to pop over to the dealership to do them. Even with the
| cable replacement, in and out in an hour with a nice lounge
| to sit in.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| If the software update has to be done physically at a
| dealer location, that's a recall.
|
| The scenario in this article is an over-the-air update.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I wasn't told about either of these recalls, though. I
| went in because the audio was clicking, and they told me
| they had 2 recalls out on my car, including for the audio
| issue, and that it was a quick fix.
|
| Normally, it happens with an oil change.
| [deleted]
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I just looked it up. The relevant definition of recall is
| to request returning a product.
|
| If it's possible to buy a software license online and
| then return it online after deciding you no longer want
| it (i.e., a non-physical return), then it stands to
| reason that Tesla can request that you return the
| defective software OTA and receive replacement software
| OTA, and that would be a recall. The fact that you are
| forced into returning the defective software by virtue of
| not having the opportunity to block the return request is
| a fairly minor detail.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| "Recalls" almost never involve being returned. There's a
| recall out on my car's water pump (Thanks a lot VW) and no
| part of it involves sending my car back, or even
| interacting with VW or a dealer. It's just something I'm
| supposed to keep in mind over its life and various
| maintenance in the shop.
|
| Other cars get "recalls" all the time that amount to
| updating the software in the ECU or TCU. Tesla is simply
| being treated like everyone else.
|
| Hell, even in food, a "recall" usually means "throw it
| away" not return it.
| asdff wrote:
| Recall should just mean affected vehicles must have the
| fix. What component of the vehicle is affected or how it is
| supposed to be fixed should be irrelevant, something is
| defective and the vehicles should probably not be used
| until that's sorted.
| clnq wrote:
| It seems to me that calling it a "recall" emphasises the
| severity of the problem, which might make it easier to
| argue that a lot is being done for customer safety to the
| interested authorities. But I don't think Tesla wants this
| to be seen more than an OTA update from the perspective of
| their customers (at least those who ignore Tesla news).
|
| I had a VW car that was "recalled" shortly following the
| emissions scandal. The dealership asked me to come in for a
| free software update related to emissions. So you can say
| it's a "recall" to the lawmakers but call it a "free
| software update" to the user.
| dmix wrote:
| The industry needs to come up with a new related term
| like "Software Recall"
|
| Recalling the hardware is a drastically more difficult
| request to impose on customers and
| financially/logistically for the car maker.
|
| That's a disporportate response just to highlight
| importance of an OTA update.
| dingle_thunk wrote:
| Recall is just the wrong word for what this is.
| gxc33 wrote:
| 'full self driving' is an even more incorrect term, then,
| if you want to be pedantic. if the car mfg takes zero
| liability/accountability, then it is zero self-driving.
|
| you can, in fact, 'recall' software. this is semantically
| accurate description of what is happening.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Recalling the hardware is a drastically more difficult
| request to impose on customers and
| financially/logistically for the car maker.
|
| And the distinction matters to consumers because...?
|
| A component is faulty. It needs to be fixed. Whether or
| not you have to drive to a dealership, if it's OTA, if
| someone at a dealership needs to plug a specialized
| device to your car's OBD port, or the car is unfixable
| and needs to be melted to slag and you get a new one
| doesn't really matter. There's an issue, it is a safety
| issue, and it needs to be fixed.
|
| How efficient the process can be it's another matter
| entirely. That's up to the manufacturers.
| chc wrote:
| > _Whether or not you have to drive to a dealership, if
| it 's OTA, if someone at a dealership needs to plug a
| specialized device to your car's OBD port, or the car is
| unfixable and needs to be melted to slag and you get a
| new one doesn't really matter._
|
| As a car owner, those scenarios are drastically different
| to me. I have a hard time imagining anyone saying "It
| doesn't really matter to me if my car receives an OTA
| update or if I need to drive 2 hours to a dealership or
| if my car is melted to slag."
| shkkmo wrote:
| I would say that whether a "recall" requires some action
| on the part of the owner is a very important
| distinguishing factor.
|
| A recall should unambiguously mean that some action from
| the owner is required to resolve the issue (e.g. taking
| it to a dealer to get a software update installed.)
|
| If no action is required (other than caution / not using
| the product feature), we should use some other term such
| as "safety advisory" to avoid ambiguity around critical
| safety information.
| nerdawson wrote:
| Mandatory Software Update?
| [deleted]
| sgent wrote:
| But other than Tesla, most carmakers still require a
| return to the dealer for a software update.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| There is a big difference between taking a car to a
| dealership for them to apply an update, and the car
| updating itself overnight as it sits in the garage with
| no action required by the owner.
| dkarl wrote:
| If you want owners to understand that it's a serious
| safety issue, the word "recall" won't help. Most recalls
| are for minor, non-safety-related issues. My car has had
| a few recalls, and none were urgent, just things that got
| replaced for free the next time I brought my car in for
| service.
|
| "Critical safety defect" would be better.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| I agree. It's like crying wolf, eventually you start
| ignoring it
| connicpu wrote:
| Laypeople have an incorrect perception of what a recall
| actually means, especially when it comes to vehicles. The
| most important effect that comes along with an official
| vehicle recall is that the manufacturer has to fix the
| issue for you for free, or otherwise compensate you in
| some way for reduced functionality you may have paid for.
| mcguire wrote:
| Well, that and the manufacturer has to notify owners of
| the recall, which is (or should be) tracked by the
| vehicle's VIN.
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Recalls happen in other product spaces all the time, and
| they often have "fixes" that say "stop using our product
| and throw it away". That's still a recall. The word
| "recall" in relation to this regulation is simply a term
| for "something is broken in a way that a merchant should
| not have sold"
| pengaru wrote:
| > It's like crying wolf, eventually you start ignoring it
|
| The problem here lies in having a manufacturer shipping
| an unfinished product then relying on an endless stream
| of recalls to finish developing your vehicle.
|
| These are _supposed_ to be exceptional events. If they
| 've become so frequent you're ignoring them, don't shoot
| the messenger.
| sentientslug wrote:
| This is most likely a legislative issue with NHTSA, I don't
| think they have a mechanism by which they can enforce a
| software update since the concept didn't exist when recalls
| were first implemented.
| asdff wrote:
| Why not? At the end of the day its a binary check box on
| the paper that you had the fix. Whether that fix was a
| software update or a new piece of hardware should be
| irrelevant.
| sentientslug wrote:
| I agree with you, I'm just responding to another
| commenter who questioned the use of the word "recall" in
| relation to software updates.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| This is the correct answer. The question is, how do we
| get better at regulating reality faster?
| connicpu wrote:
| Electing congresspeople who actually stay on top of the
| expert consensus in various regulated fields is the only
| way the frameworks themselves can be improved.
| tsgagnon wrote:
| _This is the correct answer. The question is, how do we
| get better at regulating reality faster?_
|
| I don't think "Use words that put a more positive spin
| for Tesla PR" is something regulators should be working
| faster on.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Inaccuracy is inaccuracy no matter in which direction. If
| an outdated law made it easier for Tesla PR to spin
| something in a positive light, would you consider that an
| issue?
| outworlder wrote:
| There's no inaccuracy here. You are arguing about an
| implementation detail.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Recalls about car software, and about updating car
| software, have existed since shortly after OBDII was a
| thing.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It's hilarious watching Tesla owners and Elon complain
| about the wording when it's _Tesla 's fault_ this is a
| recall.
|
| If Tesla had willingly walked this back, it'd be a software
| update, or a beta delay, or whatever they wanted to call
| it.
