9 ms·

It's really strange to me, that we allow this sort of beta testing on public roads. The car is doing multiple things in this video that is problematic with the

by colde 5y ago

It's really strange to me, that we allow this sort of beta testing on public roads. The car is doing multiple things in this video that is problematic with the driver being slow to react in order to see what it ends up doing. This should not be something that is allowed on public roads by end-users, but rather on closed tracks by specialists. If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead.

mindslight 5y ago
This isn't even beta testing, it's closer to development. The driving shown in the video is that of a drunk or texting driver. For at least half of those turns it couldn't even pick a line and stick to it, instead swerving haphazardly as it became more aware of where the lane was. Never mind the constant turns into bus only lanes. I'd love to see municipalities start writing tickets on all the well-documented violations in these videos, citing Tesla itself as the driver.
Salgat 5y ago
As long as the accident rate isn't worse than human driving, I only see this as a good thing towards future safety.
CheezeIt 5y ago
Every day you slow down FSD development with this kind of safetyism, a hundred people die in car accidents (in the USA).
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  So, for the sake of progress, we should let FSD also kill people because people die at the wheel anyway?
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Yes, exactly!
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      Even if it means that a loved one of yours would get run down by one of these, it's ok in the end, because it helped improve some billionaire's beta tech-demo?
      - yumraj 5y ago
        Chuck Norris should know better than to feed the trolls :)
        0des 5y ago
        I appreciate this playful response. Have a good rest of your weekend.
  - ajross 5y ago
    How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? It's not an unanswerable problem, after all. There are 60k+ of these devices on the roads now. If the statistics say it's unsafe, pull it and shut the program down. Do they? If they don't, would you admit that it's probably a good thing to let it continue?
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? We just saw a FSD car run a red light and nearly hit pedestrians if the driver hadn't intervened.
      - ajross 5y ago
        Exactly. Let's measure. Is that rate higher than seen by median cars in the environment? I'd argue no, given how distressingly common that kind of incident is (certainly it's happened to me a bunch of times). But I'm willing to see data. I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". And that seems innumerate to me. Cars fail. We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low.
        ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        >I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low. Failure is not the issue when it comes to Tesla FSD, accountability is. For any mistakes human drivers makes, they have to pay up with money, have their license suspended, or with jail time, depending on the severity of their mistake. You fuck up, you pay the price. That's the contract under which human drivers are allowed on the road. Humans drivers are indeed flawed, but with our law and justice systems, we have accountability to keep those who break the law in check, while allowing freedom for those who respect it. It's one of the pillars of any civilized society. In my country, running a stop sign or a red light means you get your license suspended for a while. When a self driving Tesla does the same mistake, why doesn't Tesla's FSD AI have its "license" suspended as well? That's the issue.
  - 0des 5y ago
    I take it you're the person who answers 'neither' when asked do you send the train left and kill 1 person vs sending it right and killing 100.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      What's the trolley problem have to do with this situation? Are there accidents where death is unavoidable? Yes, they happen every single day, but after the investigations and trials are over, the parties found responsible pay up for those deaths in either money or jail-time, or both. Does that mean we should we allow machines to make deadly mistakes, especially when death IS avoidable? Absolutely not. We sentence humans for such mistakes. Machines (either their operator or their manufacturer) should also have the same liability. Those are two different things which you're trying to spin into a strawman.
      - 0des 5y ago
        Even this response is 'neither' :) I love it. Have a good weekend Chuck /me roundhouse kicks out of the thread
      - Msw242 5y ago
        Right, this is closer to the following scenario: Let's say you are on an overpass above a train, and a very fat man is in front of you. The train, if it isn't stopped, will kill 10 people on the tracks. But, if you push the person in front of the train, it will kill 11 people, and one of those would be you committing homocide. What do you do?
- fassssst 5y ago
  That presupposes that FSD is some major societal advancement.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  If safety is your #1 goal, you should be advocating for busses and trains. Those are infinitely safer than cars, self-driving or otherwise. [edit] Transit is 10x safer than private cars. [1] > The effects extend beyond individual trip choices, too: the report notes that transit-oriented communities are five times safer than auto-oriented communities. Better public transportation contributes to more compact development, which in turn reduces auto-miles traveled and produces safer speeds in those areas. On a national scale, too, the U.S. could make large advances in safety if each American committed to replacing as few as three car trips per month with transit trips. [1] https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-driving-makes-communities-safer-says-new-apta-report/ https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-dr...
