3 ms·
The actual report is here: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The_Dawn_Project___Tesla_FSD_Test__8_.pdf https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploa
by _ea1k 4y ago
The actual report is here: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The_Dawn_Project___Tesla_FSD_Test__8_.pdf https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The_Dawn_...
It failed to detect a stationary mannequin in one specific scenario. Does this generalize? Does this mean there's a major safety problem? These would be assumptions that this test can not prove.
A comprehensive safety analysis has to also include these scenarios: https://youtu.be/hx7BXih7zx8?t=205 https://youtu.be/hx7BXih7zx8?t=205
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago> demonstrated conclusively that the software does not avoid the child or even slow down when the child is in plain view. I can't fugure out the "even slow down" claim when the car goes from 40 to 25mph by itself?
- asdajksah2123 4y agoThey are saying that it slowed down to 25mph as a consequence of being placed into FSD mode. But it did not slow down anywhere near the mannequin, and even sped up a little bit when hitting the mannequin in 1 trial.
- hgomersall 4y agoI think the question is not "does the test generalise?", but "does FSD generalise?", which it emphatically does not.
- _ea1k 4y agoIt always ultimately comes back to safety. How many times has AEB avoided a pedestrian that was not detected by the driver of the vehicle? Is that greater or smaller than the number that were hit by drivers with a false sense of confidence in the software? The Dawn Project test cannot answer such questions. I believe that NHTSA is working on this and related questions across the industry and I expect them to produce a more useful result on their own than what can be produced by single-minded reports like this.
- hgomersall 4y agoNo, it's not a purely single variable optimisation. If this system (and let's be honest, we're just talking about Tesla here) cannot avoid hitting an object that every driver should easily see, then it's not fit for purpose. The reason being that people take action based on certain assumptions about what drivers will do. If a pedestrian steps into a road to cross when an oncoming car had plenty of space to both see and slow, then it's not ever acceptable to hit the pedestrian. This is a normal urban interaction.
- asdajksah2123 4y agoIt couldn't detect a stationary child sized mannequin from over a 100 yards away on a wide open road completely clear of distractions in 3 out of 3 tries. I'm struggling to see how any generalization would not be a much worse scenario.
- fallingknife 4y agoCars don't have a stopping distance of 100 yards until they are going highway speeds. So that doesn't seem like a safety issue as children standing still in the middle of the interstate isn't really something that happens.
- manishsharan 4y ago>> children standing still in the middle of the interstate isn't really something that happens No. But there could be protesters blocking the highway. As annoying as they are, running them over is not an option.
- mcguire 4y agoThe cars in question hit the mannequin. The car was driving in FSD mode for 100 yrds before it hit the mannequin.
- fallingknife 4y agoOk that's different. The way the comment was phrased made it sound like the mannequin wasn't detected until it got to 100 yards distance.
- AareyBaba 4y agoSimilar testing of Tesla on this channel https://youtu.be/p7lp5f0aqzU?t=74 https://youtu.be/p7lp5f0aqzU?t=74 shows it failing badly on simple hazard object scenarios like a chair, wooden pallet, trash can etc. Also when the car does give an alert, it is too late for a human to react.