11 ms·

I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. I've had it since day 1, and oh my god. It behaves worse than a drunk teenager. All the updates sinc

by adoxyz 4y ago

I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. I've had it since day 1, and oh my god. It behaves worse than a drunk teenager. All the updates since, have made it barely better. This needs to be pulled entirely and rethought.

pirate787 4y ago
[flagged]
- ghqst 4y ago
  Yeah so now the driver error can be automated. Great.
- capableweb 4y ago
  The tech might promise to save millions of lives, but if "behaves worse than a drunk teenager" is to be believed, don't you think it's best to wait a bit, if you want to save as many lives as possible?
- elil17 4y ago
  The "self driving" tech that works (e.g. auto braking) is deployed and has saved lives. (Self driving in quotes because it is not really the full promise of self driving.) This Tesla AI does not work well enough in many conditions and is clearly sometimes more dangerous than humans. Just watch videos of people using it - it's obvious that is making unforgivable errors.
  - ajross 4y ago
    Do you have evidence for "clearly more dangerous"? Because what numbers exist say the opposite. They are now pushing a million (!) of these vehicles on US roads and to my knowledge the bay bridge accident[1] is the only example of a significant at fault accident involving the technology. It's very easy to make pronouncements like "one accident is too many", but we all know that's not correct in context. Right? If FSD beta is safer than a human driver it should be encouraged even if not perfect. So... where's the evidence that it's actually less safe? Because no one has it. [1] Which I continue to insist looks a lot more like "confused driver disengaged and stopped" (a routine accident) than "FSD made a wild lane change" (that's not its behavior). Just wait. It took a year before that "autopilot out of control" accident was shown (last week) to be a false report. This will probably be similar.
    - tjohns 4y ago
      Just off the top of my head: - A Tesla near that drive into the median divider near Sunnyvale on Highway 101, because it thought the gore point was an extra lane. Split the car in half and killed the driver. [1] - A Tesla that autonomously ran a red light and killed two people. [2] - Multiple accidents where Teslas have driven into parked emergency vehicles / semi trucks. Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't have that data to say one way or the other. But it's not correct to say the Bay Bridge is the only at fault accident attributable to autopilot. [1]: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/apple-engineer-killed-in-bay-area-tesla-crash-had-complained-about-autopilot/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/apple-engineer-killed-in-ba... [2]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/felony-charges-are-1st-in-a-fatal-crash-involving-autopilot https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/felony-charges-are-1s...
      - ajross 4y ago
        Those are autopilot accidents from before FSD beta was even released. I mean, it's true, that if you broaden the search to "any accident involving Tesla-produced automation technology" you're going to find more signal, but your denominator also shrinks by one (maybe two) orders of magnitude. And it also lets me cite Tesla's own statistics for its autopilot product (again, not FSD beta): https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport These show pretty unequivocally that AP is safer than human drivers, and by a pretty significant margin. So as to: > Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't have that data to say one way or the other. Now you do. So you'll agree with me? I suspect not, and that we'll end up in a long discussion about criticism of that safety report instead [edit: and right on queue...]. That's the way these discussions always go. No one wants to give ground, so they keep citing the same tiny handful of accident data while the cars keep coming off the production line. It's safe. It is not perfect, but it is safe. It just is. You know it's safe. You do.
        Xylakant 4y ago
        This data does not show what it pretends to show. The underlying statistics are heavily skewed in favor of Tesla by various factors: * Autopilot can only be enabled in good conditions and relies on human drivers in all other, to the point of handing over to a human when it gets confused. Yet, they compare to all miles driven in all conditions. * Teslas are comparatively new cars that have - as they proudly point out - a variety of active and passive safety features that make the car inherently less prone to accident than the average, which includes old, beat up cars with outdated safety features. Teslas are also likely to be better maintained than the average car in the US by virtue of being an expensive car driven by people with disposable income. * Teslas are driven by a certain demographic with a certain usage pattern. Yet, they provide no indicator on how that skews the data. Tesla could likely provide a better picture by comparing their data with cars in the same age and price bracket, used by a similar demographic, in similar conditions. They could also model how much of the alleged safety benefit is due to the usual, active and passive safety features (brake assistance, lane assist, …). They don‘t, and as such, the entire report is useless or worse, misleading.
- adoxyz 4y ago
  The Tesla tech is not ready and is deployed haphazardly. Google and other companies are approaching self-driving in a much safer way while still having tremendous progress.
  - worik 4y ago
    > Google and other companies are approaching self-driving in a much safer way while still having tremendous progress. Are they really? It looks like they have got the timeless problem of "the last big(s)". This time it is safety critical.
- saboot 4y ago
  I'm really struck at how this comment has no consideration of the quality or accuracy of current FSD technology. Also, public transit would do the same.
  - adwn 4y ago
    > Also, public transit would do the same. Does public transit pick me up at my front door and drop me off at any location I choose? Does public transit take of the minute I leave the house? Is public transit available 24/7, even in remote areas? Does public transit wait for me to load 2 kids, a dog, 4 suit cases, and various bags, blankets, and toys? Does public transit turn around after 2 minutes, bring me back, and wait for 30 seconds because I forgot my wallet on the kitchen counter? Will public transit still work during a public transit strike? (yes, this actually happens over here in Europe) No? Well, then you can hardly claim that "public transit would do the same" as a self-driving car.
    - saboot 4y ago
      Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have free roam then. Current state of technology and failures be damned
      - adwn 4y ago
        > Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have free roam then. Current state of technology and failures be damned That's not what I'm saying at all. Please read again.
        saboot 4y ago
        I was specifically referring to "do the same" as in reducing the number of auto accidents, which the parent comment I replied to mentioned. Is that the source of confusion?
        adwn 4y ago
- smachiz 4y ago
  I would be glad it was out there if it was aggressively marketed as a drivers assistant feature, not as a self-driving capability.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    Even "Auto Pilot" is a poor name, given it's pretty much just the same suite of safety features offered by others (many of which are superior given they still have LIDAR and USS)
- alex_duf 4y ago
  I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car deaths go with the same budget? How about better public transit, encouraging people to use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding infrastructure, etc.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car deaths go with the same budget? Far, far, far wider. Reducing road deaths is a pretty well understood, political implementation is the problem. And the simply fact is, reducing road deaths is cheap. Its very cheap. If you want to make it look good, and fancy, its a bit more expensive. But the fact is, we know how to do it, and do it cheaply. Fancy next generation car technology is pretty terrible in terms of investment to return. All you really need is a bunch of paint, and a few concert spectators over various shapes. Pretty much all you have to do is make cars slower, that is by far the most important factor in mixed traffic. There are many ways to achieve this. If you want to get a bit more fancy and technical, you can make dutch intersections: Doing things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection > How about better public transit, encouraging people to use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding infrastructure, etc. How about banning cars from many city centers, or only allowing commercial and people who live there. How about REQUIRING smaller cars. A limit on car size, specially if you want to enter cities.
- breck 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - gg-plz 4y ago
    [flagged]
- bdcravens 4y ago
  How about Tesla allow users in the beta for free then? Shouldn't the logic of waiting apply to Tesla, by charging for something that could save lives?
  - mjmsmith 4y ago
    I’d prefer that Tesla allowed non-users to opt out of the beta.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Tesla is using the same basic technology for security features, many of those features are deployed to all cars. The can and should do that for even more features over time.
LanceJones 4y ago
I beta test regularly in Vancouver BC on my Model S LR. My experience is the polar opposite to yours. It's surprising (on the good side) and has improved immensely in the past 12 months. It does not need to be rethought imo. Obviously your opinion is valid, but it's not consensus.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Yeah I use it all the time in seattle here on my model x. It’s amazing. Sometimes it makes a questionable decision but the vast majority of the time it works as expected. I don’t mind being alert to the driving conditions, and the amount it can do without assistance is remarkable
  - buildbot 4y ago
    I hope I am not next to you when it makes those "questionable" decisions...
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      You think that’s better than the questionable decisions a human makes? When a human makes one who corrects it? With autopilot you face the joint distribution of it and me making a mistake rather than either of us.
jejeyyy77 4y ago
yeah, I don't believe you. I use it every day and have been for over a year and it's been awesome.
- adoxyz 4y ago
  You can believe whatever you want. The reality is that FSD Beta is unsafe and makes the dumbest decisions. Every update I give it a try to see if anything has improved, and usually within the first 30 seconds, I end up turning it off. Autopilot on Freeways works ok for the most part though.
  - abc_lisper 4y ago
    You both could be right. It might depend on the area the car is driven. I guess you are not in the Bay Area?
    - adoxyz 4y ago
      I'm in Las Vegas. The roads are wide, the weather is clear, traffic is low. FSD Beta should work great here. But alas.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrb 4y ago
I have FSD too, and my opinion is that although it takes unsafe actions almost on a daily basis, most of these errors are minor, easily rectified by me the driver, and most of the time it drives just fine, in fact better than a human driver. I witnessed FSD avoiding me a collision by responding faster than I could have by auto-braking when another driver ran a red light. FSD doesn't need to be perfect to avoid accidents. In fact, if it was too perfect I'm afraid I could become very inattentive at the wheel.
- make_it_sure 4y ago
  well, today is cool to hate on any technologies related to musk. Even if you had a good experience, people don't want to believe you.
- vel0city 4y ago
  > easily rectified by me the driver So, not Full Self Driving...
dreamcompiler 4y ago
I have a Tesla and have tried FSD several times (month-to-month plan and loaner cars from Tesla). It's comically bad. Fortunately every time I tried it I was paying very close attention so I stopped it from braking at green lights, trying to turn right from a middle lane, halfway lane changes where it snaps back to the original lane unexpectedly, etc. The regular, included autopilot works pretty well as a smarter cruise control; as long as you use it on a major highway in the daytime in good conditions it does a good job. And it's very useful in stop-and-go traffic on the highway. But the FSD is crap.
- natch 4y ago
  You have never tried FSD. You may have tried FSD beta. Different things entirely.
  - dreamcompiler 4y ago
    Yeah, I was abbreviating. Nobody has tried FSD because it doesn't exist.
ChickenNugger 4y ago
>I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. Fault, distracted, intoxicated human beings are allowed on public roads. The "legal limits" for blood alcohol levels aren't 0.00%.
- julianlam 4y ago
  Interesting... The standards of human drivers is lower than that of FSD, and somehow you think that this is a good reason to justify lowering the standards of FSD.
  - ChickenNugger 4y ago
    Strawman fallacy.
natch 4y ago
You are meant to maintain control of the vehicle at all times with the beta. That’s the only way it could be released in its current state. Looking at it as anything other than a beta where you have to maintain control is misunderstanding what it is. Which you are clearly doing. It is absolutely expected to be worse than a drunk teenager in this stage.
- Doctor_Fegg 4y ago
  I wonder if there’d be so many people eager to pay Tesla $$$ if it were marketed as “Worse Than Drunk Teenager Self Driving”.
  - natch 4y ago
    Haha yeah I doubt it.