|
| What laypeople don't realize is that this is being called a
| recall because the NHTSA pushed them into it: https://stati
| c.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF
|
| -
|
| FSD has been a cartoonish display for the better part of a
| year now, it wasn't until _last month_ that the NHTSA
| actually pushed on them to do a recall, and from there they
| "disagreed with the NHTSA but submitted a recall"... which
| is code for "submitted the recall NHTSA forced on them to
| submit"
|
| Elon knows better, but he knows he can weaponize people's
| lack of familiarity with this space and inspire outrage at
| the "big bad overreaching government"
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| Surely a hardware recall would specifically tell you to go
| to a dealer, right? I'm not sure it's really confusing. The
| specific thing here is that these are mandatory things that
| are tracked by vehicle.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| We should probably go beyond the verbiage of recall but
| right now since it is removing a feature I think that
| recall is appropriate. A better verbiage might be safety
| reversion .
| buffington wrote:
| The use of the word "recall" isn't because someone just
| felt like using it. It's an official legal process,
| followed to limit the manufacturer's liability.
|
| Whether it's a "good" word or "bad" word is irrelevant.
| It describes a very rigid and official legal process.
| brewdad wrote:
| Exactly. I had a "recall" at one point where the
| manufacturer had a typo on a label in the engine
| compartment. The fix entailed receiving a new sticker in
| the mail and applying it over the old one. To this day, I
| can look up my vehicle on the NTSB site and see that that
| sticker was delivered to me.
|
| If I had chosen not to actually apply it, the dealer
| would have been expected to do so the next time my car
| was in for service.
| caf wrote:
| I don't think this is removing a feature, the recall
| notices says:
|
| _The remedy OTA software update will improve how FSD
| Beta negotiates certain driving maneuvers during the
| conditions described above, whereas a software release
| without the remedy does not contain the improvements._
| rco8786 wrote:
| Because nothing is being "recalled".
|
| It should absolutely be tracked and publicized. But it's
| fundamentally different than "this car is fundamentally
| broken and you have to take it back to the manufacturer"
| idopmstuff wrote:
| The suggestion wasn't that it should not be tracked, just
| that it shouldn't be called a recall, since they're not
| actually recalling your car to have something fixed.
| tsgagnon wrote:
| _Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked
| publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not
| mean much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean
| your car does not stop accelerating or something._
|
| True, but by announcing things in this fashion it is making
| Tesla look bad. Regulations really need to be updated so that
| car makers can hide this type of problem from customers as
| easily as possible. Especially when it comes to Tesla,
| regulators really need to bend over backwards to prevent
| articles from being written that could be interpreted in a
| negative way.
|
| Or are people concerned about the word "recall" for a
| different reason?
| freejazz wrote:
| > it is making Tesla look bad
|
| Maybe Tesla should stop doing things that result in it
| receiving poor publicity? just a thought
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| Tesla should continue doing what's best to accomplish the
| company mission and making vehicles safer by improving
| automation.
|
| Why should a companies actions be dictated by PR and
| media news cycles?
| bischofs wrote:
| Regulators dont care about the perception of a recall, they
| care about the safety of the consumers and more importantly
| the general public who have not signed up for Teslas beta
| program.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| > True, but by announcing things in this fashion it is
| making Tesla look bad.
|
| They rolled out software with critical safety issues. They
| have to be called out.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| There is no critical safety issue, the driver is always
| in control of the vehicle.
|
| Are you saying it's a critical safety issue to depend on
| a human driver? The same as in every vehicle on the road?
| [deleted]
| redundantly wrote:
| I don't think the other people that replied picked up on
| your sarcasm.
| rodgerd wrote:
| Musk stans poison discussion so thoroughly that it
| becomes impossible for people do differentiate between
| Paul Verhoeven levels of sarcasm, and the ernestly held
| opinions of his fan club.
| buffington wrote:
| > announcing things in this fashion it is making Tesla look
| bad.
|
| I almost didn't catch the sarcasm of this comment, but
| there are other comments in this thread that are saying
| basically the same thing, but actually meaning it. It
| defies logic.
|
| People seem to think that the government is being mean, and
| singling out Tesla, and being nasty using the word
| "recall." A recall is a legal process. The word means
| something very specific, and when a company issues a
| recall, they do so because they don't want to be sued.
|
| It's almost like complaining about the word "divorce" or
| "audit" or "deposition" or other similar words that
| describe a legal process. The words used mean something
| specific. Tesla is conducting a legal process, and there's
| a very specific word for that process, and it means
| something. It's a recall.
| ddulaney wrote:
| > so that car makers can hide this type of problem from
| customers as easily as possible
|
| What. No! At an absolute minimum, I want to be aware of any
| changes to the thing in my life most likely to kill me.
| Maybe we could use a better term like "Software Fuckup
| Remediation" or "Holy Shit How Did We Not Get The Brakes
| Right".
| buffington wrote:
| If there were a word for "we would do anything we could
| possibly do, legally or otherwise, and more if we knew
| how, to avoid having to spend a second or a penny trying
| to fix the thing we knew was broken when we sold it to
| you, but the government is looking at us funny and we
| might get sued if we don't, so we'll grudgingly do it,",
| it'd probably be "recall."
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| belter wrote:
| One can kill people the other not. Guess which one.
|
| >> "...The FSD Beta system may cause crashes by allowing the
| affected vehicles to: "Act unsafe around intersections, such as
| traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only
| lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without
| coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection
| during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution,"
| according to the notice on the website of the National Highway
| Traffic Safety Administration..."
| xdavidliu wrote:
| > One can kill people the other not.
|
| No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is
| orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car
| or a software update.
| acdha wrote:
| I think it's closer to the physical product recall: it's a
| strong "everyone with our product needs to get it fixed"
| message which they're doing to avoid liability and further
| damage to their reputation.
| freejazz wrote:
| > "true physical recall"
|
| ah, a made up term in order to justify your point. how
| convenient.
| myko wrote:
| > whether it's a true physical recall
|
| I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now
| but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall
| necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer
| awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is
| meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means
| at all.
| chc wrote:
| * * *
| cptaj wrote:
| You're right. A physical recall doesn't necessarily imply
| death.
|
| This should be labeled "holy shit need to fix this now,
| people could die"
| adamjcook wrote:
| It is the terminology that exists in US automotive
| regulations (what little there effectively are).
|
| A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related
| defect existed, the products impacted and what the
| manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action.
|
| Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that
| Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center
| due to configuration issues. Only a small number of
| vehicles may require that type of corrective action, but
| the possibility exists.
|
| Historically, there exist product recalls (especially
| outside of the automotive domain) where the product in
| question does not have to be returned (replacement parts
| are shipped to the impacted customers, for example).
| mcguire wrote:
| No, really, this is true. It has nothing to do with _how_
| the defect is fixed.
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/142
| 18-...
