3 ms·

There is a huge difference between goal and actual state. You can't enable FSD Beta without clicking several checkboxes in clear language saying you have to pa

by maxdo 5y ago

There is a huge difference between goal and actual state. You can't enable FSD Beta without clicking several checkboxes in clear language saying you have to pay attention every second on the road, you're responsible for single action of a car on the road. And it provides more restriction on a driver compares to regular driving, such as distraction camera monitor, phone monitor, hands off the wheel etc.. It's so boring to see how trolls have no numbers, no real issues but just trying attack the marketing name/aspirational goal.

MBCook 5y ago
Ooooh. Checkboxes. That will definitely prevent abuse. Even if the Tesla owner is responsible about it, other people could drive the car and they wouldn’t have to agree to anything. They can go nuts. I’ve seen plenty of videos online too. I have no interest in driving next to a car being driven by a crazy AI that seems to have the driving skill of a 13-year-old playing GTA and not know the rules. I don’t have a Tesla. I was forcibly opted into this program. There is nothing to prevent other people from doing stupid and ridiculous things with this system and seriously injuring or killing me. Heck, they can do the right thing. I’ve seen videos were trying to take over control doesn’t seem to work. Where it tries to drive directly in the traffic in the wrong lane. This is insanely dangerous and I want no part of it but I don’t have any mechanism to stop it but to hope regulators do something. Tesla put MY life on the line.
- maxdo 5y ago
  They use eye tracking camera, to prevent you from lookin not on the road, sensors of the wheel, and also checking you're not on the phone. They doing way more compares to any car maker to keep you safe as non owner of the tesla. I guess been so emotional you better stay in your basement until Level 4-5 will become a reality.
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    Tesla added the camera eye tracking very late in the game, just like they didn't add driver hands-off wheel detection and enforcement to autopilot until it had been available quite some time. I think this is one of the issues with Tesla FSD - the company basically has had to be forced to take safety seriously repeatedly and has not done so from the outset.
- Sodman 5y ago
  Similarly, you and I are both forced to share the roads with folks who are impaired in various ways, whether it's declining reflexes, vision, cognitive function - or just straight up drunk driving. As somebody who comes from a country with very strict anti drunk-driving rules (checkpoints randomly on commonly used roads frequently enough to deter it), it blows my mind that I have to share the roads in the US with drivers who think having "just 4 beers" before their 45 minute drive home is fine. Since the US hasn't shown many signs for cracking down on drunk driving, and adding better infrastructure for folks who can no longer drive for various reasons is equally a non-starter at the moment - I'm all in favor of any system that speeds up the arrival of genuinely fully autonomous driving. Tesla hasn't killed or injured anyone using this "FSD beta" program to date, despite a large number of miles driven, so their existing precautions appear to be working. Even in the interim, before we reach fully autonomous driving, "better than the average human driver" is still a huge performance milestone worth aiming for before we start obsessing over "perfect" (Not saying FSD Beta is there yet, but Autopilot on Highways might be).
  - darknavi 5y ago
    > Not saying FSD Beta is there yet, but Autopilot on Highways might be Anecdotally I've found the new FSD Beta a huge leap forward when used like "Autopilot" (basically no destination, drive in a straight line for lane keeping). It understands the roads 500% better than the older builds in terms of lane layout, little or no lines, etc.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    I don't fully understand your argument - are you saying FSD should be tested publicly, because we allow other impaired drivers as well? Wouldn't the solution be to strictly enforce the ban of impaired driving, on the one hand, and test FSD privately using trained supervisors, on the other hand?
    - Sodman 5y ago
      If effectively enforcing the ban on impaired driving was a viable option that was truly on the table then yes, I would 100% be in favor of requiring this testing to happen privately. Breathalyzer for engine start, eye tracking to prevent phone usage (which Tesla has btw), more frequent vision/driving tests, etc would improve road safety significantly. But that's just never going to happen, it's a completely unrealistic scenario that requires a huge culture shift, and would be incredibly unpopular policy. Not to mention the public transport infrastructure that needs to be built to support all of these folks who suddenly are no longer allowed to drive but live in areas where driving is a necessity of everyday life. The demographics who'd be affected hardest by these kinds of changes are also vocal voters with high turnout. Given the state of the public roads now, full of dangerously impaired driver's as it is, we've clearly decided as a society that it's worth the risk to allow this behavior to continue. So in that light, I think it's worth allowing these public tests of autonomous systems under some strict set of rules. I agree these rules shouldn't be exclusively self-enforced by Tesla and co., and there should be some more stringent open transparent reporting requirements around how many systems are active, miles driven, incident reports etc. But with the right controls and oversight in place I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to allow the testing to continue in the spirit of accelerating autonomous driving becoming a reality. It's the impaired drivers that _make_ it more urgent for this system to exist in the first place.
thinkmassive 5y ago
I assume you refer to the invite-only beta with FSD that works on city streets, but Tesla's naming is (intentionally?) very confusing. It would go a long way if Tesla simply renamed the invite-only program to FSD Alpha, and continued referring to "enhanced Autopilot" that's available to everyone for an additional fee as FSD Beta.

