4 ms·

> There is no reason the driver needs to be aware of it. If the person operating the vehicle doesn't need to be aware of the difference, then the general publi

> There is no reason the driver needs to be aware of it. If the person operating the vehicle doesn't need to be aware of the difference, then the general public shouldn't need to either when analyzing an accident. It seems baffling to me that we could imagine a scenario where it's less important for the driver of a vehicle to be aware of the difference, than it is for the public when reacting to a news article. I don't think you get to have your cake and eat it. Either there is no relevant distinction, in which case the "well actually" response that "it's not FSD" seems unnecessary, or the distinction is important, in which case it seems problematic that drivers would be confused about it.

modeless 4y ago
The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do. This is completely different than day-to-day usage of the system. If you believe this was a failure of FSD, then maybe it's evidence we should stop the rollout of FSD or whatever. If it's a failure of Autopilot, then it is not evidence about the future behavior of FSD at all. FSD is a complete rewrite of Autopilot and is planned to soon replace it entirely including for freeway driving.
- watwut 4y ago
  If FSD automatically turns into autopilot on higways and driver is not supposed to know, then it is fault of SFD.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do. I guess I just didn't take that away from this article at all. It seemed like a more general complaint about Level 2 automation using this instance of a crash with FSD/Autopilot as an example. The distinction seems, to me, relatively irrelevant to the main point of the article. A key paragraph for me was this one: > While, yes, Tesla’s system was the particular one that appears to have failed here, and yes, the system is deceptively named in a way that encourages this idiotic behavior, this is not a problem unique to Tesla. It’s not a technical problem. You can’t program your way out of the problem with Level 2; in fact, the better the Level 2 system seems to be, the worse the problem gets. That problem is that human beings are simply no good at monitoring systems that do most of the work of a task and remaining ready to take over that task with minimal to no warning. So, I guess I don't see the point in distinguishing between FSD/Autopilot when the thesis of the article isn't specific to Tesla, but rather applies to Level 2 systems across all cars.
gfodor 4y ago
It matters not to the driver or to the general public but to audiences like this one where knowing if a 10+ year old mature system not based on ML did this or a beta, in progress neural network based system did this makes a difference in thinking through the implications of such an error.

modeless 4y ago

The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do. This is completely different than day-to-day usage of the system. If you believe this was a failure of FSD, then maybe it's evidence we should stop the rollout of FSD or whatever. If it's a failure of Autopilot, then it is not evidence about the future behavior of FSD at all. FSD is a complete rewrite of Autopilot and is planned to soon replace it entirely including for freeway driving.

watwut 4y ago
If FSD automatically turns into autopilot on higways and driver is not supposed to know, then it is fault of SFD.
ncallaway 4y ago
> The difference comes when drawing inferences about the future development of Autopilot/FSD as these articles invariably do. I guess I just didn't take that away from this article at all. It seemed like a more general complaint about Level 2 automation using this instance of a crash with FSD/Autopilot as an example. The distinction seems, to me, relatively irrelevant to the main point of the article. A key paragraph for me was this one: > While, yes, Tesla’s system was the particular one that appears to have failed here, and yes, the system is deceptively named in a way that encourages this idiotic behavior, this is not a problem unique to Tesla. It’s not a technical problem. You can’t program your way out of the problem with Level 2; in fact, the better the Level 2 system seems to be, the worse the problem gets. That problem is that human beings are simply no good at monitoring systems that do most of the work of a task and remaining ready to take over that task with minimal to no warning. So, I guess I don't see the point in distinguishing between FSD/Autopilot when the thesis of the article isn't specific to Tesla, but rather applies to Level 2 systems across all cars.

gfodor 4y ago

It matters not to the driver or to the general public but to audiences like this one where knowing if a 10+ year old mature system not based on ML did this or a beta, in progress neural network based system did this makes a difference in thinking through the implications of such an error.