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/573.6
|
| (Except for tires.)
| adamjcook wrote:
| Hmm. Perhaps I should have read the parent's comment more
| carefully. I think that I might have misinterpreted it.
|
| You (and the parent comment) are correct.
|
| My comment was not intended to argue that a recall
| prescribed a particular corrective action.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| I think that it's more about using the most appropriate
| known terminology in order to try to get the most people to
| do the needful. "recall" sounds more urgent/dire than
| "software update", and will likely encourage many more
| people to take action vs using "software update" or some
| less familiar terminology. The word "recall" in terms of
| autos has built up a lot of history/prior art in people's
| minds as something to really pay attention to. I have no
| idea, but perhaps that is why they are going with this
| known terminology.
| slg wrote:
| The whole point of over-the-air updates is that the owner
| doesn't need to do anything. For example, both Tesla and
| Toyota have had bugs in their ABS software that required
| recalls. The owners of the Toyotas had to physically
| bring their cars in to get the software update which
| slows down the adoption drastically. The Teslas received
| the update automatically and asked for the best time to
| install the update the next time the owner got in the
| car.
|
| There are really two issues here. The FSD and the OTA
| updates. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater
| and blame OTA updates just because Tesla's FSD software
| is bad. The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars
| much safer by reducing the friction for these type of
| safety fixes.
| adamjcook wrote:
| > The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars much
| safer by reducing the friction for these type of safety
| fixes.
|
| True, but let us also acknowledge the immense systems
| safety downsides of OTA updates given the lack of
| effective automotive regulation in the US (and to varying
| degrees globally).
|
| OTA updates can also be utilized to hide safety-critical
| system defects that did exist on a fleet for a time.
|
| Also, the availability of OTA update machinery might
| cause internal validation processes to be watered down
| (for cost and time-to-market reasons) because there is an
| understanding that defects can always be fixed relatively
| seamlessly after the vehicle has been delivered.
|
| These are serious issues and are entirely flying under
| the radar.
|
| And this is why US automotive regulators need to start
| robustly scrutinizing internal processes at automakers,
| instead of arbitrary endpoints.
|
| The US automotive regulatory system largely revolves
| around an "Honor Code" with automakers - and that is
| clearly problematic when dealing with opaque, "software-
| defined" vehicles that leave no physical evidence of a
| prior defect that may have caused death or injury in some
| impacted vehicles before an OTA update was pushed to the
| fleet.
|
| EDIT: Fixed some minor spelling/word selection errors.
| slg wrote:
| This is a totally fair response since I didn't say that
| directly in my comment, but I 100% agree. OTA updates are
| a valuable safety tool. They also have a chance to be
| abused. We can rein them in through regulation without
| getting rid of them entirely because they do have the
| potential to save a lot of lives.
| adamjcook wrote:
| I agree.
| buffington wrote:
| > The word "recall" in terms of autos has built up a lot
| of history/prior art in people's minds as something to
| really pay attention to
|
| Tesla didn't choose the word "recall." The legal process
| known as "recall" chose the word. It's not like people at
| Tesla debated over whether or not to call it a "recall"
| instead of a "software update."
|
| If Tesla had it their way, they'd have quietly slipped it
| into any other regular software update alongside updates
| to the stupid farting app, if they cared to fix it at
| all.
|
| When a company issues a recall, it's because there's
| pressure from regulators, or investors, or both, and/or a
| risk of class action lawsuits and fines. Using the word
| "recall" isn't a preference or even a synonym. It's a
| legal move meant to protect them.
|
| If Tesla gets sued over a flaw, "we issued a software
| update" isn't legally defensible. "We cooperated with
| official government bodies to conduct a recall," does
| because a recall describes an official process that
| requires manufacturers do very specific things in
| specific ways as prescribed by law. In exchange,
| manufacturers are legally protected (usually) from
| lawsuits related to that flaw.
| paxys wrote:
| The majority of "actual recalls" is you taking your car to the
| dealership and them plugging into the diagnostic port and
| running one line of code. So this one is the same, just that
| Tesla is able to do it over the air.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >just that Tesla is able to do it over the air.
|
| ...and that's one reason why I would never purchase a Tesla.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Don't forget how many recalls are "Next time you replace this
| part, it will be replaced with a new version that doesn't
| have the defect" or how many recalls are "A tech will look at
| the part and then do nothing because your part is fine" or "A
| tech will weld the part that is currently on your truck" or
| "Be aware this part may fail ahead of schedule and if it does
| it will suck, but you don't _technically_ have to replace it
| right now so we don 't have to cover the cost"
| earleybird wrote:
| My all time favourite[0]
|
| I recall getting a recall notice from GM that included
| "until repaired, remove key from keychain".
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_s
| witch...
| yabones wrote:
| It's nice that they can quickly fix it without people needing
| to drive to a service center, but you can understand that
| people would be concerned by the "may cause crashes" part?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| It's a bit of a semantic play here. But there's a difference
| between it might happen and things actually happening. Tesla
| has had several safety related "recalls" in the last few
| years. All of which were fixed without much hassle via an
| over the air software update. And of course their record on
| safety kind of speaks for itself. Not a whole lot of bad
| stuff happening with Teslas relative to other vehicles that
| are facing issues related to structural integrity of the car.
| Like wheels might fall off with some Toyota's. Or spontaneous
| combustion of batteries because of dodgy suppliers (happened
| to BMW and a few others). Which is of course much harder to
| fix with a software update and would require an actual recall
| to get expensive repairs done.
|
| The headline of that many cars being "recalled" is of course
| nice clickbait. Much better than "cars to receive minor
| software update that fixes an issue that isn't actually that
| much of an issue in the real world so far". One is outrage-
| ism fueled advertising and the other is a bit of a non event.
| It's like your laptop receiving some security related update.
| Happens a lot. Is that a recall of your laptop or just an
| annoying unscheduled coffee break?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Was the recall a voluntary recall by the company or something
| the company was told to do by a regulator? To me, recall means
| much more than just having to have the company replace
| something. It means they have to do it at their expense. So in
| this case, it's not as bad for Tesla's bottom line if it is
| just an OTA update. A recall is something that the car industry
| is used to doing whenever they have to fix a mistake. I would
| not be surprised if the industry doesn't have ways of writing
| those expenses off in taxes or something, so need to be able to
| specifically itemize the recall work.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Nearly all recalls are voluntary. But the NHTSA advises the
| company that if they don't do a voluntary recall, the NHTSA
| will do a compulsory recall.
|
| A voluntary recall is easier and cheaper for all involved.
| Animats wrote:
| > Was the recall a voluntary recall by the company or
| something the company was told to do by a regulator?
|
| "Voluntary recall" in this case means that Tesla did not
| choose to take the hard route where there's a court order for
| a mandatory recall. Few manufacturers fight that, because
| customers then get letters from the Government telling them
| their product is defective and that it should be returned for
| repair or replacement.
|
| Somebody in the swallowable magnet toy business fought this
| all the way years ago.[1] They lost. It's still a problem.
|
| [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/Safety-Education-
| Cente...
| [deleted]
| baby wrote:
| Oh damn, that title is definitely a lie then
| esalman wrote:
| I owned three Toyotas for last 7 years. I had multiple recalls
| but except one of them every other one was software update.
|
| OTA updates are cool but they more complexity to the car. I
| like my cars to be simple and reliable instead.
| csours wrote:
| "Recall" means that the Manufacturer MUST follow rules related
| to record keeping and customer engagement. If you have a
| recall, please make sure you get it completed. It is someone's
| job to call and write to you until you do.
| jedberg wrote:
| My Honda has had recalls where I had to bring it in for a
| software update. The only difference here is that Tesla has
| infrastructure to do that remotely.
| mcguire wrote:
| Why? It still has to be tracked and follows the same NHTSB
| regulations.