  - ajross 5y ago
    Busses and trains are safer than cars, but certainly not infinitely so. Nonetheless the infrastructure we have isn't built for them, and that won't change any time soon. If you want a suburban house with a yard, you need a passenger car. If you want to pick blackberries at the local farm, you need a passenger car. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. By all means, advocate for more transit friendly urban centers. I'm with you. Just don't take away autonomy out of spite. Better cars are still better, even if they're not the solution you want.
    - Volundr 5y ago
      > Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. I'd actually disagree with this stance. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is probably a good thing if we can actually make it safer than human drivers. I've yet to be convinced we are anywhere close to meeting the bar on that if. I assume we will eventually, but I'm not even sure I'll live to see it. It also ignores potential knock on effects, sure in isolation safer cars are better, but the reality is nothing exists in isolation. Could we save more lives if instead of spending the money we are on self-driving cars we instead invested it into our transit systems? As an example of knock on effects, affordable cars feels like an easy win right? Makes travel easier for everyone. But by and large affordable cars are what has allowed suburbs to exist, but there's an argument to be made that urban sprawl is far from ideal and that we'd be better of with denser communities and public transit.
- orev 5y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the last and most crucial point: > If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead. It would be trivial to analyze the data after the fact to see where the AI model diverges from the human driver’s actions, decide which one was right, then implement the correct action. That wouldn’t slow down testing at all, as the only difference is who’s controlling the vehicle. In any beta test, someone still has to analyze the data.
- cheeko1234 5y ago
  Exactly! I expect to see nothing but negativity here regarding this. Making intelligence out of silicon isn't easy. Let the computers learn this way during the transition period, and finally we can remove human drivers from the road. More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. And Tesla makes the safest cars: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating.
  - TomVDB 5y ago
    Making a car that has the highest crash safety rating has nothing to do with the safety of their FSD solution.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    >Tesla makes the safest cars: >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating. That doesn't mean that Telsa makes the safest cars. There are roughly ~100 cars with that rating, and nothing suggests the Model Y is safer than any of the others. It's also important to note that that rating isn't based of real world data such as how often drivers actually crash and hurt other (ex, how often FSD fails), but rather how well the occupant is protected in the event of a crash.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  FSD isn’t a monolith, where speeding up one company gets us to the goal faster. We don’t even know if it’s possible with current tech, let alone with just cameras. Slowing down tesla might be just making a dead end safer. We don’t know, which is why we need safety standards.
kukx 5y ago
It is faster this way. And anyway it would be impossible to simulate the real world scenarios in the synthetic environment. One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives, hence should we go slow about it or take a reasonable risk and get it done. There is a risk in going slow too.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives When does it plan to start doing that? Safety features in cars have come for decades without trying to kill people first. Just ask Volvo. The general non-Tesla-owning public, including pedestrians and cyclists, have not given their consent to be part of Elon's public beta test.
  - kukx 5y ago
    > without trying to kill people Do you suggest that Tesla is trying to kill people? That would be a ridiculous statement. I bet the risk of getting injured by Tesla beta version of FSD is miniscule compared to a risk of getting into accident caused by a human driver. I am not for banning either of them. Even when we get to the point where FSD is much safer than drivers I would be against of banning humans.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >I bet the risk of getting injured by Tesla beta version of FSD is miniscule compared to a risk of getting into accident caused by a human driver. You can bet all you want, but human drivers, as flawed as they may be, are all fully liable by law for any mistakes they make at the wheel and have to pay with money or jail time plus losing their license. Who is liable for the mistakes FSD makes? Who goes to jail if it runs down a pedestrian by mistake? Elon? The driver? Can the FSD loose its license like human drivers can for their mistakes? You can't compare a human drivers to FSD safety when FSD has zero liability in front of the law and all the blame automatically goes to the driver.
      - 5y ago
llampx 5y ago
Move fast, break stuff (literally)
- yumraj 5y ago
  you forgot, kill people
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice i'm willing to make.
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      Good thing it’s not up to you solely
      - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
        That's a quotation from Lord Farquad, the villain in Shrek.
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        It is not up to me at all.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
