4 ms·

I'm not sure exactly your point. The Tesla does sometimes require intervention, that's why it's Level 2. But it's still attempting to drive in significantly mor

by wilg 3y ago

I'm not sure exactly your point. The Tesla does sometimes require intervention, that's why it's Level 2. But it's still attempting to drive in significantly more complicated situations than this Drive Pilot thing. Does Drive Pilot stop at stoplights or make turns? I don't think so. Regarding deceptive editing, plenty of people post their Teslas doing squirrely things and them intervening. So it's not like a secret that sometimes you have to intervene.

belter 3y ago
Look at is happening at this point, another additional failure mode, not seen in the links I posted before https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=272 https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=272 See how is confusing the speed limit for cars and trucks, and doing a sudden break. More precisely, at 5:12. So if you have car driving behind you, not expecting the sudden break, this could cause an accident. They are joking with people lives. Ethics matter in Software Engineering.
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  FYI: Not unique to Tesla, I get plenty of sudden slowdowns when riding Cruise.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Attempting and failing is clearly, clearly worse for the general public and in my opinion Tesla should be strictly liable.
- wilg 3y ago
  It's not necessarily worse, since there is a person driving the car who can prevent the car from behaving badly. What's the safety difference between this and a regular cruise control, which will happily plow you into a wall or car if you don't intervene? And, empirically, there's no evidence that these cars are less safe when driving this way. Tesla claims people driving with FSD enabled have 4x fewer accidents than those driving without it, and nobody has presented any data that disputes that.
  - belter 3y ago
    "Tesla Again Paints A Crash Data Story That Misleads Many Readers" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-again-paints-a-very-misleading-story-with-their-crash-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-... "...Several attempts have been made to reach out to Tesla for comment over the years since these numbers first started coming out, however, Tesla closed its press relations office and no longer responds to press inquiries..."
    - wilg 3y ago
      This critique of their impact report (I was referring to a more recent statement) only goes as far as saying FSD beta is equally safe to humans driving, not worse, which seems perfectly acceptable?
      - avereveard 3y ago
        Depends on the average of human driver. Especially if the average includes motorbikes. Saying fsd on tela has the same statistic than the general driver population prints a grim picture, as it puts it in a strictly worse performance than peers vehicles (SUV or saloons depending on the model)
  - Veserv 3y ago
    You do not get to assume safety in a safety-critical system, period. The burden of proof lies with the entity trying to release a dangerous product to prove that it is safe, not demand everybody else to prove that it is unsafe. The entire argument that there is no evidence that it is unsafe and thus it is okay is wrong to its very foundation. It is such a bad argument that a licensed engineer would stand a good chance of literally losing their license if they advocated such a safety-regressive position. Whoever you heard that from who is actively actually promulgating such inane logic is completely unqualified to talk about safety-critical systems engineering and should be completely ignored.
    - wilg 3y ago
adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago
We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- samr71 3y ago
  "We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes" - how? You know this? "reckless" "untrained fanboys" "defective software" - what is this tone? Why is it reckless? Why do the fanboys need training? Why do you think the software is defective? These are significant unjustified claims! To me, it seems each company has a different strategy for self-driving, which aren't directly comparable. Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though.
  - adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago
    >how? You know this? California seems to think so. >Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though. Then why is Tesla the only company doing it? Mercedes has an L3 system shipping today and they didn't see any need to endanger my life to build it.
    - wilg 3y ago
      Mercedes' system does not do most of the things Tesla's does, right? Such as stop at stoplights or make turns, or do anything at all off-highway. It's a significantly different product, and since they didn't try to do many of the things Tesla is trying to do, it's pretty difficult to claim that those things aren't necessary because Mercedes didn't do them, when they haven't even attempted to deliver the same feature.

by wilg 3y ago

belter 3y ago

Look at is happening at this point, another additional failure mode, not seen in the links I posted before https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=272 https://youtu.be/WowhH_Xry9s?t=272 See how is confusing the speed limit for cars and trucks, and doing a sudden break. More precisely, at 5:12. So if you have car driving behind you, not expecting the sudden break, this could cause an accident. They are joking with people lives. Ethics matter in Software Engineering.

iknowstuff 3y ago
FYI: Not unique to Tesla, I get plenty of sudden slowdowns when riding Cruise.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

Attempting and failing is clearly, clearly worse for the general public and in my opinion Tesla should be strictly liable.

wilg 3y ago
It's not necessarily worse, since there is a person driving the car who can prevent the car from behaving badly. What's the safety difference between this and a regular cruise control, which will happily plow you into a wall or car if you don't intervene? And, empirically, there's no evidence that these cars are less safe when driving this way. Tesla claims people driving with FSD enabled have 4x fewer accidents than those driving without it, and nobody has presented any data that disputes that.
- belter 3y ago
  "Tesla Again Paints A Crash Data Story That Misleads Many Readers" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-again-paints-a-very-misleading-story-with-their-crash-data/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/04/26/tesla-... "...Several attempts have been made to reach out to Tesla for comment over the years since these numbers first started coming out, however, Tesla closed its press relations office and no longer responds to press inquiries..."
  - wilg 3y ago
    This critique of their impact report (I was referring to a more recent statement) only goes as far as saying FSD beta is equally safe to humans driving, not worse, which seems perfectly acceptable?
    - avereveard 3y ago
      Depends on the average of human driver. Especially if the average includes motorbikes. Saying fsd on tela has the same statistic than the general driver population prints a grim picture, as it puts it in a strictly worse performance than peers vehicles (SUV or saloons depending on the model)
- Veserv 3y ago
  You do not get to assume safety in a safety-critical system, period. The burden of proof lies with the entity trying to release a dangerous product to prove that it is safe, not demand everybody else to prove that it is unsafe. The entire argument that there is no evidence that it is unsafe and thus it is okay is wrong to its very foundation. It is such a bad argument that a licensed engineer would stand a good chance of literally losing their license if they advocated such a safety-regressive position. Whoever you heard that from who is actively actually promulgating such inane logic is completely unqualified to talk about safety-critical systems engineering and should be completely ignored.
  - wilg 3y ago

adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago

We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
samr71 3y ago
"We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes" - how? You know this? "reckless" "untrained fanboys" "defective software" - what is this tone? Why is it reckless? Why do the fanboys need training? Why do you think the software is defective? These are significant unjustified claims! To me, it seems each company has a different strategy for self-driving, which aren't directly comparable. Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though.
- adsfgiodsnrio 3y ago
  >how? You know this? California seems to think so. >Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though. Then why is Tesla the only company doing it? Mercedes has an L3 system shipping today and they didn't see any need to endanger my life to build it.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Mercedes' system does not do most of the things Tesla's does, right? Such as stop at stoplights or make turns, or do anything at all off-highway. It's a significantly different product, and since they didn't try to do many of the things Tesla is trying to do, it's pretty difficult to claim that those things aren't necessary because Mercedes didn't do them, when they haven't even attempted to deliver the same feature.