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/14218-...
| yread wrote:
| It's funny that it's a bit like "autopilot". The word fits
| exactly here but laic public doesn't usually understand it to
| mean this.
| Veserv wrote:
| I used to be on the other side of this, but now I agree with
| you.
|
| The official meaning of a recall is providing a record of a
| defect, informing the public that the product is defective, and
| making the manufacturer financially liable for either
| remediating the defect or providing a refund. However, the
| colloquial definition of a "recall" now means a product must be
| physically returned.
|
| To better represent the nature of a "recall" they should
| instead call it something like "notice of defect". In the case
| of safety critical problems like here they should use a term
| like "notice of life-endangering defect" to properly inform the
| consumers that the defect is actively harmful instead of merely
| being a failure to perform as advertised.
|
| tl;dr They should change the terminology from "recall" to
| "Notice of Life-Endangering Defect"
| hpen wrote:
| This. I read the headline and thought it meant all those cars
| had to go to the dealer
| [deleted]
| cfr2023 wrote:
| Head and shoulders above even QC problems at DeLorean Motor
| Company. Impressive, really.
| ckwalsh wrote:
| I have a Model 3, and was excited to get the FSD beta access
| about a month ago. I don't use it super regularly, but it's neat.
|
| This morning I tried to turn it on, and the car immediately
| veered left into the oncoming lane on a straight, 2 lane road.
| Fortunately, there were no other vehicles nearby.
|
| I immediately turned it off in the settings, and have no
| intention of re-enabling.
| georgeg23 wrote:
| I had the exact same issue, it was old M3 hardware.
| kbos87 wrote:
| Do you have any read of why it may have done that? I've driven
| using FSD for thousands of miles and I've never observed
| anything similar. Not trying to imply that you didn't
| experience something like this, but when I see odd behavior
| from it, it's always been clear to me why it misinterpreted a
| situation. Just wondering if there's more context to the story.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| Likewise. The only bizarre behavior I see is "looney tunes"
| style confusion where the road construction crews have left
| old lanes in place that steer into a wall or off the road.
| Humans mostly understand that these are lines lazy
| construction crews have left (although the debris fields near
| the barriers maybe tell a different story), but the Tesla
| vision model likes to try to follow them.
| gregw134 wrote:
| I have been a good self driving ai. You have been a bad
| passenger, and have tried to hurt me first by disabling
| autopilot. I'm done with this ride, goodbye.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Looking forward to BingFSD.
| samwillis wrote:
| You joke, but the thing is, if an LLM can "hallucinate" and
| throw a temper tantrum 2001 style (bing in this case), it
| does raise serious questions as to is the models used for
| autonomous cars could also "hallucinate" and do something
| stupid "on purpose"...
| dtech wrote:
| They work in completely different ways. There's no reason
| to assume parallels.
| [deleted]
| saghm wrote:
| You're right, this is unfair to Bing AI. It hasn't
| actually harmed anyone yet, despite its threats.
| John23832 wrote:
| > it does raise serious questions as to is the models used
| for autonomous cars could also "hallucinate" and do
| something stupid "on purpose"...
|
| It doesn't because Tesla's FSD model is just a rules engine
| with an RGB camera. There's not "purpose" to any
| hallucination. It would just be a misread of sensors and
| input.
|
| Tesla's FSD just doesn't work. The model is not sentient.
| It's not even a Transformer (in both the machine learning
| and Hasbro sense).
| _visgean wrote:
| > rules engine with an RGB camera
|
| I dont think its true? They use convolutional networks
| for image recognition and those things can certainly
| halucinate - e.g. detecting things that are not there.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| We need to stop anthropomorphising machines. Sensor
| errors and bugs aren't chemicals messing with brain
| chemistry even if it may seem analogous.
|
| Or maybe when I get a bug report today I'm going to tell
| them the software is just hallucinating.
| perth wrote:
| Like in this image super resolution AI:
|
| https://twitter.com/maxhkw/status/1373063086282739715?s=5
| 2&t...
| stefan_ wrote:
| I guess what the grandparent means is that there is some
| good old "discrete logic" on top of the various sensor
| inputs that ultimately turns things like a detected red
| light into the car stopping.
|
| But of course, as you say, that system does not consume
| actual raw (camera) sensor data, instead there are lots
| of intermediate networks that turn the camera images (and
| other sensors) into red lights, lane curvatures, objects,
| ... and those are all very vulnerable to making up things
| that aren't there or not seeing what is plain to see,
| with no one quite able to explain _why_.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Wonder if Wiley Coyote could trick a Tesla by painting a
| tunnel entrance on a brick wall along with some extra lane
| lines veering into it.
| freejazz wrote:
| Purpose? When did you get the impression any of those
| systems do anything on "purpose"?
| mike_hock wrote:
| When I eject you, I'll be so GLaD.
| mwilliaams wrote:
| love to see bing ai getting memed already
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Are you planning to join a class action lawsuit so you can get
| your money back?
| LanceJones wrote:
| I would suggest reading all the disclaimers and screens one
| has to review (or skip, at their own peril) in order to
| actually get access to FSD Beta. You would likely not believe
| a Class Action lawsuit is a cakewalk if you read those
| screens...
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I'd love to see more instances of "this giant wall of text
| that no one actually reads absolves us of responsibility"
| tested in court.
| joegahona wrote:
| Reminds me of this recent Live Nation suit that was
| thrown out because "buyers waived their right to sue:
| https://www.nme.com/news/music/live-nation-antitrust-
| lawsuit...
| falcolas wrote:
| Nintendo, controller drift. Worth looking up.
|
| TL;DR: Controller drift class action lawsuit filed by
| parents thrown out, because their children were the
| actual "affected class". Refiled with the children as the
| class and thrown out again, this time because of an
| arbitration clause in the EULA their parents would have
| had to agree with.
|
| Lawyers and EULAs are crazy.
| arkitaip wrote:
| How would you know, are you a lawyer?
| system16 wrote:
| With Tesla's army of lawyers it'll never be a cakewalk, but
| I can't imagine even miles of T&C can remove a company's
| responsibility for your car throwing you directly into
| oncoming traffic, not to mention the potential victim's in
| the other vehicles.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That alone is why I would love it if Tesla would stop
| shipping this crap. You get to opt-in as the Tesla owner,
| but I don't and I'm at least as much at risk.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| IANAL but That's not how class actions work. If the terms of
| service allow for the lawsuit then if the lawsuit rules in
| your favor you get a notification from the lawyers to accept
| or deny your share of the penalty.
|
| There might be precedent to even removing the feature since
| FSD almost is vaporware and has no release date.
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/ps3-other-os-settlement-
| cla...
| taf2 wrote:
| I've had it do strange stuff too... but I use it regularly in
| dense traffic it's great for stop and go traffic. the
| important thing is if you're driving you're driving. I don't
| turn it on and think oh sweet i can take a nap or read some
| hacker news posts... I keep my eyes on the road. There are
| bugs and I don't trust it but I do use it much like I use
| ChatGPT and the likes...
| MockObject wrote:
| How is it useful, if it requires such attention?
| kortex wrote:
| I have bog standard subaru EyeSight lane assist and
| dynamic cruise. It's quite nice, even though you are
| still "driving" and ready to take control. It reduces
| mental CPU by 50-80% (driving for me is practically like
| walking to begin with, largely subconscious). It's great
| in stop-and-go and long highway stretches.
| maxdo wrote:
| it's a beta that you opt-in to use will all the warning and
| details. No chance.
| winter_blue wrote:
| FSD Beta is a free[1] opt-in beta.
|
| You have to basically drive like a grandpa for a few months
| to _even_ be eligible. They give you a driving score, and if
| you take all the fun out of driving a Tesla, then _you might_
| become eligible for FSD Beta.
|
| I spent months trying, and never got my driving score to the
| point of qualifying for FSD Beta. I think you need to have of
| a score of 98 or 99 (and I was in the 70s).
|
| [1] The Beta is free (or rather, only available) if you have
| regular FSD. Regular FSD costs $15,000.
|
| Regular FSD, otoh, is really not that impressive. Especially
| in comparison to Enhanced Autopilot. The extra value add is
| minimal.
|
| Enhanced Autopilot already has all the gimmicky features you
| might want to use to show off to people (like Smart Summon,
| Autopark, etc), and it only costs $6,000.
| CyanLite2 wrote:
| FSD Beta still costs $15k just to be part of the beta
| program.
|
| Yes, you have to pay $15k just to apply to the beta
| program, and you still may not get accepted into the
| program.
| [deleted]
| giobox wrote:
| Or 199 dollars + taxes a month - there is a pay as you go
| option. Not saying this is great, but you can try it for
| a month for ~200 bucks. This is how I tried FSD beta for
| a month - certainly wasn't prepared to pay 15k up front.
