9 ms·

Does anyone have any insight as to why regulators allow a beta like this on the road with drivers who are not trained to specifically respond to it's mistakes?

• croes 5y ago
  They fear Elon's Twitter wrath
• darknavi 5y ago
  > drivers who are not trained to specifically respond to it's mistakes What would this entail? Perhaps some sort of "license" which allows the user to operator a motor vehicle?
  • ethbr0 5y ago
    Safely operating a motor vehicle via a steering wheel, accelerator, and brake (and sometimes clutch and gearshift) is a completely different skillset than monitoring an automated system in realtime. Novel skill requirements include: interpreting FSD UI, anticipating common errors, recognizing intent behind FSD actions, & remaining vigilant even during periods of autonomous success.
    • Syonyk 5y ago
      The history of human machine interactions makes it clear that if you have the human as the primary control (in the main decision loop, operating things) and the automation watching over their shoulders, it works pretty well. The opposite - where the automation handles the common case, with the human watching, simply does not work. It's not worked in aviation, it's not worked in industrial systems, it's not worked in self driving cars. This isn't a novel bit of research, this is well understood. "I'll do 99.90% of it correctly, you watch and catch the 0.1% when I screw up!" style systems that rely on the human to catch the mistakes shouldn't be permitted to operate in any sort of safety critical environment. It simply doesn't work.
      • antisthenes 5y ago
        > "I'll do 99.90% of it correctly, you watch and catch the 0.1% when I screw up!" style systems that rely on the human to catch the mistakes shouldn't be permitted to operate in any sort of safety critical environment. It simply doesn't work. Right, because it actually relies on the human to catch 100% of mistakes _anyway_. The human can already do the 99.90% of it correctly with a reasonable degree of safety. I wouldn't be surprised if the increased cognitive load on the human in such a system is an actual overall decrease in safety and strictly worse than a human operator alone. At least with an unreliable system that Tesla demonstrated here.
      • ethbr0 5y ago
        That's a great way to put it! It should be indicative of the kind and volume of licensing and training we require of commercial pilots, in order to use a more limited and situationally simple autopilot. And we still get Boeing-style @&$#-ups at the UX interface.
        • Syonyk 5y ago
          The use of the term "autopilot" is particularly cute here, because any pilot who's ever used one knows that autopilots are dumb as rocks, can't really be trusted, and don't do nearly as much as non-pilots tend to assume they do. "You go that way, at this altitude, until I tell you to do something different" is what most of them manage, and they do it well enough. Some of the high end ones have navigational features you can use ("Follow this GPS route or VOR radial"), and in airliners, they can do quite a bit, but you still are very closely monitoring during anything important. "In the middle of the sky," yeah, you've got some time to figure things out if George goes wonky. During a Cat III ILS approach down to minimums, you have two trained pilots, paying full attention to just what this bit of computer is doing, both prepared to abort the approach and head back into the middle of the sky with an awful lot of thrust behind them if anything goes wrong. But in cruise, there's just not too much that requires an instant response.
      • nkingsy 5y ago
        The watching is the sticking point. It seems this could be ameliorated if the automation could be 100% trusted to know when it needs an intervention. Solving for that, even a system that was extremely conservative would be useful, as you are completely freed up when it is operating, even if that is only 20% of the time.
    • mbreese 5y ago
      I'm going to posit that none of those novel skill requirements are actually requirements. You don't need to interpret a UI, or recognize intent to know that the car shouldn't turn the wrong way on a one-way street or hit a planter. Anticipating common errors and remaining vigilant while driving is a requirement for all driving, not when dealing with FSD. If you are capable of driving a car safely to begin with, then you're capable of recognizing then the car is going to do something wrong and turning the wheel and/or hitting the brakes. I wouldn't personally trust a FSD beta, but only if it is properly supervised, I think it could be tested safely. But, there's the problem -- how can you really properly supervise this? How many drivers are going to try this and just let the car drive w/o paying attention? Or, using it under controlled conditions, but then giving it too much trust in more adverse conditions?
      • ethbr0 5y ago
        What makes them required is the speed that a reaction is expected. In both the quick and velocity senses of the word. Unless the user is able to understand and anticipate common reactions, the entire system is unsafe at >25 mph or so. Or, to put it another way, I'd love to see the statistics on how many drivers can react quickly enough to avert an unexpected turn into an exit divider at 60 mph, after a number of days of interruption free FSD.
        • mbreese 5y ago
          We’re largely talking about an update where the primary benefit is low-speed automation — driving in areas where the speed limits are low because the obstacles are many.
