3 ms·
The training we give drivers on how to operate cars and the failure modes the training prepares for are designed for cars without FSD, though, and I'm not sure
by sho_hn 5y ago
The training we give drivers on how to operate cars and the failure modes the training prepares for are designed for cars without FSD, though, and I'm not sure it adequately prepares drivers to compensate for the possible failure modes of FSD. Especially when those can change from release to release, making it hard to get used in any meaningful sense to the system. This is also a lot more stressful than regular driving and may require better driver condition and more frequent rest.
Unfinished vehicles on the road are nothing new; all companies developing cars move pre-prod hardware across public roads. However it usually requires several levels of additional licenses and special safety driving training and instruction before you're allowed to operate a car that may surprise you by behaving very different from a certified production road car. And regular renewal thereafter.
I think what's unprecedented here is the scale of the pre-prod testing, the type of experimentation being done and how the drivers are selected. And also the degree to which it's designed into the approach of the experimental engineering being done that it must fail to improve (by widening the training set). There's enough new here it should be discussed imho.
Side note: German driver's license training now includes some material on assistance systems and how they may behave unreliably and how to prepare for their failure modes ... but of course this doesn't retroactively expose existing license holders. The rate of change in driver-car interaction being so high is also a novum.
- nexuist 5y agoIt is for unprecedented and should be discussed. I just don't buy into the kneejerk reaction of getting this off the roads ASAP when we know drivers use FSD to drive millions of miles a year and accidents are not common at all. It shows that the drivers seem to be responsible enough to keep the tech in check.
- sho_hn 5y agoIt may show that for the drivers who currently have access, but Tesla selects/limits the beta participants based on proprietary "safe driver" scoring that isn't publically documented. So it's the product manufacturer who can turn the accident probability screw here, or could also get it wrong. And I think that gets to the bottom of what makes many people feel uneasy.
- judge2020 5y ago> that isn't publically documented. https://www.tesla.com/support/safety-score https://www.tesla.com/support/safety-score 1. what it uses 2. how it's calculated So far they've let everyone in with a 98 or above, but they come in waves so getting 98 doesn't necessarily mean you'll soon have access.
- sho_hn 5y agoThanks! I didn't know this doc. Only thing I see missing there is changelog so you can see when they adjust the formula or its constants, which they say there should be expected.
- delecti 5y ago> However it usually requires several levels of additional licenses This should be highlighted. I work at another car company, and we're not even allowed to drive the very lightly modified test cars without a special license, and those are essentially production vehicles just with extra debug logging. That extra license requires being CPR certified as well as two separate driving course certifications. The idea that Tesla can push this out to basically anyone who wants it is absolutely absurd.