5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      > Who is liable for the mistakes FSD makes? Who goes to jail if it runs down a pedestrian by mistake? Elon? The driver? Yup. The driver. Aside from image, there appears to be few if any incentives for FSD to improve beyond the “it does the right thing 80% of the time” mark.
      - kukx 5y ago
        > there appears to be few if any incentives for FSD to improve beyond... I think it is simply not true. Creating a FSD that could replace human drivers eg in case of trucks is potentially highly lucrative and it would make the economy more efficient.
        cozzyd 5y ago
        So... A train?
        perryizgr8 5y ago
        No, a truck.
alamortsubite 5y ago
Perhaps, though, there should be some minimum bar before we allow testing on public roads. The Tesla FSD beta videos I've seen thus far are truly alarming. The system is nowhere near ready for testing in the real world, where it poses significant danger to many innocent bystanders.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives But that doesn’t mean that tesla will save lives. Maybe they do a bunch of this and learn that cameras alone aren’t sufficient, and then waymo wins. Tesla wouldn’t have saved any lives, only killed a couple people unnecessarily. Medicine is the classic example of applying this kind of thinking. You could do all sorts of unethical medical testing to speed up medical research, saving countless lives down the line, but we don’t because it doesn’t make it right. With another medical example, you could roll out snake oil without testing it thoroughly because it’ll save lives if it works. But maybe snake oil doesn’t work, and it’ll be some other thing that works, and by rushing the snake oil, you just made things worse.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >Medicine is the classic example of applying this kind of thinking. You could do all sorts of unethical medical testing to speed up medical research, saving countless lives down the line, but we don’t because it doesn’t make it right. Bringing up medicine for your stance might back fire. There are tactical examples where policies to "go slow and reduce risk" have cost lives. For example, testing some medicine on pregnant women is bad for the fetus - so there are policies to "not test on anyone who might be pregnant", and as a result, there are few studies on women between the ages of 20 - 80, and women's health has suffered as a result
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    The point isn’t “go slow.” The points are “this area of ethics is well studied and much more complex than ‘wild west research saves more lives’” as well as “society has rejected this particular form of utilitarianism.”
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    There's a lot more examples from medicine where "move fast and break stuff" has cost lives and compromised public trust.
pengaru 5y ago
I find it hard to believe Tesla has remotely exhausted their "dry-run" training options considering how much like a drunken 8 year old their cars behave on FSD. The FSD AI shouldn't be connected to the real-world controls until it very rarely substantially deviates from what the human drivers do in their cars while controlling a virtual car from the real-world sensor inputs. And in those cases where it deviates, the devs should manually dig in and run to ground if it would have hit something/someone/broken the law. Not until that list of cases stops growing, particularly in your dense urban areas full of edge cases, do you even start considering linking up the real car. From what I'm seeing they're instead turning Tesla drivers into training supervisors with the real-world serving as the virtual one, while putting everyone else on/near roads at risk. It's criminal, and I expect consequences. It's already illegal to let a child steer from your lap, and that's without even handing over the pedals. People operating "FSD Beta" on public roads should be at least as liable, where are the authorities and enforcement?
AlexandrB 5y ago
> One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives Continuing this line of logic, the most advanced FSD would save the most lives. Thus the argument could be made that Tesla should abandon their research and license Waymo FSD.

by kukx 5y ago

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.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    > Who is liable for the mistakes FSD makes? Who goes to jail if it runs down a pedestrian by mistake? Elon? The driver? Yup. The driver. Aside from image, there appears to be few if any incentives for FSD to improve beyond the “it does the right thing 80% of the time” mark.
    - kukx 5y ago
      > there appears to be few if any incentives for FSD to improve beyond... I think it is simply not true. Creating a FSD that could replace human drivers eg in case of trucks is potentially highly lucrative and it would make the economy more efficient.
      - cozzyd 5y ago
        So... A train?
        perryizgr8 5y ago
        No, a truck.

alamortsubite 5y ago

Perhaps, though, there should be some minimum bar before we allow testing on public roads. The Tesla FSD beta videos I've seen thus far are truly alarming. The system is nowhere near ready for testing in the real world, where it poses significant danger to many innocent bystanders.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

> One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives But that doesn’t mean that tesla will save lives. Maybe they do a bunch of this and learn that cameras alone aren’t sufficient, and then waymo wins. Tesla wouldn’t have saved any lives, only killed a couple people unnecessarily. Medicine is the classic example of applying this kind of thinking. You could do all sorts of unethical medical testing to speed up medical research, saving countless lives down the line, but we don’t because it doesn’t make it right. With another medical example, you could roll out snake oil without testing it thoroughly because it’ll save lives if it works. But maybe snake oil doesn’t work, and it’ll be some other thing that works, and by rushing the snake oil, you just made things worse.

geoduck14 5y ago
>Medicine is the classic example of applying this kind of thinking. You could do all sorts of unethical medical testing to speed up medical research, saving countless lives down the line, but we don’t because it doesn’t make it right. Bringing up medicine for your stance might back fire. There are tactical examples where policies to "go slow and reduce risk" have cost lives. For example, testing some medicine on pregnant women is bad for the fetus - so there are policies to "not test on anyone who might be pregnant", and as a result, there are few studies on women between the ages of 20 - 80, and women's health has suffered as a result
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  The point isn’t “go slow.” The points are “this area of ethics is well studied and much more complex than ‘wild west research saves more lives’” as well as “society has rejected this particular form of utilitarianism.”
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
- lamontcg 5y ago
  There's a lot more examples from medicine where "move fast and break stuff" has cost lives and compromised public trust.

pengaru 5y ago

I find it hard to believe Tesla has remotely exhausted their "dry-run" training options considering how much like a drunken 8 year old their cars behave on FSD. The FSD AI shouldn't be connected to the real-world controls until it very rarely substantially deviates from what the human drivers do in their cars while controlling a virtual car from the real-world sensor inputs. And in those cases where it deviates, the devs should manually dig in and run to ground if it would have hit something/someone/broken the law. Not until that list of cases stops growing, particularly in your dense urban areas full of edge cases, do you even start considering linking up the real car. From what I'm seeing they're instead turning Tesla drivers into training supervisors with the real-world serving as the virtual one, while putting everyone else on/near roads at risk. It's criminal, and I expect consequences. It's already illegal to let a child steer from your lap, and that's without even handing over the pedals. People operating "FSD Beta" on public roads should be at least as liable, where are the authorities and enforcement?

AlexandrB 5y ago

> One of the potential benefits of FSD is that it will save lives Continuing this line of logic, the most advanced FSD would save the most lives. Thus the argument could be made that Tesla should abandon their research and license Waymo FSD.