6 ms·

I'm on my second free FSD trial, just started for me today. Gave it another shot, and it seems largely similar to the last free trial they gave. Fun party tri

I'm on my second free FSD trial, just started for me today. Gave it another shot, and it seems largely similar to the last free trial they gave. Fun party trick, surprisingly good, right up until it's not. A hallmark of AI everywhere, is how great it is and just how abruptly and catastrophically it fails occasionally. Please, if you're going to try it, keep both hands on the wheel and your foot ready for the brake. When it goes off the rails, it usually does so in surprising ways with little warning and little time to correct. And since it's so good much of the time, you can get lulled into complacence. I never really understand the comments from people who think it's the greatest thing ever and makes their drive less stressful. Does the opposite for me. Entertaining but exhausting to supervise.

darknavi 2y ago
You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail. I drive my 20-30 minute commutes largely with FSD, as well as our 8-10 hour road trips. It works great, but 100% needs to be supervised and is basically just nicer cruise control.
- coffeefirst 2y ago
  This feels like the most dangerous possible combination (not for you, just to have on the road in large numbers). Good enough that the average user will stop paying attention, but not actually good enough to be left alone. And when the machine goes to do something lethally dumb, you have 5 seconds to notice and intervene.
  - jvolkman 2y ago
    This is what Waymo realized a decade ago and what helped define their rollout strategy: https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=247&si=Twi_fQJC7whg3Oey https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=247&si=Twi_fQJC7whg3Oey
    - nh2 2y ago
      This video is great. It looks like Wayno really understood the problem. It explains concisely why it's a bad idea to roll our incremental progress, how difficult the problem really is, and why you should really throw all sensors you can at it. I also appreciate the "we don't know when it's going to be ready" attitude. It shows they have a better understanding of what their task actually is than anybody who claims "next year" every year.
      - yborg 2y ago
        You don't get a $700B market cap by telling investors "We don't know."
        rvnx 2y ago
        Ironically, Robotaxis from Waymo are actually working really well. It's a true unsupervised system, very safe, used in production, where the manufacturer takes the full responsibility. So the gradual rollout strategy is actually great. Tesla wants to do "all or nothing", and ends up with nothing for now (example with Europe, where FSD is sold since 2016 but it is "pending regulatory approval", when actually, the problem is the tech that is not finished yet, sadly). It's genuinely a difficult problem to solve, so it's better to do it step-by-step than a "big-bang deploy".
        mattgreenrocks 2y ago
        Does Tesla take full responsibility for FSD incidents? It seemed like most players in tech a few years ago were using legal shenanigans to dodge liability here, which, to me, indicates a lack of seriousness toward the safety implications.
        valval 2y ago
        What does that mean? Tesla’s system isn’t unsupervised, so why would they take responsibility?
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    Five seconds is a long time in driving, usually you’ll need to react in under 2 seconds in situations where it disengages, those never happen while going straight.
    - theptip 2y ago
      Not if you are reading your emails…
- lolinder 2y ago
  When an update comes out does that relationship get reset (does it start failing on things that used to work), or has it been a uniform upward march? I'm thinking of how every SaaS product I ever have to use regularly breaks my workflow to make 'improvements'.
  - xur17 2y ago
    For me it does, but only somewhat. I'm much more cautious / aware for the first few drives while I figure it out again. I also feel like it takes a bit (5-10 minutes of driving) for it to recalibrate after an update, and it's slightly worse than usual at the very beginning. I know they have to calibrate the cameras to the car, so it might be related to that, or it could just be me getting used to its quarks.
  - bdndndndbve 2y ago
    I wouldn't take OP's word for it, if they really believe they know how it's going to react in every situation in the first place. Studies have shown this is a gross overestimation of their own ability to pay attention.