amelius 5y ago
Yeah, if you look at safety standards in other industries, this is really unacceptable. It should be stopped immediately. Also, why do we allow car manufacturers to test their own software? Shouldn't it be done by a third party? And shouldn't that third party be the only ones allowed to push updates to the car?
- handol 5y ago
  You don't have to look at other industries. Other auto-manufacturers do their testing on test tracks.
  - tscherno 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_mule
  - 0F 5y ago
    And their self driving is miles behind tesla
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      I'd rather my car's safety systems be later to market but proven safe, than early to market and have me and the others around me as unpaid beta testers.
    - salawat 5y ago
      ...Because they weren't daft enough to commit to emplying blackboxes with no means of formal proofing to a safety-critical operation. Musk's approach is a massive public safety no-no. The cost of specifying and proving through trial the capabilities of what Musk is aiming for is the work of several lifetimes. Musk and Tesla just fucking YOLO it, yeeting out OTA's that substantially change the behavior of an ill-tuned system whose behavior can't even be reliably enumerated; and sinking the operational risk in drivers on the road. Sometimes, conspicuous lack of progress is a good thing. It isn't something you necessarily appreciate until you suddenly start having to confront the law of large numbers in a very real and tangible way. Some incremental changes simply are not feasible to take until they are complete. Level 3 automation is one of those...
PinguTS 5y ago
Well said. I agree up to one point, I know that beta software is also tested on public roads in the industry, but only by trained drivers. As of some project I did in the past, I was drivenin in such a car, when I got a lift by a collegue to the meetings. It was about 15 years ago. From outside it was an old model, but inside the electronics where all new.
randyrand 5y ago
“Fake Cities” don’t have nearly enough complexity. I agree they could start there, but you’ll graduate quickly without having learned much. The main question is, are we willing to put people in harms way today for the benefit of future humans? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. Drunk humans are considerably worse than this and are not going away anytime soon. If we can solve self driving just 1 year earlier it’s equivalent to saving 30,000 American lives. Put another way, if you want rules that delay the advancement of self driving driving cars, you're effectively murdering 30,000+ American lives every year.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  > If we can solve self driving just 1 year earlier it’s equivalent to saving 30,000 American lives. That strawman argument works if you completely ban all human drivers the moment we solve self-driving. The big question is, when exactly do we consider self driving solved that it can ban replace drivers? All current evidence points it's very, very far away, if ever.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Uh... You'll never stop running into problems that require a driver to take conttol. Automation is only as reliable as the sum of it's parts. Can't wait to see the first set of failures that prevent automated driving back of defective units under their own power without a human backup option.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >You'll never stop running into problems that require a driver to take conttol. That's pretty much the nail in the FSD coffin.
- Jasper_ 5y ago
  There's no guarantee that computers will end up being any better at driving than humans.
chippiewill 5y ago
I work in the self-driving space. Before I did I was super hype about what Tesla were doing with self-driving and auto-pilot, but once I actually started seriously looking at the safety ramifications of a vehicle driving with these technologies I changed tune really quickly. A massive problem, particularly with the more capable L4 style technologies is you get lulled into a false sense of security because it'll drive a decent amount of distance perfectly fine right up until it doesn't (and it's normally spectacularly bad when it fails). Testing purely on closed track or from simulated analysis only goes so far, you definitely need to do public road testing before you can hand it to end-users. But the driver needs to do advance driver training so that they're more aware of the hazards, they need to always be ready to take over (as with an L3 system, even if you're developing L4), they need to fully understand the capabilities, ODD and behaviour of the software, you need to keep the durations/distances short to avoid driver fatigue and ideally you have a second person in the vehicle to keep them honest. Letting end-consumers use this technology on public roads is insane. It feels to me like the reason Tesla do it is they've boxed themselves into a corner because they've already sold it.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  My main concern is that Tesla will end up poisoning the well in a regulatory sense, and other SDCs that are focused on doing narrow verticals properly will get caught in the crossfire. The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid. But it doesn't follow that allowing Tesla FSD to run red lights is the best way to accelerate the adoption as a whole. If the whole industry was as cautious as Waymo, I think the risk of regulation would be minimal. This is orthogonal to how well done the system is. I am extremely impressed it works as well as it does. But it's not good enough.
  - olliej 5y ago
    > The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid. It would be if self driving Teslas were safer, but the evidence seems to suggest that they crash more often than regular drivers once you control for when it is used.