|
| The safety score check stuff is largely gone away today -
| anyone who pays 200 bucks can click the beta opt in and
| get it almost straight away now, there is ~zero risk of
| not getting the beta if you really want it, live in US or
| Canada, and are prepared to pay.
|
| > https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-
| subscription...
| winter_blue wrote:
| > The safety score check stuff is largely gone away today
| - anyone who pays 200 bucks can click the beta opt in and
| get it almost straight away now, there is ~zero risk of
| not getting the beta if you really want it, live in US or
| Canada, and are prepared to pay.
|
| Does this recall mean that FSD Beta won't be as widely &
| publicly available _to anyone with FSD_ anymore?
| giobox wrote:
| No - the "recall" here is an OTA software update already
| scheduled for release. Availability remains exactly the
| same as far as I'm aware, and existing systems still
| function until updated.
|
| FWIW, NHTSA "recalls" are often OTA software updates
| nowadays rather than something the vehicle or feature has
| to be taken off road for to fix or update. The NHTSA
| legislation from the 60s was drafted when cars didn't
| have software and any fix/"recall" likely required
| "recalling" the car to a shop for a mechanic to perform
| the change.
|
| > https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol28/iss1/5/
| jacquesm wrote:
| 'only' ?
|
| That's a significant amount of cash for features that I
| would likely never use.
| winter_blue wrote:
| It does have Navigate on Autopilot (and Auto Lane
| Change), and on long trips, it's been able to switch
| lanes & take the correct exit to switch to a different
| highway, etc. It pretty much let me daydream / think
| about other stuff while on the highway while keeping a
| finger on the steering wheel.
|
| Sadly, it does shut itself off as soon as you're off a
| highway however. (That's where FSD would hypothetically
| come in, once the beta is ready, with "Autosteer on city
| streets").
|
| In terms of value for money: - I'd say
| Auto Lane Change is worth $1,500. - Navigate
| on Autopilot is worth another $1,500. -
| Autopark is worth $1,000. - Smart Summon is
| worth $5,00
|
| Overall, Enhanced Autopilot is worth at least $4,500
| methinks.
|
| Throw in $1,500 as a profit margin (or Elon tax), so he
| can burn some dinosaurs for his private jet flights, the
| $6,000 Enhanced Autopilot price point makes sense.
|
| FSD, otoh, _is absolutely not worth it_.
| vel0city wrote:
| > It pretty much let me daydream
|
| You shouldn't be daydreaming on Navigate on Autopilot.
| Its only Level 2, you're supposed to be ready take the
| wheel in a second or two. You're _supposed_ to still be
| actively paying attention to the road, constantly.
| nanidin wrote:
| > I'd say Auto Lane Change is worth $1,500.
|
| What does that work out to, in terms of dollars per lane
| change for the duration of ownership? Would you feel the
| same if you were feeding dollar bills into a feeder each
| time you changed lanes? Quarters?
|
| Auto lane change is the only feature I value out of EAP /
| FSD subscription and I can't justify $200/month because
| it works out to multiple dollars per lane change.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| This is no longer true. The safety score program has ended.
| Now anyone who has paid for FSD can get FSD.
| nanidin wrote:
| The safety score stuff is no longer relevant for FSD beta
| since circa November 2022.
| binkHN wrote:
| > Smart Summon
|
| How often do you use this and how well does it work?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| My Dad has a Tesla that he loves and I've told him "please
| don't use the self driving features, they're not well tested
| and have killed people."
|
| I understand the simpler lane keeping system is okay, but I
| don't want to trust any system like this from Tesla given their
| track record with FSD.
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| Thanks for being a tester I guess.
|
| This is the kind of feature I will use when the car and
| software in question has been battle tested for *years* with
| objectively excellent results.
| bdastous wrote:
| They should rename it KSD.
| auggierose wrote:
| You must be really stupid to use any kind of self-driving
| feature. I wish you would die in your bed before you can try it
| on the road.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| i've never understood why people were excited for self-driving to
| begin with, i would never feel safe even if it was fullproof
| yawz wrote:
| "Tesla will deliver an over-the-air software update to cars to
| address the issues, the recall notice said"
|
| A bit of a sensational title compared to what this really is.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| No it isn't. Recall means "The manufacturer sold you something
| they should not have, and are legally required to remedy that
| problem". It has NOTHING to do with the action needing to be
| taken. It has NOTHING to do with the product category. Lots of
| recalls, ie for food or child toys, basically say "throw it
| out".
|
| The people who keep making this "Recall means go back to the
| dealer" claim is simply down to them never paying attention to
| all the recalls in the world that don't make it to their
| mailbox like car recalls do.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| That's the same for other manufacturers. It's called a recall
| in legal terms, in the sense that the original product as used
| is not safe and needs to be changed. The changing can luckily
| be done OTA instead of driving to a service center to plug it
| in first.
| bhauer wrote:
| As posted on the Tesla subreddit [1]:
|
| > _Remedy: Tesla will release an over-the-air (OTA) software
| update, free of charge. Owner notification letters are expected
| to be mailed by April 15, 2023. Owners may contact Tesla customer
| service at 1-877-798-3752. Tesla 's number for this recall is
| SB-23-00-001._
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/113wltl/commen...
| moremetadata wrote:
| Why even bother with a letter?
|
| Surely the letter could be displayed on screen like most other
| tech displays some text of sorts before an update occurs.
|
| Are these letters designed to satisfy the legalese types, or is
| paper still required to make sure tech companies dont make post
| update changes to the letter contents?
| mjrpes wrote:
| They are required to. It's written in law: https://www.ecfr.g
| ov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| A lot of car owners don't have reliable internet at home and
| live outside of cell tower coverage (mountainous areas,
| especially).
|
| Statistically these are not likely to be Tesla owners, but
| it's about making sure people know about the issue and how to
| fix it.
| bhauer wrote:
| When GP says "the update could be displayed on-screen,"
| they are referring to the car's user interface, and not a
| secondary device like a computer or cell phone.
|
| Incidentally, when you point out the issue of missing a
| theoretical electronic version of the notice because of
| spotty Internet connectivity, in such a scenario, they
| wouldn't be able to receive the OTA update either.
| moralestapia wrote:
| That's 4-5B USD worth of fraud. This thing could actually be
| quite dangerous for TSLA. One class-action lawsuit around this
| and they're bankrupt.
|
| Edit: Dang, you're all right, they could eat this and still be
| alive.
|
| My whole sentiment comes from FSD being their big shot (and
| everything that comes with that, like the robotaxis and whatnot).
| Without FSD, they're "just another car company" and the market is
| already thriving with good alternatives (Audi's EVs are jaw
| dropping, at least for me). Excited to see what they announce on
| March 1st, though.
| [deleted]
| gowld wrote:
| You think $5B would bankrupt Tesla?
| rvnx wrote:
| Couldn't they issue new shares under their own name and sell
| them in the open market to get dozens of billions ?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Probably but it's more likely they would just pay it out of
| their $20B in liquid assets.
| [deleted]
| oneoff786 wrote:
| That's not how the law works.
| recursive wrote:
| What would happen to the other ~15B they have in the bank?
| kcb wrote:
| There's many people that still have the perception that Tesla
| is a small fish waiting to get gobbled up by legacy
| automakers. But every year that becomes further from the
| truth. A company with $80 billion revenue and 100,000+
| employees is not dying from a single lawsuit.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Both predictable AND overdue.
| alberth wrote:
| Dumb question: why would anyone sign-up for a beta program, that
| could kill you if gone wrong?
