8 ms·

Hacked Tesla FSD computers disclose alarming raw data on deadly accidents

48 points by bulla 2y ago

RockRobotRock 2y ago
Tesla FSD 12.5.1 patch notes: * Fixed a bug where telemetry wasn't wiped after a crash * Various fixes and improvements
- polotics 2y ago
  Wow the developer with their name on that commit message must be contacting a lawyer right about this second...
  - manuelmoreale 2y ago
    I assume it was a joke comment but you never know.
    - danans 2y ago
      If it's a joke it's not funny, and speaks volumes about Tesla's attitude toward safety and accountability. If it's not a joke it seems like something that should be prevented by regulators. It would be no different than airplanes wiping their flight data recorders after a crash.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        It's not a joke code comment, the HN comment was a joke.
        danans 2y ago
        Then the HN comment should have disclaimed it as such. I'm no Tesla FSD fan, but given the disregard Musk has demonstrated for safety, it's not cool to joke about things that could plausibly be true.
        RockRobotRock 2y ago
        I apologize. I thought it was obvious that I was joking.
        danans 2y ago
        I also apologize for jumping to the conclusion that it wasn't a joke. Perhaps if we lived in a less edge-lord dominated tech media landscape, the comedy would be more easily discernible from reality!
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Zigurd 2y ago
        It's couch-level hilarious
mysterydip 2y ago
> The system didn't know what this was, so it smashed at full speed into the trailer. I feel like this will be a never-ending battle with a camera-based system. There will always be some visual situation not seen before. Shouldn't the default behavior be to slow/stop or throw up its metaphorical hands and release control back to the driver?
- k_bx 2y ago
  Adding a LIDAR will add a problem of "the system couldn't decide between believing a lidar or camera, decided to go with LIDAR which was wrong, and smashed into a perfectly visible wall".
  - fredgrott 2y ago
    yes but given Tesla had lidar once and did not have these problems where does that leave your narrative? If I remember right it was lidar overriding the camera as the set up when Tesla was using lidar...
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Tesla never had lidar on production cars. They had radar.
    - k_bx 2y ago
      It doesn't look like Tesla ever was in a state that it didn't have problems. It's a very new area where all solutions are filled with unsolved problems.
  - xvinci 2y ago
    This is just repeating what musk says though without giving it much thought. There are many ways to tackle this problem with different tradeoffs.
    - k_bx 2y ago
      Same answer can be given to the original question, couldn't it?
plasticchris 2y ago
Showing the camera footage from these vehicles (and the Uber ATG incident) causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras. So you think visibility was worse than it is, things were further away and approaching more quickly, and so on. So people are inclined to look at the video and say it was clear no one could avoid that. Which is just an inditement of the sensor tech but unless you see the scene yourself or have other sensor data, it’s not so obvious.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  I think you’re saying the fallacy is that Tesla cameras are as good as eyes. Is that accurate? If so I agree that that is a fallacy, they definitely are not as good as eyes, and I’d think anyone who drove a Tesla would agree.
  - cinntaile 2y ago
    He says eyes are much better than cameras.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      I think that’s what he means but the verbiage implies the opposite. “causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras.” This implies “eyes are better than cameras” is a fallacy. But the rest of the comment makes me think you’re right.
      - plasticchris 2y ago
        Yeah that’s what I meant. The fallacy being that people assume the cameras are as good as their eyes, especially when looking at footage shot through them without any basis for comparison.
        mattmaroon 2y ago
        I thought so, and yes, the resolution on them (at least as experienced while driving) is not high. They can see in several directions at once, so that’s good. It’s not hard to imagine a car having better visibility than a human with cameras. But I don’t think they do yet.
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
Quote from Tesla critic Missy Cummings in the WSJ piece: "There is no question that someone is going to die in this technology, the question is when" This is obviously true. However, I never heard these critics say that about cars without autonomy features. Way over a million people killed each single year around the world by that technology. Where was the concern for human life? To anyone looking at it rationally, without emotion, it's clear that humans are not good at this task and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever. The question is not if but when. Currently that data is debatable but some argue this point has already happened and cars with computer-assisted driving are already safer than those driven entirely by humans.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  > it's clear that humans are not good at this task True > and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever Nothing suggests this is true, so far. Computers are much less able than even humans to devise the right reactions to the complex environment of the road.
- tw04 2y ago
  > it's obvious that humans are not good at this task and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever. It’s obvious that SOME humans are bad at this task. It’s not at all obvious that a computer will ever be better. I’ve yet to see a single example of a computer that doesn’t trip all over itself on a snowy road, or lock up when someone intentionally marks up the roadway with graffiti that a human wouldn’t think twice about.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    For FSD to be a net benefit, it only has to be better than an average driver. It's quite possible that FSD will be rather used by below average drivers (with excellent drivers opting to still drive themselves), further increasing the benefit.
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
idunnoman1222 2y ago
So there is video and telemetry but not for us?
bentt 2y ago
I do wonder if Tesla put its resources towards crash avoidance instead of FSD, maybe we would be more enthusiastic. I don’t really need my car to automatically drive straight, I need it to have inhuman reflexes to make the instantaneous decisons that will save my and my family’s lives.