by colde 5y ago

mindslight 5y ago

This isn't even beta testing, it's closer to development. The driving shown in the video is that of a drunk or texting driver. For at least half of those turns it couldn't even pick a line and stick to it, instead swerving haphazardly as it became more aware of where the lane was. Never mind the constant turns into bus only lanes. I'd love to see municipalities start writing tickets on all the well-documented violations in these videos, citing Tesla itself as the driver.

Salgat 5y ago

As long as the accident rate isn't worse than human driving, I only see this as a good thing towards future safety.

CheezeIt 5y ago

Every day you slow down FSD development with this kind of safetyism, a hundred people die in car accidents (in the USA).

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
So, for the sake of progress, we should let FSD also kill people because people die at the wheel anyway?
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  Yes, exactly!
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    Even if it means that a loved one of yours would get run down by one of these, it's ok in the end, because it helped improve some billionaire's beta tech-demo?
    - yumraj 5y ago
      Chuck Norris should know better than to feed the trolls :)
      - 0des 5y ago
        I appreciate this playful response. Have a good rest of your weekend.
- ajross 5y ago
  How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? It's not an unanswerable problem, after all. There are 60k+ of these devices on the roads now. If the statistics say it's unsafe, pull it and shut the program down. Do they? If they don't, would you admit that it's probably a good thing to let it continue?
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >How about we measure and see if FSD is killing people at all first? We just saw a FSD car run a red light and nearly hit pedestrians if the driver hadn't intervened.
    - ajross 5y ago
      Exactly. Let's measure. Is that rate higher than seen by median cars in the environment? I'd argue no, given how distressingly common that kind of incident is (certainly it's happened to me a bunch of times). But I'm willing to see data. I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". And that seems innumerate to me. Cars fail. We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        >I think where you're going here is toward an assertion that "any failure at all is unacceptable". We're trying to replace a system here that is already fatally (literally!) flawed. The bar is very low. Failure is not the issue when it comes to Tesla FSD, accountability is. For any mistakes human drivers makes, they have to pay up with money, have their license suspended, or with jail time, depending on the severity of their mistake. You fuck up, you pay the price. That's the contract under which human drivers are allowed on the road. Humans drivers are indeed flawed, but with our law and justice systems, we have accountability to keep those who break the law in check, while allowing freedom for those who respect it. It's one of the pillars of any civilized society. In my country, running a stop sign or a red light means you get your license suspended for a while. When a self driving Tesla does the same mistake, why doesn't Tesla's FSD AI have its "license" suspended as well? That's the issue.
- 0des 5y ago
  I take it you're the person who answers 'neither' when asked do you send the train left and kill 1 person vs sending it right and killing 100.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    What's the trolley problem have to do with this situation? Are there accidents where death is unavoidable? Yes, they happen every single day, but after the investigations and trials are over, the parties found responsible pay up for those deaths in either money or jail-time, or both. Does that mean we should we allow machines to make deadly mistakes, especially when death IS avoidable? Absolutely not. We sentence humans for such mistakes. Machines (either their operator or their manufacturer) should also have the same liability. Those are two different things which you're trying to spin into a strawman.
    - 0des 5y ago
      Even this response is 'neither' :) I love it. Have a good weekend Chuck /me roundhouse kicks out of the thread
    - Msw242 5y ago
      Right, this is closer to the following scenario: Let's say you are on an overpass above a train, and a very fat man is in front of you. The train, if it isn't stopped, will kill 10 people on the tracks. But, if you push the person in front of the train, it will kill 11 people, and one of those would be you committing homocide. What do you do?
fassssst 5y ago
That presupposes that FSD is some major societal advancement.
arcticbull 5y ago
If safety is your #1 goal, you should be advocating for busses and trains. Those are infinitely safer than cars, self-driving or otherwise. [edit] Transit is 10x safer than private cars. [1] > The effects extend beyond individual trip choices, too: the report notes that transit-oriented communities are five times safer than auto-oriented communities. Better public transportation contributes to more compact development, which in turn reduces auto-miles traveled and produces safer speeds in those areas. On a national scale, too, the U.S. could make large advances in safety if each American committed to replacing as few as three car trips per month with transit trips. [1] https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-driving-makes-communities-safer-says-new-apta-report/ https://mobilitylab.org/2016/09/08/transit-10-times-safer-dr...
- ajross 5y ago
  Busses and trains are safer than cars, but certainly not infinitely so. Nonetheless the infrastructure we have isn't built for them, and that won't change any time soon. If you want a suburban house with a yard, you need a passenger car. If you want to pick blackberries at the local farm, you need a passenger car. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. By all means, advocate for more transit friendly urban centers. I'm with you. Just don't take away autonomy out of spite. Better cars are still better, even if they're not the solution you want.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    > Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is clearly a good thing. I'd actually disagree with this stance. Making passenger cars safer through autonomy is probably a good thing if we can actually make it safer than human drivers. I've yet to be convinced we are anywhere close to meeting the bar on that if. I assume we will eventually, but I'm not even sure I'll live to see it. It also ignores potential knock on effects, sure in isolation safer cars are better, but the reality is nothing exists in isolation. Could we save more lives if instead of spending the money we are on self-driving cars we instead invested it into our transit systems? As an example of knock on effects, affordable cars feels like an easy win right? Makes travel easier for everyone. But by and large affordable cars are what has allowed suburbs to exist, but there's an argument to be made that urban sprawl is far from ideal and that we'd be better of with denser communities and public transit.
orev 5y ago
You seem to be ignoring the last and most crucial point: > If they want to test it out on public roads, run the analysis and look at whenever it diverges from the drivers decisionmaking instead. It would be trivial to analyze the data after the fact to see where the AI model diverges from the human driver’s actions, decide which one was right, then implement the correct action. That wouldn’t slow down testing at all, as the only difference is who’s controlling the vehicle. In any beta test, someone still has to analyze the data.
cheeko1234 5y ago
Exactly! I expect to see nothing but negativity here regarding this. Making intelligence out of silicon isn't easy. Let the computers learn this way during the transition period, and finally we can remove human drivers from the road. More than 38,000 people die every year in crashes on U.S. roadways. And Tesla makes the safest cars: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating.
- TomVDB 5y ago
  Making a car that has the highest crash safety rating has nothing to do with the safety of their FSD solution.
- Volundr 5y ago
  >Tesla makes the safest cars: >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the main independent organization that conducts crash tests on vehicles in the US, released the result of its latest tests on the Tesla Model Y and confirmed that it achieved the highest possible safety rating. That doesn't mean that Telsa makes the safest cars. There are roughly ~100 cars with that rating, and nothing suggests the Model Y is safer than any of the others. It's also important to note that that rating isn't based of real world data such as how often drivers actually crash and hurt other (ex, how often FSD fails), but rather how well the occupant is protected in the event of a crash.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
FSD isn’t a monolith, where speeding up one company gets us to the goal faster. We don’t even know if it’s possible with current tech, let alone with just cameras. Slowing down tesla might be just making a dead end safer. We don’t know, which is why we need safety standards.