by maxdo 5y ago

MBCook 5y ago

Ooooh. Checkboxes. That will definitely prevent abuse. Even if the Tesla owner is responsible about it, other people could drive the car and they wouldn’t have to agree to anything. They can go nuts. I’ve seen plenty of videos online too. I have no interest in driving next to a car being driven by a crazy AI that seems to have the driving skill of a 13-year-old playing GTA and not know the rules. I don’t have a Tesla. I was forcibly opted into this program. There is nothing to prevent other people from doing stupid and ridiculous things with this system and seriously injuring or killing me. Heck, they can do the right thing. I’ve seen videos were trying to take over control doesn’t seem to work. Where it tries to drive directly in the traffic in the wrong lane. This is insanely dangerous and I want no part of it but I don’t have any mechanism to stop it but to hope regulators do something. Tesla put MY life on the line.

maxdo 5y ago
They use eye tracking camera, to prevent you from lookin not on the road, sensors of the wheel, and also checking you're not on the phone. They doing way more compares to any car maker to keep you safe as non owner of the tesla. I guess been so emotional you better stay in your basement until Level 4-5 will become a reality.
- foobiekr 5y ago
  Tesla added the camera eye tracking very late in the game, just like they didn't add driver hands-off wheel detection and enforcement to autopilot until it had been available quite some time. I think this is one of the issues with Tesla FSD - the company basically has had to be forced to take safety seriously repeatedly and has not done so from the outset.
Sodman 5y ago
Similarly, you and I are both forced to share the roads with folks who are impaired in various ways, whether it's declining reflexes, vision, cognitive function - or just straight up drunk driving. As somebody who comes from a country with very strict anti drunk-driving rules (checkpoints randomly on commonly used roads frequently enough to deter it), it blows my mind that I have to share the roads in the US with drivers who think having "just 4 beers" before their 45 minute drive home is fine. Since the US hasn't shown many signs for cracking down on drunk driving, and adding better infrastructure for folks who can no longer drive for various reasons is equally a non-starter at the moment - I'm all in favor of any system that speeds up the arrival of genuinely fully autonomous driving. Tesla hasn't killed or injured anyone using this "FSD beta" program to date, despite a large number of miles driven, so their existing precautions appear to be working. Even in the interim, before we reach fully autonomous driving, "better than the average human driver" is still a huge performance milestone worth aiming for before we start obsessing over "perfect" (Not saying FSD Beta is there yet, but Autopilot on Highways might be).
- darknavi 5y ago
  > Not saying FSD Beta is there yet, but Autopilot on Highways might be Anecdotally I've found the new FSD Beta a huge leap forward when used like "Autopilot" (basically no destination, drive in a straight line for lane keeping). It understands the roads 500% better than the older builds in terms of lane layout, little or no lines, etc.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I don't fully understand your argument - are you saying FSD should be tested publicly, because we allow other impaired drivers as well? Wouldn't the solution be to strictly enforce the ban of impaired driving, on the one hand, and test FSD privately using trained supervisors, on the other hand?
  - Sodman 5y ago
    If effectively enforcing the ban on impaired driving was a viable option that was truly on the table then yes, I would 100% be in favor of requiring this testing to happen privately. Breathalyzer for engine start, eye tracking to prevent phone usage (which Tesla has btw), more frequent vision/driving tests, etc would improve road safety significantly. But that's just never going to happen, it's a completely unrealistic scenario that requires a huge culture shift, and would be incredibly unpopular policy. Not to mention the public transport infrastructure that needs to be built to support all of these folks who suddenly are no longer allowed to drive but live in areas where driving is a necessity of everyday life. The demographics who'd be affected hardest by these kinds of changes are also vocal voters with high turnout. Given the state of the public roads now, full of dangerously impaired driver's as it is, we've clearly decided as a society that it's worth the risk to allow this behavior to continue. So in that light, I think it's worth allowing these public tests of autonomous systems under some strict set of rules. I agree these rules shouldn't be exclusively self-enforced by Tesla and co., and there should be some more stringent open transparent reporting requirements around how many systems are active, miles driven, incident reports etc. But with the right controls and oversight in place I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to allow the testing to continue in the spirit of accelerating autonomous driving becoming a reality. It's the impaired drivers that _make_ it more urgent for this system to exist in the first place.

thinkmassive 5y ago

I assume you refer to the invite-only beta with FSD that works on city streets, but Tesla's naming is (intentionally?) very confusing. It would go a long way if Tesla simply renamed the invite-only program to FSD Alpha, and continued referring to "enhanced Autopilot" that's available to everyone for an additional fee as FSD Beta.