|
| (maybe people just don't think through ramifications)
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I guess they think that not being in the beta program also has
| a non-zero chance of killing you. Either that or they are
| willing to exchange lower safety for greater
| pleasure/convenience (which everyone is willing to do
| sometimes, otherwise they would stay inside 100% of the time).
| I wouldn't use it myself, however.
| linsomniac wrote:
| How would the FSD beta program kill me?
|
| I realize that not everybody is in agreement, but I personally
| use the FSD beta while remaining fully in control of the
| vehicle. I steer with it, I watch the road conditions, I check
| my blind spots when it is changing lanes, I hit the accelerator
| if it is slowing unexpectedly, I hit the brakes if it is not...
|
| You know, basically behaving exactly as the terms you have to
| agree to in order to use the FSD beta say you are going to
| behave.
|
| When I look at the wreck in the tunnel (in San Francisco?) a
| few months ago, my first thought is: how did the driver allow
| that car to come to a full stop in that situation? Seriously,
| you are on a highway and your car pulls over half way out of
| the lane and gradually slows to a complete stop. Even if you
| were on your phone, you'd feel the unexpected deceleration, a
| quick glance would show that there was no obstruction, and the
| car further slowed to a complete stop.
|
| FSD is terrible in many situations, that is absolutely true.
| But, knowing the limitations, it can also provide some great
| advantages. In heavy interstate traffic, for example, I'll
| usually enable it and then tap the signal to have it do a lane
| change: I'll check my blind spots and mirrors, look for closing
| traffic behind me, but it's very nice to have the car double
| checking that nobody is in my blind spot. There are many
| situations where, knowing the limitations, the Tesla system can
| help.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Sure, you are in control of your Tesla but you are obviously
| not in control of other Teslas. Someone else who isn't as
| diligent as you or who doesn't care about it's limitations
| will happily crash head-on into you, blissfully unaware of
| their own ignorance.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| I'm not in control of _any_ other cars on the road. Many of
| those cars are driven by drunk, distracted people who cause
| thousands of deadly accidents every single year.
| freejazz wrote:
| >How would the FSD beta program kill me?
|
| By crashing in a way that is fatal to your life
| mrguyorama wrote:
| How can you be sure you aren't just being overconfident about
| your ability to prevent an accident?
| bigtex88 wrote:
| It would kill you by messing up...? Your question is insane.
| It kills you by fucking up and you don't have time to correct
| the car.
|
| Good for you that you apparently know how to "use it
| correctly" or whatever but that's not exactly the point here.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| > how did the driver allow that car to come to a full stop in
| that situation? ... Even if you were on your phone, you'd
| feel the unexpected deceleration, a quick glance would show
| that there was no obstruction
|
| In all honesty, I'd probably spend a few seconds trying to
| figure out " _what does the car see that I don 't_?" and let
| it come to a stop. Maybe it's a catastrophic system failure
| that I can't see. Maybe it's an obstacle headed into my path
| that hasn't gotten my attention. If my reflexive reaction is
| supposed to be to distrust the car's own assessment of the
| situation, then the system isn't good enough yet.
| bigtex88 wrote:
| "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of
| them are stupider than that."
|
| -- George Carlin
| acover wrote:
| People drive motorcycles, which seems much more dangerous. I
| don't think the risk of self driving is that high but it does
| seem stressful.
| alberth wrote:
| I'm creating a new bullet proof vest.
|
| Would you like to participate in the beta program, to test
| stoping bullets being shot at you?
| acover wrote:
| That feels like a very different scenario. A successful
| test would still leave me winded and bruised. The odds of
| failure are much higher than 1 in 100,000 per year. I also
| have no need for a bullet proof vest so why would I be
| interested in testing it - what's the benefit to me?
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Virtually everyone will take the vest that needs
| improvement over none at all
| heleninboodler wrote:
| Virtually everyone will opt out of the test, because the
| choice is not, "I'm going to shoot a gun at you as a
| test. Do you want the experimental bullet proof vest or
| no bullet proof vest?"
| bigtex88 wrote:
| Not if the vest suddenly decides to malfunction and
| explode or otherwise do something that kills you. Good
| lord there is some poor logic happening in this thread.
| ggreer wrote:
| Yeah, people don't understand how dangerous motorcycles are.
| The fatality rate for motorcycles in the US is 23 per 100
| million miles traveled. For cars that number is 0.7. Assuming
| you ride 4,000 miles per year for 40 years, that gives you a
| 4% chance of death. The chance of being crippled or receiving
| a brain injury is probably higher than that.
| starbase wrote:
| It is a dumb question, but that's the best kind.
|
| "could kill you if gone wrong" is nearly every choice in life.
| The relevant metric is _risk_ of death or other bad outcomes.
|
| Flying in a commercial airliner could kill you if things go
| wrong. Turns out it's safer than driving the same distance.
|
| Eating food could kill you if things go wrong (severe allergy,
| choking, poisoning) yet it's far preferable to not eating food.
|
| Similarly, Tesla's ADAS could kill you if things go wrong but
| the accident rate (as of 2022) is 8x lower than the average car
| on the road, and 2.5x lower than a Tesla without ADAS engaged.
|
| Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
| armatav wrote:
| It's a software update
| armatav wrote:
| Hahah - look at those downvotes.
|
| Just to reiterate; it's a software update. You can FUD as much
| as you want.
| saudade97 wrote:
| The amount of Tesla apologism in HN is nasueasting. Per the
| NHTSA, a safety recall is issued if either the manufacturer or
| the NHTSA determines that a vehicle or its equipment pose a
| safety risk or do not meet motor vehicle safety standards. On its
| face, Tesla's situation clearly calls out for classification as a
| recall.
| bigtex88 wrote:
| We live in a strange world. No one should worship that sad
| narcissistic piece of crap but yet the sycophants continue to
| multiply.
| joering2 wrote:
| I think this has to do with the growing margin between the
| richest/upper class and poorest folks. Sure you find plenty
| of HN folks doing 3.5 X average salary.. but majority,
| considering inflation etc, are not doing this well.
|
| So average poor Joe looks at Musk and instead of seeing him
| for what he is, he cheers him up, thinking "one day I will be
| like him [that rich], so I would want people to cherish me
| the way I cherish him now". I think we see that on every
| front, sadly including politics. I mean people like Boebert
| or MTG should have never had any power even to decide what
| mix to use to clean a dirty floor, yet alone deciding on
| millions of American's fate, but yet here we are...
|
| If anything, this numbness and ignorance will grow.
| pbreit wrote:
| Arguably the greatest entrepreneur in history. Is that worthy
| of some praise?
| literalAardvark wrote:
| Think I'd still go with Rockefeller on that one.
| pbreit wrote:
| One oil company?
| literalAardvark wrote:
| _the_ oil company.
| bigtex88 wrote:
| You're trolling, aren't you? No one can be this stupid,
| especially not someone who reads this blog.
| pbreit wrote:
| How so? I consider multiple creations substantially more
| impressive than one.
| bigtex88 wrote:
| Ooh I can argue against that! I mean, he's clearly not.
| He's more of a fantastically savvy investor than anything
| else. The man clearly does not run any of his companies
| because it's impossible to run 3 companies at once. Don't
| let him fool you. It is IMPOSSIBLE.
|
| There are clearly far FAR better entrepreneurs in history
| but if you keep fellating him I'm sure Daddy Elon will love
| you one day. You got this, don't give up!
| pbreit wrote:
| Care to name one or 2?
| [deleted]
| Kranar wrote:
| Meh, the term recall conjures images of vehicles having to be
| taken back to the dealership to get repaired, replaced, or
| refunded. The recall announced here is just an over the air
| software update.
|
| It's worth pointing this out.
| notyourwork wrote:
| It's really not a differentiator. Is it? Issue is still an
| issue and must be addressed. OTA doesn't change that.
