4 ms·
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 tri
by 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 agoThis 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 agoThis 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 agoThis 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 agoYou don't get a $700B market cap by telling investors "We don't know."
- rvnx 2y agoIronically, 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 agoDoes 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 agoWhat does that mean? Tesla’s system isn’t unsupervised, so why would they take responsibility?
- x3ro 2y agoI don't know, maybe because they call it "Full Self-Driving"? :)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- valval 2y agoDoesn't really matter what they call it. The product name being descriptive of the current product or not is a different topic. For what it's worth, I wouldn't care if they called it "Penis Enlarger 9000" if it drove me around like it now does.
- 2y ago
- trompetenaccoun 2y agoAll their sensors didn't prevent them from crashing into stationary object. You'd think that would be the absolute easiest to avoid, especially with both radar and lidar on board. Accidents like that show the training data and software will be much more important than number of sensors. https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/12/waymo-second-robotaxi-recall-autonomous-vehicle/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/12/waymo-second-robotaxi-reca...
- rvnx 2y agoThe issue was fixed, now handling 100'000 trips per week, and all seems to go well in the last 4 months, this is 1.5 million trips.
- trompetenaccoun 2y agoSo they had "better understanding" of the problem as the other user put it, but their software was still flawed and needed fixing. That's my point. This happened two weeks ago btw: https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/news/waymo-self-driving-car-crashes-into-san-francisco-bus-ceos-help-confused-robot/ar-AA1rWWP2 https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/news/waymo-self-driving-car-... I don't mean Waymo is bad or unsafe, it's pretty cool. My point is about true automation needing data and intelligence. A lot more data than we currently have, because the problem is in the "edge" cases, the kind of situation the software has never encountered. Waymo is in the lead for now but they have fewer cars on the road, which means less data.
- jraby3 2y agoAny idea how many accidents and how many fatalities? And how that compares to human drivers?
- friendzis 2y ago> It looks like Wayno really understood the problem. All they needed was one systems safety engineering student
- ricardobeat 2y agoFive 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 agoNot if you are reading your emails…
- lolinder 2y agoWhen 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 agoFor 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoYes, 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 agoOr 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 agoExactly. You may learn its patterns, but a software update could fuck it all up in a zillion different ways.
- peutetre 2y agoElon 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 agoOooo maybe he'll get a similar treatment as Fox did versus Dominion.
- valval 2y agoYea he’s just dedicating his life on something that he knows won’t even work. What are you on about?
- 2y ago
- sumodm 2y agoSomething 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.