by adoxyz 4y ago

pirate787 4y ago

[flagged]

ghqst 4y ago
Yeah so now the driver error can be automated. Great.
capableweb 4y ago
The tech might promise to save millions of lives, but if "behaves worse than a drunk teenager" is to be believed, don't you think it's best to wait a bit, if you want to save as many lives as possible?
elil17 4y ago
The "self driving" tech that works (e.g. auto braking) is deployed and has saved lives. (Self driving in quotes because it is not really the full promise of self driving.) This Tesla AI does not work well enough in many conditions and is clearly sometimes more dangerous than humans. Just watch videos of people using it - it's obvious that is making unforgivable errors.
- ajross 4y ago
  Do you have evidence for "clearly more dangerous"? Because what numbers exist say the opposite. They are now pushing a million (!) of these vehicles on US roads and to my knowledge the bay bridge accident[1] is the only example of a significant at fault accident involving the technology. It's very easy to make pronouncements like "one accident is too many", but we all know that's not correct in context. Right? If FSD beta is safer than a human driver it should be encouraged even if not perfect. So... where's the evidence that it's actually less safe? Because no one has it. [1] Which I continue to insist looks a lot more like "confused driver disengaged and stopped" (a routine accident) than "FSD made a wild lane change" (that's not its behavior). Just wait. It took a year before that "autopilot out of control" accident was shown (last week) to be a false report. This will probably be similar.
  - tjohns 4y ago
    Just off the top of my head: - A Tesla near that drive into the median divider near Sunnyvale on Highway 101, because it thought the gore point was an extra lane. Split the car in half and killed the driver. [1] - A Tesla that autonomously ran a red light and killed two people. [2] - Multiple accidents where Teslas have driven into parked emergency vehicles / semi trucks. Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't have that data to say one way or the other. But it's not correct to say the Bay Bridge is the only at fault accident attributable to autopilot. [1]: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/apple-engineer-killed-in-bay-area-tesla-crash-had-complained-about-autopilot/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/apple-engineer-killed-in-ba... [2]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/felony-charges-are-1st-in-a-fatal-crash-involving-autopilot https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/felony-charges-are-1s...
    - ajross 4y ago
      Those are autopilot accidents from before FSD beta was even released. I mean, it's true, that if you broaden the search to "any accident involving Tesla-produced automation technology" you're going to find more signal, but your denominator also shrinks by one (maybe two) orders of magnitude. And it also lets me cite Tesla's own statistics for its autopilot product (again, not FSD beta): https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport These show pretty unequivocally that AP is safer than human drivers, and by a pretty significant margin. So as to: > Is it quantitatively safer than human drivers? I don't have that data to say one way or the other. Now you do. So you'll agree with me? I suspect not, and that we'll end up in a long discussion about criticism of that safety report instead [edit: and right on queue...]. That's the way these discussions always go. No one wants to give ground, so they keep citing the same tiny handful of accident data while the cars keep coming off the production line. It's safe. It is not perfect, but it is safe. It just is. You know it's safe. You do.
      - Xylakant 4y ago
        This data does not show what it pretends to show. The underlying statistics are heavily skewed in favor of Tesla by various factors: * Autopilot can only be enabled in good conditions and relies on human drivers in all other, to the point of handing over to a human when it gets confused. Yet, they compare to all miles driven in all conditions. * Teslas are comparatively new cars that have - as they proudly point out - a variety of active and passive safety features that make the car inherently less prone to accident than the average, which includes old, beat up cars with outdated safety features. Teslas are also likely to be better maintained than the average car in the US by virtue of being an expensive car driven by people with disposable income. * Teslas are driven by a certain demographic with a certain usage pattern. Yet, they provide no indicator on how that skews the data. Tesla could likely provide a better picture by comparing their data with cars in the same age and price bracket, used by a similar demographic, in similar conditions. They could also model how much of the alleged safety benefit is due to the usual, active and passive safety features (brake assistance, lane assist, …). They don‘t, and as such, the entire report is useless or worse, misleading.
