5 ms·

I mean... 5 minutes on /r/IdiotsInCars and it's very easy for me to understand how even with bizarre bugs like this, it's better than people. People say "how c

I mean... 5 minutes on /r/IdiotsInCars and it's very easy for me to understand how even with bizarre bugs like this, it's better than people. People say "how could it happen?!" and get angry for a software bug - that can be fixed - and seem to accept how drunk drivers do this (and a lot worse) literally every single day. But since it's a human, that's fine! Edit: wording

oefrha 5y ago
Drunk drivers on the road are… “fine”? Not sure where you live.
- Draiken 5y ago
  Of course it's not fine in that sense. What I mean is that you don't see a headline on news outlets or twitter hashtags trending for every drunk driver fatality or crash that happens. Which for me tells that collectively, we are fine with it. We accept it as ordinary, as crazy as it may be.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    A DUI, in California for instance, means you’re suspended for months (years if you’re a repeat offender). Since it’s basically the same “driver” driving all FSD Teslas, are you arguing that they should be suspended under the same rules for drunken behavior? If so, they will basically be out of commission indefinitely, and we won’t see headlines anymore.
    - Draiken 5y ago
      No, my point is that this is overblown just because it's Tesla and people love drama, so this makes headlines and trending topics. My comparison with drunken drivers is just with the regards to the odd behavior. If you look at a drunk driver (or even someone that fell asleep in the wheel) with a near crash, many times it would resemble this video. But the outrage from the public differs vastly.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - _jal 5y ago
    Drunks are ordinary because alcohol use predates agriculture. Unpredictable death-robots roaming the streets are pretty novel. I don't think that's very complicated, from a news perspective.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    I regularly see "traffic collision kills [person or people]" stories in my local newspaper. I don't know if it's every one, it might be restricted to the extremely stupid (wrong-way on the highway, drunk, or excessively-high-speed) but "someone got killed" is certainly a common story in the news here. I've certainly seen many more local "person dies in car accident" non-brand-related stories than "person dies in Tesla accident" stories.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The point is those stories remain local news, but whenever a Tesla is involved, it becomes national news.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    Yes, the societal tolerance of vehicular homicide generally is probably too high. That doesn't mean we need to endorse putting more cars on the road that sporadically act like drunks.
roywiggins 5y ago
There are pretty stringent laws against drunk driving in most places... if Tesla's "self driving" modes are that bad then they should be equally illegal
- oneplane 5y ago
  A law doesn't prevent anything, it only applies after the fact. You could argue that the prospect of being prosecuted might scare people into not doing the thing that they are not allowed to be doing, but with all the people doing the things they are not allowed to be doing anyway, I doubt a comparative legal argument helps here. You could make a law that states that your FSD has to be at least as good as humans. That means you have the same post-problem verification but now the parallel with drunk drivers can be made.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    The key difference is human drivers have independent software, whereas the same software powers all FSD Teslas. One human driver getting drunk/otherwise impaired doesn't affect the software of any other human driver; but if your FSD software is as good as a drunk human, then every single one of your FSD vehicles is a road hazard.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      That difference is also a benefit, fix one problem, and it's fixed for every instance. On the other hand, it's not like the software is always bad and always in the same situation. That is a big difference with a human analogy; a drunk driver taking a trip in the car is drunk for the entire trip (unless it's a very long trip etc..), so would be impaired for the entire duration. There are plenty of people and vehicles that are road hazards and are allowed to drive (or be driven) anyway, so if we really cared about that aspect on its own we could probably do with better tests and rules in general.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    Tesla’s “FSD” is only a little bit better than drunk drivers, whom we punish severely whenever caught, even before any accident occurs. The fact that enforcement is patchy is irrelevant — drunk driving is deemed serious enough to be an automatic infraction. Also, most of the time drunk drivers are not actually that bad at moment-to-moment driving. That’s why almost everyone worldwide used to do it! You can still do the basics even when reasonably drunk. That doesn’t make you safe to drive. It’s still incredibly dangerous to do.

oefrha 5y ago

Drunk drivers on the road are… “fine”? Not sure where you live.

Draiken 5y ago
Of course it's not fine in that sense. What I mean is that you don't see a headline on news outlets or twitter hashtags trending for every drunk driver fatality or crash that happens. Which for me tells that collectively, we are fine with it. We accept it as ordinary, as crazy as it may be.
- oefrha 5y ago
  A DUI, in California for instance, means you’re suspended for months (years if you’re a repeat offender). Since it’s basically the same “driver” driving all FSD Teslas, are you arguing that they should be suspended under the same rules for drunken behavior? If so, they will basically be out of commission indefinitely, and we won’t see headlines anymore.
  - Draiken 5y ago
    No, my point is that this is overblown just because it's Tesla and people love drama, so this makes headlines and trending topics. My comparison with drunken drivers is just with the regards to the odd behavior. If you look at a drunk driver (or even someone that fell asleep in the wheel) with a near crash, many times it would resemble this video. But the outrage from the public differs vastly.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- _jal 5y ago
  Drunks are ordinary because alcohol use predates agriculture. Unpredictable death-robots roaming the streets are pretty novel. I don't think that's very complicated, from a news perspective.
- majormajor 5y ago
  I regularly see "traffic collision kills [person or people]" stories in my local newspaper. I don't know if it's every one, it might be restricted to the extremely stupid (wrong-way on the highway, drunk, or excessively-high-speed) but "someone got killed" is certainly a common story in the news here. I've certainly seen many more local "person dies in car accident" non-brand-related stories than "person dies in Tesla accident" stories.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The point is those stories remain local news, but whenever a Tesla is involved, it becomes national news.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Yes, the societal tolerance of vehicular homicide generally is probably too high. That doesn't mean we need to endorse putting more cars on the road that sporadically act like drunks.

roywiggins 5y ago

There are pretty stringent laws against drunk driving in most places... if Tesla's "self driving" modes are that bad then they should be equally illegal

oneplane 5y ago
A law doesn't prevent anything, it only applies after the fact. You could argue that the prospect of being prosecuted might scare people into not doing the thing that they are not allowed to be doing, but with all the people doing the things they are not allowed to be doing anyway, I doubt a comparative legal argument helps here. You could make a law that states that your FSD has to be at least as good as humans. That means you have the same post-problem verification but now the parallel with drunk drivers can be made.
- oefrha 5y ago
  The key difference is human drivers have independent software, whereas the same software powers all FSD Teslas. One human driver getting drunk/otherwise impaired doesn't affect the software of any other human driver; but if your FSD software is as good as a drunk human, then every single one of your FSD vehicles is a road hazard.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    That difference is also a benefit, fix one problem, and it's fixed for every instance. On the other hand, it's not like the software is always bad and always in the same situation. That is a big difference with a human analogy; a drunk driver taking a trip in the car is drunk for the entire trip (unless it's a very long trip etc..), so would be impaired for the entire duration. There are plenty of people and vehicles that are road hazards and are allowed to drive (or be driven) anyway, so if we really cared about that aspect on its own we could probably do with better tests and rules in general.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Tesla’s “FSD” is only a little bit better than drunk drivers, whom we punish severely whenever caught, even before any accident occurs. The fact that enforcement is patchy is irrelevant — drunk driving is deemed serious enough to be an automatic infraction. Also, most of the time drunk drivers are not actually that bad at moment-to-moment driving. That’s why almost everyone worldwide used to do it! You can still do the basics even when reasonably drunk. That doesn’t make you safe to drive. It’s still incredibly dangerous to do.