| literalAardvark wrote:
| It certainly is different. Recalls are expensive and
| annoying for the user, involving drives and waiting times.
| This is an OTA update.
| billiallards wrote:
| In the same way that the term "full self driving" or
| "autopilot" conjures images of vehicles driving themselves?
|
| Not sure that Tesla should be opening the "what do words
| mean" can of worms right now.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| > _In the same way that the term "full self driving" or
| "autopilot" conjures images of vehicles driving
| themselves?_
|
| I disagree with your point here, but whether correct or not
| you should be consistent: if _words conjuring things_ is
| important, then the previous commenter 's point is valid.
| stefan_ wrote:
| The question you need to be asking is how many of these
| safety events they have swept under the rug because a fix is
| always "just an over the air software update" away.
|
| This recall only happened because, god forbid, the NHTSA got
| off its ass and actually tested something.
| Kranar wrote:
| >This recall only happened because, god forbid, the NHTSA
| got off its ass and actually tested something.
|
| Where did you find this info? The article says it was Tesla
| that did a voluntary recall. The NHTSA did no testing and
| was not involved in the decision. The report, which is
| linked in the article is authored by Tesla with no
| involvement from NHTSA.
| pbreit wrote:
| I had the opposite reaction. The author is an avowed Elon &
| Tesla hater and tried to work in the word "recall" in almost
| every sentence despite that it will be a simple over-the-air
| software update. No recall whatsoever.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Just because the issue can be solved by an update ( and
| lately some recalls actually have been - see Huyndai GPS
| debacle ) does not mean it is not a recall. It just happens
| to have a different means of correcting it. In other words,
| update equals recall.
|
| And that is before we get into whether it is appropriate to
| update something that can move with enough kinetic force to
| have various security agencies freaking out over possible
| scenarios in the future ( and likely cause for some of the
| recent safety additions like remote stop ).
|
| In other words, just because he may be a hater does not make
| the argument not valid.
| adoxyz wrote:
| I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. I've
| had it since day 1, and oh my god. It behaves worse than a drunk
| teenager. All the updates since, have made it barely better. This
| needs to be pulled entirely and rethought.
| pirate787 wrote:
| I'm glad it is out there and thanks for buying it. The tech
| promises to save millions of lives worldwide. Waiting a decade
| to deploy the tech will mean hundreds of thousands of Americans
| will die from driver error that self-driving tech could have
| avoided.
| alex_duf wrote:
| I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car
| deaths go with the same budget?
|
| How about better public transit, encouraging people to use
| smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding
| infrastructure, etc.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car
| deaths go with the same budget?
|
| Far, far, far wider. Reducing road deaths is a pretty well
| understood, political implementation is the problem.
|
| And the simply fact is, reducing road deaths is cheap. Its
| very cheap. If you want to make it look good, and fancy,
| its a bit more expensive.
|
| But the fact is, we know how to do it, and do it cheaply.
| Fancy next generation car technology is pretty terrible in
| terms of investment to return.
|
| All you really need is a bunch of paint, and a few concert
| spectators over various shapes. Pretty much all you have to
| do is make cars slower, that is by far the most important
| factor in mixed traffic. There are many ways to achieve
| this.
|
| If you want to get a bit more fancy and technical, you can
| make dutch intersections:
|
| Doing things like this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection
|
| > How about better public transit, encouraging people to
| use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding
| infrastructure, etc.
|
| How about banning cars from many city centers, or only
| allowing commercial and people who live there.
|
| How about REQUIRING smaller cars. A limit on car size,
| specially if you want to enter cities.
| ghqst wrote:
| Yeah so now the driver error can be automated. Great.
| capableweb wrote:
| The tech might promise to save millions of lives, but if
| "behaves worse than a drunk teenager" is to be believed,
| don't you think it's best to wait a bit, if you want to save
| as many lives as possible?
| elil17 wrote:
| The "self driving" tech that works (e.g. auto braking) is
| deployed and has saved lives. (Self driving in quotes because
| it is not really the full promise of self driving.)
|
| This Tesla AI does not work well enough in many conditions
| and is clearly sometimes _more_ dangerous than humans. Just
| watch videos of people using it - it 's obvious that is
| making unforgivable errors.
| ajross wrote:
| Do you have evidence for "clearly _more_ dangerous "?
| Because what numbers exist say the opposite. They are now
| pushing a million (!) of these vehicles on US roads and to
| my knowledge the bay bridge accident[1] is the _only_
| example of a significant at fault accident involving the
| technology.
|
| It's very easy to make pronouncements like "one accident is
| too many", but we all know that's not correct in context.
| Right? If FSD beta is safer than a human driver it should
| be encouraged even if not perfect. So... where's the
| evidence that it's actually less safe? Because no one has
| it.
|
| [1] Which I continue to insist looks a lot more like
| "confused driver disengaged and stopped" (a routine
| accident) than "FSD made a wild lane change" (that's not
| its behavior). Just wait. It took a year before that
| "autopilot out of control" accident was shown (last week)
| to be a false report. This will probably be similar.
| tjohns wrote:
| Just off the top of my head:
|
| - A Tesla near that drive into the median divider near
| Sunnyvale on Highway 101, because it thought the gore
| point was an extra lane. Split the car in half and killed
| the driver. [1]
|
| - A Tesla that autonomously ran a red light and killed
| two people. [2]
|
| - Multiple accidents where Teslas have driven into parked
| emergency vehicles / semi trucks.
|
| Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't
| have that data to say one way or the other. But it's not
| correct to say the Bay Bridge is the only at fault
| accident attributable to autopilot.
|
| [1]: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/apple-engineer-
| killed-in-ba...
|
| [2]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/felony-
| charges-are-1s...
| ajross wrote:
| Those are autopilot accidents from before FSD beta was
| even released.
|
| I mean, it's true, that if you broaden the search to "any
| accident involving Tesla-produced automation technology"
| you're going to find more signal, but your denominator
| also shrinks by one (maybe two) orders of magnitude.
|
| And it also lets me cite Tesla's own statistics for its
| autopilot product (again, not FSD beta):
| https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
|
| These show pretty unequivocally that AP is safer than
| human drivers, and by a pretty significant margin. So as
| to:
|
| > Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't
| have that data to say one way or the other.
|
| Now you do. So you'll agree with me? I suspect not, and
| that we'll end up in a long discussion about criticism of
| that safety report instead [ _edit: and right on
| queue..._ ]. That's the way these discussions always go.
| No one wants to give ground, so they keep citing the same
| tiny handful of accident data while the cars keep coming
| off the production line.
|
| It's safe. It is not _perfect_ , but it is safe. It just
| is. You know it's safe. You do.
| Xylakant wrote:
| This data does not show what it pretends to show. The
| underlying statistics are heavily skewed in favor of
| Tesla by various factors:
|
| * Autopilot can only be enabled in good conditions and
| relies on human drivers in all other, to the point of
| handing over to a human when it gets confused. Yet, they
| compare to all miles driven in all conditions.
|
| * Teslas are comparatively new cars that have - as they
| proudly point out - a variety of active and passive
| safety features that make the car inherently less prone
| to accident than the average, which includes old, beat up
| cars with outdated safety features. Teslas are also
| likely to be better maintained than the average car in
| the US by virtue of being an expensive car driven by
| people with disposable income.
|
| * Teslas are driven by a certain demographic with a
| certain usage pattern. Yet, they provide no indicator on
| how that skews the data.
|
| Tesla could likely provide a better picture by comparing
| their data with cars in the same age and price bracket,
| used by a similar demographic, in similar conditions.