adoxyz 4y ago
The Tesla tech is not ready and is deployed haphazardly. Google and other companies are approaching self-driving in a much safer way while still having tremendous progress.
- worik 4y ago
  > Google and other companies are approaching self-driving in a much safer way while still having tremendous progress. Are they really? It looks like they have got the timeless problem of "the last big(s)". This time it is safety critical.
saboot 4y ago
I'm really struck at how this comment has no consideration of the quality or accuracy of current FSD technology. Also, public transit would do the same.
- adwn 4y ago
  > Also, public transit would do the same. Does public transit pick me up at my front door and drop me off at any location I choose? Does public transit take of the minute I leave the house? Is public transit available 24/7, even in remote areas? Does public transit wait for me to load 2 kids, a dog, 4 suit cases, and various bags, blankets, and toys? Does public transit turn around after 2 minutes, bring me back, and wait for 30 seconds because I forgot my wallet on the kitchen counter? Will public transit still work during a public transit strike? (yes, this actually happens over here in Europe) No? Well, then you can hardly claim that "public transit would do the same" as a self-driving car.
  - saboot 4y ago
    Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have free roam then. Current state of technology and failures be damned
    - adwn 4y ago
      > Then by all means lets let the self driving cars have free roam then. Current state of technology and failures be damned That's not what I'm saying at all. Please read again.
      - saboot 4y ago
        I was specifically referring to "do the same" as in reducing the number of auto accidents, which the parent comment I replied to mentioned. Is that the source of confusion?
        adwn 4y ago
smachiz 4y ago
I would be glad it was out there if it was aggressively marketed as a drivers assistant feature, not as a self-driving capability.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  Even "Auto Pilot" is a poor name, given it's pretty much just the same suite of safety features offered by others (many of which are superior given they still have LIDAR and USS)
alex_duf 4y ago
I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car deaths go with the same budget? How about better public transit, encouraging people to use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding infrastructure, etc.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > I wonder how far would other solutions to reduce road car deaths go with the same budget? Far, far, far wider. Reducing road deaths is a pretty well understood, political implementation is the problem. And the simply fact is, reducing road deaths is cheap. Its very cheap. If you want to make it look good, and fancy, its a bit more expensive. But the fact is, we know how to do it, and do it cheaply. Fancy next generation car technology is pretty terrible in terms of investment to return. All you really need is a bunch of paint, and a few concert spectators over various shapes. Pretty much all you have to do is make cars slower, that is by far the most important factor in mixed traffic. There are many ways to achieve this. If you want to get a bit more fancy and technical, you can make dutch intersections: Doing things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection > How about better public transit, encouraging people to use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding infrastructure, etc. How about banning cars from many city centers, or only allowing commercial and people who live there. How about REQUIRING smaller cars. A limit on car size, specially if you want to enter cities.
breck 4y ago
[flagged]
- gg-plz 4y ago
  [flagged]
bdcravens 4y ago
How about Tesla allow users in the beta for free then? Shouldn't the logic of waiting apply to Tesla, by charging for something that could save lives?
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  I’d prefer that Tesla allowed non-users to opt out of the beta.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Tesla is using the same basic technology for security features, many of those features are deployed to all cars. The can and should do that for even more features over time.