    • tshaddox 5y ago
      No, it’s just unsafe (and presumably illegal in most places) to operate a motor vehicle without maintaining constant awareness of the road and control of the vehicle. There’s no additional training or license that permits you to stop maintaining that awareness and control, just like there’s no additional training that permits you to drive under the influence of alcohol.
      • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >There’s no additional training or license that permits you to stop maintaining that awareness and control Being a cop on duty often exempts you from distracted driving laws. I'm not sure how they can do stuff on a laptop while driving safely but I assume the state knows best. /s
      • kemitche 5y ago
        The theoretical "additional license" would be in addition to maintaining awareness, not a substitution. So all the normal road awareness, plus being informed of likely FSD failure conditions, and anticipating them / being ready and capable to intercede.
        • tshaddox 5y ago
          If you maintain control at all times, you shouldn’t need additional training for any of the car’s features. We don’t require additional training for cruise control, lane-keep assistance, anti-lock brakes, etc.
      • ectopod 5y ago
        I agree, but if you have to maintain constant control of the vehicle then it isn't self-driving.
  • simion314 5y ago
    Maybe people that are trained with such failure videos that show what can go wrong and NOT with propaganda videos that only show the good parts, causing the driver not to pay attention.
  • vkou 5y ago
    A license that allows you to operate a motor vehicle with a beta self-driving feature. It's very similar to a regular motor vehicle, but has different failure modes. A motorcycle is similar to an automobile, but has different failure modes, and needs a special license. A >5 tonne truck is very similar to an automobile, but has different failure modes, and needs a special license. An automobile that usually drives itself, but sometimes tries to crash itself has different failure modes from an automobile that does not try to drive itself.
  • AlotOfReading 5y ago
    California at least has a specific license for this called the Autonomous Vehicle Operator license. It enforces some minimal amount of training beyond simply having a regular driver's license.
  • bestouff 5y ago
    I guess any driving instructor worth its salt would have the required skills to correct the vehicle if it attempts to do something weird. After all FSD is a still-in-training (maybe for an unusual long time) driver.
    • Syonyk 5y ago
      Probably not. It fails in ways that are totally different from how humans typically fail at driving. Student drivers have the ability to comprehend and understand the 3D world around them - it's just a matter of learning the proper control manipulations to make the car do what you want, and then how to interact with other traffic in safe and expected ways. Tesla's FSD system seems to fail at basic 3D world comprehension and reading, often enough.
  • visarga 5y ago
    Perhaps operating a motor vehicle is different from supervising an AI doing that same task.
  • bigtex 5y ago
    Giant obxonious flashing lights and blinking signs stating "Student Self Driving tech on board"
    • kyleee 5y ago
      "Student Full Self Driver"
  • bobsomers 5y ago
    Safety drivers at proper AV companies usually go through several weeks of rigorous classroom instruction and test track driving with a professional driving instructor, including lots of practice with the real AVs on closed courses with simulated system faults, takeover situations, etc. Anecdotally I've seen trained safety drivers take over from unexpected system failures at speeds near the floor of human reaction time. They are some of the best and most attentive drivers on the road. Average folks beta testing Tesla's software for them are woefully under-prepared to safely mitigate the risks these vehicles pose. In several cases they've meaninglessly died so that Tesla could learn a lesson everyone else saw coming months in advance.
  • paxys 5y ago
    What part of the driving test covers taking over control from an automated vehicle with a split second notice?
• avalys 5y ago
  Because America does not yet require that its citizens ask mommy and daddy for permission for every thing they do.
  • Barrin92 5y ago
    this isn't going to the ice cream store, this is driving two tons of steel with experimental software that glitches constantly through inner city traffic. If you look at the footage, at times these cars behave as erratically as a drunk driver, and they're controlled by what appears to be random 'beta testers' with no qualifications to operate a car under those conditions.
  • mrRandomGuy 5y ago
    It would be a glorious honor to have my 'FSD' Tesla drive into a giant concrete pillar, causing my car to explode and erupt into flames.
    • kyleee 5y ago
      Basically Silicon Valley's version of a Viking burial
  • ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Such crude trolling. Build a new house without a permit and see how that freedom feels.
    • SirZimzim 5y ago
      Yes, you have to get a driver's license and also register your car. If that isn't asking for permission then I don't know. Although it's a stretch to assume this permission includes self driving cars.
• nrjames 5y ago
  I used to work with the USG. There was "Beta" software absolutely everywhere, including on some very sensitive systems, because it was not required to go through security approval until it was out of Beta. In some instances, these applications had been in place for > 10 years. That was a number of years ago, so I hope the situation has changed. In general, the USG doesn't have sophisticated infrastructure and policy to deal with software that is in development. With Tesla, my guess is that it is not that they are allowing it to happen, but that they lack the regulatory infrastructure to prevent it from happening.
