4 ms·

Worrying about it being a “beta” is nonsensical. It’s a hands-on driver-assistance system available to the general public and its safety should be evaluated thu

by wilg 3y ago

Worrying about it being a “beta” is nonsensical. It’s a hands-on driver-assistance system available to the general public and its safety should be evaluated thusly. The word “beta” is meaningless from a safety perspective and is essentially just advertising that the system’s ultimate goal is to be driverless. Also, we don’t use affirmative consent for vehicle regulations, because that’s silly. Instead, you are able to weigh in via the normal mechanism of a democracy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaomidi 3y ago
Something like this should be up for a referendum. We have seriously a lot more major and pressing problems. No one is picking and choosing representatives based on how they feel about beta testing software with the general public. Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHTSA rightfully bans large scale operations of this software until overwhelming evidence of it being “safer than humans” have been given. This also includes fully disclosing the source and training material used to the NHTSA.
- scotty79 3y ago
  > Something like this should be up for a referendum. That would only increase the cost of achieving agreement by necessitating the purchase of adverts before referendum. It was sold as miraculous. People bought into something they were told is miraculous. They would surely slso vote for the miraculous thing to be allowed.
taskforcegemini 3y ago
beta means it's not yet ready for production, and the question is why this beta grade software is being used in production (on street with real people vs only in development environments) where it time and time again hurts and kills people. there is numerous people on hn saying that driving assistance almost killed them but they reacted in time. I don't see if/how those instances could be reported, but obviosly the failure rates could therefore be a lot higher. high beam assistance should be an easy problem to solve compared to full self driving, yet I turn it off because it's not good enough/blinds oncoming traffic. imho there should be estrictions to only specific areas/roads for testing, or fsd cars should only be allowed at much lower speed limits.

by wilg 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaomidi 3y ago

Something like this should be up for a referendum. We have seriously a lot more major and pressing problems. No one is picking and choosing representatives based on how they feel about beta testing software with the general public. Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHTSA rightfully bans large scale operations of this software until overwhelming evidence of it being “safer than humans” have been given. This also includes fully disclosing the source and training material used to the NHTSA.

scotty79 3y ago
> Something like this should be up for a referendum. That would only increase the cost of achieving agreement by necessitating the purchase of adverts before referendum. It was sold as miraculous. People bought into something they were told is miraculous. They would surely slso vote for the miraculous thing to be allowed.

taskforcegemini 3y ago

beta means it's not yet ready for production, and the question is why this beta grade software is being used in production (on street with real people vs only in development environments) where it time and time again hurts and kills people. there is numerous people on hn saying that driving assistance almost killed them but they reacted in time. I don't see if/how those instances could be reported, but obviosly the failure rates could therefore be a lot higher. high beam assistance should be an easy problem to solve compared to full self driving, yet I turn it off because it's not good enough/blinds oncoming traffic. imho there should be estrictions to only specific areas/roads for testing, or fsd cars should only be allowed at much lower speed limits.