LanceJones 4y ago

I beta test regularly in Vancouver BC on my Model S LR. My experience is the polar opposite to yours. It's surprising (on the good side) and has improved immensely in the past 12 months. It does not need to be rethought imo. Obviously your opinion is valid, but it's not consensus.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
Yeah I use it all the time in seattle here on my model x. It’s amazing. Sometimes it makes a questionable decision but the vast majority of the time it works as expected. I don’t mind being alert to the driving conditions, and the amount it can do without assistance is remarkable
- buildbot 4y ago
  I hope I am not next to you when it makes those "questionable" decisions...
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    You think that’s better than the questionable decisions a human makes? When a human makes one who corrects it? With autopilot you face the joint distribution of it and me making a mistake rather than either of us.

jejeyyy77 4y ago

yeah, I don't believe you. I use it every day and have been for over a year and it's been awesome.

adoxyz 4y ago
You can believe whatever you want. The reality is that FSD Beta is unsafe and makes the dumbest decisions. Every update I give it a try to see if anything has improved, and usually within the first 30 seconds, I end up turning it off. Autopilot on Freeways works ok for the most part though.
- abc_lisper 4y ago
  You both could be right. It might depend on the area the car is driven. I guess you are not in the Bay Area?
  - adoxyz 4y ago
    I'm in Las Vegas. The roads are wide, the weather is clear, traffic is low. FSD Beta should work great here. But alas.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrb 4y ago

I have FSD too, and my opinion is that although it takes unsafe actions almost on a daily basis, most of these errors are minor, easily rectified by me the driver, and most of the time it drives just fine, in fact better than a human driver. I witnessed FSD avoiding me a collision by responding faster than I could have by auto-braking when another driver ran a red light. FSD doesn't need to be perfect to avoid accidents. In fact, if it was too perfect I'm afraid I could become very inattentive at the wheel.

make_it_sure 4y ago
well, today is cool to hate on any technologies related to musk. Even if you had a good experience, people don't want to believe you.
vel0city 4y ago
> easily rectified by me the driver So, not Full Self Driving...

dreamcompiler 4y ago

I have a Tesla and have tried FSD several times (month-to-month plan and loaner cars from Tesla). It's comically bad. Fortunately every time I tried it I was paying very close attention so I stopped it from braking at green lights, trying to turn right from a middle lane, halfway lane changes where it snaps back to the original lane unexpectedly, etc. The regular, included autopilot works pretty well as a smarter cruise control; as long as you use it on a major highway in the daytime in good conditions it does a good job. And it's very useful in stop-and-go traffic on the highway. But the FSD is crap.

natch 4y ago
You have never tried FSD. You may have tried FSD beta. Different things entirely.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  Yeah, I was abbreviating. Nobody has tried FSD because it doesn't exist.

ChickenNugger 4y ago

>I still can't believe FSD Beta was allowed on public roads. Fault, distracted, intoxicated human beings are allowed on public roads. The "legal limits" for blood alcohol levels aren't 0.00%.

julianlam 4y ago
Interesting... The standards of human drivers is lower than that of FSD, and somehow you think that this is a good reason to justify lowering the standards of FSD.
- ChickenNugger 4y ago
  Strawman fallacy.

natch 4y ago

You are meant to maintain control of the vehicle at all times with the beta. That’s the only way it could be released in its current state. Looking at it as anything other than a beta where you have to maintain control is misunderstanding what it is. Which you are clearly doing. It is absolutely expected to be worse than a drunk teenager in this stage.

Doctor_Fegg 4y ago
I wonder if there’d be so many people eager to pay Tesla $$$ if it were marketed as “Worse Than Drunk Teenager Self Driving”.
- natch 4y ago
  Haha yeah I doubt it.