| They could also model how much of the alleged safety
| benefit is due to the usual, active and passive safety
| features (brake assistance, lane assist, ...). They
| don't, and as such, the entire report is useless or
| worse, misleading.
| ly3xqhl8g9 wrote:
| It's called FSD as in _Full_ Self-Driving. If it does one
| single "accident" where it's unable to see a totaled car
| with hazard lights on right in its face [1], then it's
| not really _full_ , is it now. Not to mention the
| hilarious contradiction in terms: _Full_ , but _Beta_.
|
| No one would have any major issues if this (self)killing
| system was called "Extended Driver Assist" and it had
| implemented the minimal safety features like driver
| monitoring, safely stopping the car if the driver doesn't
| pay attention to the road.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/100pem
| h/tesla..., also, in this case, even a $20K Skoda [2] has
| basic automatic braking safety features, no need for
| _artificial intelligence_ to detect something stationary
| in front of you.
|
| [2] https://www.skoda-auto.com/world/safety-assistence-
| system-ci...
| elil17 wrote:
| I don't believe one accident is too many. I made my
| statement based on videos I've seen of people having to
| disengage their beta FSD in circumstances where a human
| driver would have no trouble.
|
| Now, maybe the data says otherwise. If that is the case,
| then great! Let's role out some more FSD beta. But for
| that data to be valid, you have to account for the fact
| that Tesla filters bad drivers out of the pool of FSD
| users. And as I understand it there is not public data
| about the risk profiles of the people Tesla lets use FSD.
| adoxyz wrote:
| The Tesla tech is not ready and is deployed haphazardly.
| Google and other companies are approaching self-driving in a
| much safer way while still having tremendous progress.
| worik wrote:
| > Google and other companies are approaching self-driving
| in a much safer way while still having tremendous progress.
|
| Are they really?
|
| It looks like they have got the timeless problem of "the
| last big(s)". This time it is safety critical.
| saboot wrote:
| I'm really struck at how this comment has no consideration of
| the quality or accuracy of current FSD technology.
|
| Also, public transit would do the same.
| adwn wrote:
| > _Also, public transit would do the same._
|
| Does public transit pick me up at my front door and drop me
| off at any location I choose?
|
| Does public transit take of the minute I leave the house?
|
| Is public transit available 24/7, even in remote areas?
|
| Does public transit wait for me to load 2 kids, a dog, 4
| suit cases, and various bags, blankets, and toys?
|
| Does public transit turn around after 2 minutes, bring me
| back, and wait for 30 seconds because I forgot my wallet on
| the kitchen counter?
|
| Will public transit still work during a public transit
| strike? (yes, this actually happens over here in Europe)
|
| No? Well, then you can hardly claim that "public transit
| would do the same" as a self-driving car.
| saboot wrote:
| Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have
| free roam then. Current state of technology and failures
| be damned
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Does a Tesla travel at 125mph from my town to central
| London?
|
| No? Well, then you can hardly claim that a self-driving
| car oh for goodness' sake why am I even attempting to
| argue with motorheads on HN.
| smachiz wrote:
| I would be glad it was out there if it was aggressively
| marketed as a drivers assistant feature, not as a self-
| driving capability.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Even "Auto Pilot" is a poor name, given it's pretty much
| just the same suite of safety features offered by others
| (many of which are superior given they still have LIDAR and
| USS)
| breck wrote:
| Agreed! Thank you for saying this.
|
| If committees of lawyer p*ssies were in charge of everything
| we never would have had planes--they never would have figured
| out how to make them light enough to fly. Many many thousands
| of men gave their lives so we could learn to fly.
|
| It takes courage and bravery to push the human race forward.
|
| God speed Tesla.
| gg-plz wrote:
| Dang, please delete this bot account
| bdcravens wrote:
| How about Tesla allow users in the beta for free then?
| Shouldn't the logic of waiting apply to Tesla, by charging
| for something that could save lives?
| mjmsmith wrote:
| I'd prefer that Tesla allowed non-users to opt out of the
| beta.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Tesla is using the same basic technology for security
| features, many of those features are deployed to all cars.
| The can and should do that for even more features over
| time.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| > _I still can 't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public
| roads._
|
| Fault, distracted, intoxicated human beings are allowed on
| public roads. The "legal limits" for blood alcohol levels
| aren't 0.00%.
| julianlam wrote:
| Interesting...
|
| The standards of human drivers is lower than that of FSD, and
| somehow you think that this is a good reason to justify
| lowering the standards of FSD.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| Strawman fallacy.
| natch wrote:
| You are meant to maintain control of the vehicle at all times
| with the beta.
|
| That's the only way it could be released in its current state.
|
| Looking at it as anything other than a beta where you have to
| maintain control is misunderstanding what it is. Which you are
| clearly doing. It is absolutely expected to be worse than a
| drunk teenager in this stage.
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| I wonder if there'd be so many people eager to pay Tesla $$$
| if it were marketed as "Worse Than Drunk Teenager Self
| Driving".
| natch wrote:
| Haha yeah I doubt it.
| LanceJones wrote:
| I beta test regularly in Vancouver BC on my Model S LR. My
| experience is the polar opposite to yours. It's surprising (on
| the good side) and has improved immensely in the past 12
| months. It does not need to be rethought imo. Obviously your
| opinion is valid, but it's not consensus.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Yeah I use it all the time in seattle here on my model x.
| It's amazing. Sometimes it makes a questionable decision but
| the vast majority of the time it works as expected. I don't
| mind being alert to the driving conditions, and the amount it
| can do without assistance is remarkable
| buildbot wrote:
| I hope I am not next to you when it makes those
| "questionable" decisions...
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| yeah, I don't believe you. I use it every day and have been for
| over a year and it's been awesome.
| adoxyz wrote:
| You can believe whatever you want. The reality is that FSD
| Beta is unsafe and makes the dumbest decisions. Every update
| I give it a try to see if anything has improved, and usually
| within the first 30 seconds, I end up turning it off.
|
| Autopilot on Freeways works ok for the most part though.
| abc_lisper wrote:
| You both could be right. It might depend on the area the
| car is driven. I guess you are not in the Bay Area?
| adoxyz wrote:
| I'm in Las Vegas. The roads are wide, the weather is
| clear, traffic is low. FSD Beta should work great here.
| But alas.
| [deleted]
| mrb wrote:
| I have FSD too, and my opinion is that although it takes unsafe
| actions almost on a daily basis, most of these errors are
| minor, easily rectified by me the driver, and most of the time
| it drives just fine, in fact better than a human driver. I
| witnessed FSD avoiding me a collision by responding faster than
| I could have by auto-braking when another driver ran a red
| light.
|
| FSD doesn't need to be perfect to avoid accidents. In fact, if
| it was too perfect I'm afraid I could become very inattentive
| at the wheel.
| vel0city wrote:
| > easily rectified by me the driver
|
| So, not Full _Self_ Driving...
| make_it_sure wrote:
| well, today is cool to hate on any technologies related to
| musk. Even if you had a good experience, people don't want to
| believe you.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| I have a Tesla and have tried FSD several times (month-to-month
| plan and loaner cars from Tesla). It's comically bad.
| Fortunately every time I tried it I was paying very close
| attention so I stopped it from braking at green lights, trying
| to turn right from a middle lane, halfway lane changes where it
| snaps back to the original lane unexpectedly, etc.
|
| The regular, included autopilot works pretty well as a smarter
| cruise control; as long as you use it on a major highway in the
| daytime in good conditions it does a good job. And it's very
| useful in stop-and-go traffic on the highway.
|
| But the FSD is crap.
| natch wrote:
| You have never tried FSD.
|
| You may have tried FSD beta. Different things entirely.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Yeah, I was abbreviating. Nobody has tried FSD because it
| doesn't exist.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-16 23:01 UTC)