    - darknavi 2y ago
      I never said I knew how it would react in every situation. I state you get a feeling for where it will fail and that you need to monitor it.
  - darknavi 2y ago
    Yes, it definitely does. The behavior of the car significantly changes.
- eschneider 2y ago
  "You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail." I spent over a decade working on production computer vision products. You think you can do this, and for some percentage of failures you can. The thing is, there will ALWAYS be some percentage of failure cases where you really can't perceive anything different from a success case. If you want to trust your life to that, fine, but I certainly wouldn't.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    Or until a software update quietly resets the relationship and introduces novel failure modes. There is little more dangerous on the road than false confidence.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      Exactly. You may learn its patterns, but a software update could fuck it all up in a zillion different ways.
  - peutetre 2y ago
    Elon Musk is a technologist. He knows a lot about computers. The last thing Musk would do is trust a computer program: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pushes-debunked-dominion-voting-conspiracy-theory-campaign-appear-rcna175985 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pushes-debunked-... So I guess that's game over for full self-driving.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Oooo maybe he'll get a similar treatment as Fox did versus Dominion.
    - valval 2y ago
      Yea he’s just dedicating his life on something that he knows won’t even work. What are you on about?
      - 2y ago
- sumodm 2y ago
  Something along this lines is the real danger. People will understand common failure modes and assume they have understood its behavior for most scenarios. Unlike common deterministic and even some probabilistic systems, where behavior boundaries are well behaved, there could be discontinuities in 'rarer' seen parts of the boundary. And these 'rarer' parts need not be obvious to us humans, since few pixel changes might cause wrinkles. *vocabulary use is for a broad stroke explanation.
tverbeure 2y ago
I just gave it another try after my last failed attempt. (https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and-Last-Impressions.html https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and...) I still find it shockingly bad, especially in the way it reacts, or doesn’t, to the way things change around the car (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) or the way it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in the middle of that maneuver. Those don’t count as disengagements, but they’re jarring and drivers around you will rightfully question your behavior. And that’s all over just a few miles of driving in an easy environment if interstate or highway. I totally agree that it’s an impressive party trick, but it has no business being on the road. My experience with Waymo in SF couldn’t have been more different.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  > (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?
  - cma 2y ago
    Defensive driving is to assume they might not check their blindspot, etc. And just generally ease off in this situation if they would merge in tight if they began merging now.
    - tverbeure 2y ago
      That’s the issue: I would immediately slow a little bit to let the other one merge. FSD seems to be noticing something, and eventually slow down, but the action is too subtle (if at all) to signal the other guy that you’re letting them merge.
  - hotspot_one 2y ago
    > That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training. For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.
650REDHAIR 2y ago
This was my experience as well. It tried to drive us (me, my wife, and my FIL) into a tree on a gentle low speed uphill turn and I’ll never trust it again.
jerb 2y ago
But it’s clearly statistically much safer (https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport) 7 million miles before an accident w FSD vs. 1 million when disengaged. I agree I didn’t like the feel of FSD either, but the numbers speak for themselves.
- bpfrh 2y ago
  Teslas numbers have biases in them which paint a wrong picture: 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-... They compare incomparable data(city miles vs highway miles), autopilot is also mostly used on higways which is not where most accidents happen.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