  • verelo 5y ago
    USG? I'm not sure what that means, i did a google search and i assume it's not "United States Gypsum" or the University System or Georgia...?
    • darknavi 5y ago
      US government I assume.
      • verelo 5y ago
        Thanks, that makes sense.
• whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  It’s a think of the children on HN :)
• optimiz3 5y ago
  > puts everybody and their children at risk Oh won't somebody think of the children? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
  • mrRandomGuy 5y ago
    Out of all the times to mock someone saying that, I don't think "self-driving-but-not-really-car nearly crashes into things and puts the occupants and bystanders at risk for serious bodily harm as evident by the videos posted above" is one of those times.
    • optimiz3 5y ago
      Wait till you read the stats and see videos of what humans driving cars regularly do!
      • ASalazarMX 5y ago
        Still, an autopilot should aim to be a peer with the best drivers, not with mediocre or bad drivers.
        • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
          A peer with average drivers would probably be fine. A peer with average drivers and doing completely nonsensical things every now and then is basically an average driver on their cell phone though and the verdict on that is that it's not fine.
        • optimiz3 5y ago
          It's a limited beta with the goal of discovering error cases.
          • barbazoo 5y ago
            In this case I'd prefer if "discovering error cases" was done without risking actual lives. Injuring someone would not be a valid way discover an error case.
• SloopJon 5y ago
  The Twitter thread is lacking in attributions, but I saw most of these some months back after a post about scary FSD behavior. I watched with morbid curiosity, and a rising level of anger. The guy with the white ball cap repeatedly attempted a left turn across two lanes of fast-moving traffic, with a drone providing overhead views. He seemed smart, aware, and even a bit conservative in intervening. Nonetheless, I couldn't help but thinking that none of the oncoming vehicles consented to the experiments racking up YouTube views. If he doesn't jump on the brakes at the right time, he potentially causes a head-on collision with a good chance of fatalities. Yes, I do agree that beta drivers should get extra training. However, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of beta testing an aluminum rocket on wheels on public roads in the first place.
  • misiti3780 5y ago
    How do you know the beta drivers did not get training?
    • SloopJon 5y ago
      I said that they should. I don't know whether they do. A March 2021 tweet indicated that beta access will be as simple as pressing a "Download Beta" button in the car. A subsequent tweet said that the program had 2,000 owners, some of whom have had their access revoked for not paying enough attention to the road.
  • aeternum 5y ago
    Do people sign up to be beta testers whenever a new 15 year-old with a permit gets behind the wheel? It's even crazier that we allow that. The cars that student drivers learn in typically do not have dual control so it's quite difficult to intervene. Every highschool has a story about how a student slammed the accelerator instead of the brake.
    • nexuist 5y ago
      People in this thread seem to have overly high expectations about what is required to drive on US public roads. Not even considering that each state has its own licensing and registration requirements, all states except one (Georgia) accept foreign driver's licenses, which means it doesn't even matter what you regulate if countries X, Y, and Z can just not care about it and refuse to enforce it. Regulating self driving is a good idea but it's a tall order to cast beta software as the menace when there are more idiots driving on the roads at this moment than there will ever be Tesla products.
• TheParkShark 5y ago
  Everyone and their children seems a bit hyperbolic. There hasn’t been an accident involving FSD beta 9, but I’m sure someone has been killed at the hands of a drunk driver today. I am failing to find any comments from you arguing for alcohol to be removed from shelves across the country? Why aren’t you pushing your regulators for that?
  • studentrob 5y ago
    It's not hard to see the connection between FSD driving towards concrete pillars and the AP accidents on highways driving towards concrete barriers. None of this is hyperbole. FSD isn't a whole new system, it's based on AP. As Elon often says, they have been going for incremental improvements rather than the all-or-nothing approach taken by Waymo and others.
  • esperent 5y ago
    Drunk driving is already illegal. Claiming that we should ban all alcohol because people use it to commit illegal acts makes about as much sense as claiming we should ban kitchen knives because people occasionally use them for stabbing. Besides that, FSD being less dangerous than drunk driving is a terrible benchmark.
• renewiltord 5y ago
  Because Tesla FSD accidents don’t kill people who were not party to the agreement. That seems intuitively fair to me.
  • snet0 5y ago
    I'm sure you don't actually think this, if you think about it for a second longer. "What's wrong with drunk drivers? They're only harming themselves?"
    • renewiltord 5y ago
      Well, the problem with drunk driving is that it kills other people. We’ve witnessed it. We know it happens. Because we have seen it occur. Tesla FSD driving assist has never killed someone not in the car. Considering that rampant safetyism is par for the course here, I’m hardly convinced of the “he could’ve killed someone” school of thought.