kukx 5y ago

It is faster this way. And anyway it would be impossible to simulate the real world scenarios in the synthetic environment. One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives, hence should we go slow about it or take a reasonable risk and get it done. There is a risk in going slow too.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives When does it plan to start doing that? Safety features in cars have come for decades without trying to kill people first. Just ask Volvo. The general non-Tesla-owning public, including pedestrians and cyclists, have not given their consent to be part of Elon's public beta test.
- kukx 5y ago
  > without trying to kill people Do you suggest that Tesla is trying to kill people? That would be a ridiculous statement. I bet the risk of getting injured by Tesla beta version of FSD is miniscule compared to a risk of getting into accident caused by a human driver. I am not for banning either of them. Even when we get to the point where FSD is much safer than drivers I would be against of banning humans.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >I bet the risk of getting injured by Tesla beta version of FSD is miniscule compared to a risk of getting into accident caused by a human driver. You can bet all you want, but human drivers, as flawed as they may be, are all fully liable by law for any mistakes they make at the wheel and have to pay with money or jail time plus losing their license. Who is liable for the mistakes FSD makes? Who goes to jail if it runs down a pedestrian by mistake? Elon? The driver? Can the FSD loose its license like human drivers can for their mistakes? You can't compare a human drivers to FSD safety when FSD has zero liability in front of the law and all the blame automatically goes to the driver.
    - 5y ago

llampx 5y ago

Move fast, break stuff (literally)

yumraj 5y ago
you forgot, kill people
- lamontcg 5y ago
  some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice i'm willing to make.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Good thing it’s not up to you solely
    - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
      That's a quotation from Lord Farquad, the villain in Shrek.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      It is not up to me at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

amelius 5y ago

Yeah, if you look at safety standards in other industries, this is really unacceptable. It should be stopped immediately. Also, why do we allow car manufacturers to test their own software? Shouldn't it be done by a third party? And shouldn't that third party be the only ones allowed to push updates to the car?