darknavi 2y ago

You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail. I drive my 20-30 minute commutes largely with FSD, as well as our 8-10 hour road trips. It works great, but 100% needs to be supervised and is basically just nicer cruise control.

coffeefirst 2y ago
This feels like the most dangerous possible combination (not for you, just to have on the road in large numbers). Good enough that the average user will stop paying attention, but not actually good enough to be left alone. And when the machine goes to do something lethally dumb, you have 5 seconds to notice and intervene.
- jvolkman 2y ago
  This is what Waymo realized a decade ago and what helped define their rollout strategy: https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=247&si=Twi_fQJC7whg3Oey https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=247&si=Twi_fQJC7whg3Oey
  - nh2 2y ago
    This video is great. It looks like Wayno really understood the problem. It explains concisely why it's a bad idea to roll our incremental progress, how difficult the problem really is, and why you should really throw all sensors you can at it. I also appreciate the "we don't know when it's going to be ready" attitude. It shows they have a better understanding of what their task actually is than anybody who claims "next year" every year.
    - yborg 2y ago
      You don't get a $700B market cap by telling investors "We don't know."
      - rvnx 2y ago
        Ironically, Robotaxis from Waymo are actually working really well. It's a true unsupervised system, very safe, used in production, where the manufacturer takes the full responsibility. So the gradual rollout strategy is actually great. Tesla wants to do "all or nothing", and ends up with nothing for now (example with Europe, where FSD is sold since 2016 but it is "pending regulatory approval", when actually, the problem is the tech that is not finished yet, sadly). It's genuinely a difficult problem to solve, so it's better to do it step-by-step than a "big-bang deploy".
        mattgreenrocks 2y ago
        Does Tesla take full responsibility for FSD incidents? It seemed like most players in tech a few years ago were using legal shenanigans to dodge liability here, which, to me, indicates a lack of seriousness toward the safety implications.
        valval 2y ago
        What does that mean? Tesla’s system isn’t unsupervised, so why would they take responsibility?
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  Five seconds is a long time in driving, usually you’ll need to react in under 2 seconds in situations where it disengages, those never happen while going straight.
  - theptip 2y ago
    Not if you are reading your emails…
lolinder 2y ago
When an update comes out does that relationship get reset (does it start failing on things that used to work), or has it been a uniform upward march? I'm thinking of how every SaaS product I ever have to use regularly breaks my workflow to make 'improvements'.
- xur17 2y ago
  For me it does, but only somewhat. I'm much more cautious / aware for the first few drives while I figure it out again. I also feel like it takes a bit (5-10 minutes of driving) for it to recalibrate after an update, and it's slightly worse than usual at the very beginning. I know they have to calibrate the cameras to the car, so it might be related to that, or it could just be me getting used to its quarks.
- bdndndndbve 2y ago
  I wouldn't take OP's word for it, if they really believe they know how it's going to react in every situation in the first place. Studies have shown this is a gross overestimation of their own ability to pay attention.
  - darknavi 2y ago
    I never said I knew how it would react in every situation. I state you get a feeling for where it will fail and that you need to monitor it.
- darknavi 2y ago
  Yes, it definitely does. The behavior of the car significantly changes.
eschneider 2y ago
"You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail." I spent over a decade working on production computer vision products. You think you can do this, and for some percentage of failures you can. The thing is, there will ALWAYS be some percentage of failure cases where you really can't perceive anything different from a success case. If you want to trust your life to that, fine, but I certainly wouldn't.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Or until a software update quietly resets the relationship and introduces novel failure modes. There is little more dangerous on the road than false confidence.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Exactly. You may learn its patterns, but a software update could fuck it all up in a zillion different ways.
- peutetre 2y ago
  Elon Musk is a technologist. He knows a lot about computers. The last thing Musk would do is trust a computer program: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pushes-debunked-dominion-voting-conspiracy-theory-campaign-appear-rcna175985 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pushes-debunked-... So I guess that's game over for full self-driving.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Oooo maybe he'll get a similar treatment as Fox did versus Dominion.
  - valval 2y ago
    Yea he’s just dedicating his life on something that he knows won’t even work. What are you on about?
    - 2y ago
sumodm 2y ago
Something along this lines is the real danger. People will understand common failure modes and assume they have understood its behavior for most scenarios. Unlike common deterministic and even some probabilistic systems, where behavior boundaries are well behaved, there could be discontinuities in 'rarer' seen parts of the boundary. And these 'rarer' parts need not be obvious to us humans, since few pixel changes might cause wrinkles. *vocabulary use is for a broad stroke explanation.

tverbeure 2y ago

I just gave it another try after my last failed attempt. (https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and-Last-Impressions.html https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and...) I still find it shockingly bad, especially in the way it reacts, or doesn’t, to the way things change around the car (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) or the way it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in the middle of that maneuver. Those don’t count as disengagements, but they’re jarring and drivers around you will rightfully question your behavior. And that’s all over just a few miles of driving in an easy environment if interstate or highway. I totally agree that it’s an impressive party trick, but it has no business being on the road. My experience with Waymo in SF couldn’t have been more different.

sokoloff 2y ago
> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?
- cma 2y ago
  Defensive driving is to assume they might not check their blindspot, etc. And just generally ease off in this situation if they would merge in tight if they began merging now.
  - tverbeure 2y ago
    That’s the issue: I would immediately slow a little bit to let the other one merge. FSD seems to be noticing something, and eventually slow down, but the action is too subtle (if at all) to signal the other guy that you’re letting them merge.
- hotspot_one 2y ago
  > That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training. For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

650REDHAIR 2y ago

This was my experience as well. It tried to drive us (me, my wife, and my FIL) into a tree on a gentle low speed uphill turn and I’ll never trust it again.

jerb 2y ago

But it’s clearly statistically much safer (https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport) 7 million miles before an accident w FSD vs. 1 million when disengaged. I agree I didn’t like the feel of FSD either, but the numbers speak for themselves.

bpfrh 2y ago
Teslas numbers have biases in them which paint a wrong picture: 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-... They compare incomparable data(city miles vs highway miles), autopilot is also mostly used on higways which is not where most accidents happen.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]