48 points by bulla 2y ago

RockRobotRock 2y ago

Tesla FSD 12.5.1 patch notes: * Fixed a bug where telemetry wasn't wiped after a crash * Various fixes and improvements

polotics 2y ago
Wow the developer with their name on that commit message must be contacting a lawyer right about this second...
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  I assume it was a joke comment but you never know.
  - danans 2y ago
    If it's a joke it's not funny, and speaks volumes about Tesla's attitude toward safety and accountability. If it's not a joke it seems like something that should be prevented by regulators. It would be no different than airplanes wiping their flight data recorders after a crash.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      It's not a joke code comment, the HN comment was a joke.
      - danans 2y ago
        Then the HN comment should have disclaimed it as such. I'm no Tesla FSD fan, but given the disregard Musk has demonstrated for safety, it's not cool to joke about things that could plausibly be true.
        RockRobotRock 2y ago
        I apologize. I thought it was obvious that I was joking.
        danans 2y ago
        I also apologize for jumping to the conclusion that it wasn't a joke. Perhaps if we lived in a less edge-lord dominated tech media landscape, the comedy would be more easily discernible from reality!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      It's couch-level hilarious

mysterydip 2y ago

> The system didn't know what this was, so it smashed at full speed into the trailer. I feel like this will be a never-ending battle with a camera-based system. There will always be some visual situation not seen before. Shouldn't the default behavior be to slow/stop or throw up its metaphorical hands and release control back to the driver?

k_bx 2y ago
Adding a LIDAR will add a problem of "the system couldn't decide between believing a lidar or camera, decided to go with LIDAR which was wrong, and smashed into a perfectly visible wall".
- fredgrott 2y ago
  yes but given Tesla had lidar once and did not have these problems where does that leave your narrative? If I remember right it was lidar overriding the camera as the set up when Tesla was using lidar...
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Tesla never had lidar on production cars. They had radar.
  - k_bx 2y ago
    It doesn't look like Tesla ever was in a state that it didn't have problems. It's a very new area where all solutions are filled with unsolved problems.
- xvinci 2y ago
  This is just repeating what musk says though without giving it much thought. There are many ways to tackle this problem with different tradeoffs.
  - k_bx 2y ago
    Same answer can be given to the original question, couldn't it?

plasticchris 2y ago

Showing the camera footage from these vehicles (and the Uber ATG incident) causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras. So you think visibility was worse than it is, things were further away and approaching more quickly, and so on. So people are inclined to look at the video and say it was clear no one could avoid that. Which is just an inditement of the sensor tech but unless you see the scene yourself or have other sensor data, it’s not so obvious.

mattmaroon 2y ago
I think you’re saying the fallacy is that Tesla cameras are as good as eyes. Is that accurate? If so I agree that that is a fallacy, they definitely are not as good as eyes, and I’d think anyone who drove a Tesla would agree.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  He says eyes are much better than cameras.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I think that’s what he means but the verbiage implies the opposite. “causes a fallacy most people don’t even realize - eyes are way better than current cameras.” This implies “eyes are better than cameras” is a fallacy. But the rest of the comment makes me think you’re right.
    - plasticchris 2y ago
      Yeah that’s what I meant. The fallacy being that people assume the cameras are as good as their eyes, especially when looking at footage shot through them without any basis for comparison.
      - mattmaroon 2y ago
        I thought so, and yes, the resolution on them (at least as experienced while driving) is not high. They can see in several directions at once, so that’s good. It’s not hard to imagine a car having better visibility than a human with cameras. But I don’t think they do yet.

trompetenaccoun 2y ago

Quote from Tesla critic Missy Cummings in the WSJ piece: "There is no question that someone is going to die in this technology, the question is when" This is obviously true. However, I never heard these critics say that about cars without autonomy features. Way over a million people killed each single year around the world by that technology. Where was the concern for human life? To anyone looking at it rationally, without emotion, it's clear that humans are not good at this task and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever. The question is not if but when. Currently that data is debatable but some argue this point has already happened and cars with computer-assisted driving are already safer than those driven entirely by humans.

tsimionescu 2y ago
> it's clear that humans are not good at this task True > and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever Nothing suggests this is true, so far. Computers are much less able than even humans to devise the right reactions to the complex environment of the road.
tw04 2y ago
> it's obvious that humans are not good at this task and that computers will eventually make roads safer than ever. It’s obvious that SOME humans are bad at this task. It’s not at all obvious that a computer will ever be better. I’ve yet to see a single example of a computer that doesn’t trip all over itself on a snowy road, or lock up when someone intentionally marks up the roadway with graffiti that a human wouldn’t think twice about.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  For FSD to be a net benefit, it only has to be better than an average driver. It's quite possible that FSD will be rather used by below average drivers (with excellent drivers opting to still drive themselves), further increasing the benefit.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago

idunnoman1222 2y ago

So there is video and telemetry but not for us?

bentt 2y ago

I do wonder if Tesla put its resources towards crash avoidance instead of FSD, maybe we would be more enthusiastic. I don’t really need my car to automatically drive straight, I need it to have inhuman reflexes to make the instantaneous decisons that will save my and my family’s lives.