handol 5y ago
You don't have to look at other industries. Other auto-manufacturers do their testing on test tracks.
- tscherno 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_mule
- 0F 5y ago
  And their self driving is miles behind tesla
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    I'd rather my car's safety systems be later to market but proven safe, than early to market and have me and the others around me as unpaid beta testers.
  - salawat 5y ago
    ...Because they weren't daft enough to commit to emplying blackboxes with no means of formal proofing to a safety-critical operation. Musk's approach is a massive public safety no-no. The cost of specifying and proving through trial the capabilities of what Musk is aiming for is the work of several lifetimes. Musk and Tesla just fucking YOLO it, yeeting out OTA's that substantially change the behavior of an ill-tuned system whose behavior can't even be reliably enumerated; and sinking the operational risk in drivers on the road. Sometimes, conspicuous lack of progress is a good thing. It isn't something you necessarily appreciate until you suddenly start having to confront the law of large numbers in a very real and tangible way. Some incremental changes simply are not feasible to take until they are complete. Level 3 automation is one of those...

PinguTS 5y ago

Well said. I agree up to one point, I know that beta software is also tested on public roads in the industry, but only by trained drivers. As of some project I did in the past, I was drivenin in such a car, when I got a lift by a collegue to the meetings. It was about 15 years ago. From outside it was an old model, but inside the electronics where all new.

randyrand 5y ago

“Fake Cities” don’t have nearly enough complexity. I agree they could start there, but you’ll graduate quickly without having learned much. The main question is, are we willing to put people in harms way today for the benefit of future humans? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. Drunk humans are considerably worse than this and are not going away anytime soon. If we can solve self driving just 1 year earlier it’s equivalent to saving 30,000 American lives. Put another way, if you want rules that delay the advancement of self driving driving cars, you're effectively murdering 30,000+ American lives every year.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
> If we can solve self driving just 1 year earlier it’s equivalent to saving 30,000 American lives. That strawman argument works if you completely ban all human drivers the moment we solve self-driving. The big question is, when exactly do we consider self driving solved that it can ban replace drivers? All current evidence points it's very, very far away, if ever.
- salawat 5y ago
  Uh... You'll never stop running into problems that require a driver to take conttol. Automation is only as reliable as the sum of it's parts. Can't wait to see the first set of failures that prevent automated driving back of defective units under their own power without a human backup option.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >You'll never stop running into problems that require a driver to take conttol. That's pretty much the nail in the FSD coffin.
Jasper_ 5y ago
There's no guarantee that computers will end up being any better at driving than humans.

chippiewill 5y ago

I work in the self-driving space. Before I did I was super hype about what Tesla were doing with self-driving and auto-pilot, but once I actually started seriously looking at the safety ramifications of a vehicle driving with these technologies I changed tune really quickly. A massive problem, particularly with the more capable L4 style technologies is you get lulled into a false sense of security because it'll drive a decent amount of distance perfectly fine right up until it doesn't (and it's normally spectacularly bad when it fails). Testing purely on closed track or from simulated analysis only goes so far, you definitely need to do public road testing before you can hand it to end-users. But the driver needs to do advance driver training so that they're more aware of the hazards, they need to always be ready to take over (as with an L3 system, even if you're developing L4), they need to fully understand the capabilities, ODD and behaviour of the software, you need to keep the durations/distances short to avoid driver fatigue and ideally you have a second person in the vehicle to keep them honest. Letting end-consumers use this technology on public roads is insane. It feels to me like the reason Tesla do it is they've boxed themselves into a corner because they've already sold it.

reitzensteinm 5y ago
My main concern is that Tesla will end up poisoning the well in a regulatory sense, and other SDCs that are focused on doing narrow verticals properly will get caught in the crossfire. The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid. But it doesn't follow that allowing Tesla FSD to run red lights is the best way to accelerate the adoption as a whole. If the whole industry was as cautious as Waymo, I think the risk of regulation would be minimal. This is orthogonal to how well done the system is. I am extremely impressed it works as well as it does. But it's not good enough.
- olliej 5y ago
  > The common pro Tesla argument of delaying self driving costing lives is absolutely valid. It would be if self driving Teslas were safer, but the evidence seems to suggest that they crash more often than regular drivers once you control for when it is used.