4 ms·

Tesla fans exposes Tesla's own shadiness in attempt to defend Autopilot crash

65 points by choult 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dtagames 2y ago
TL;DR: NHTSA finds, on average, Tesla autopilot disengages less than 1 second before a crash.
FireBeyond 2y ago
So much shadiness. Here's a few other ways: - Tesla's statistics on AP/FSD-related crash incidents specifically does not include fatality incidents. - Tesla's statistics on AP/FSD-related crash incidents specifically does not include any incidents without SRS airbag deployment (this may not seem egregious, but realize that current airbag algorithms are far more sophisticated than 'collision at x speed, deploy', and take into account angle of attack, whether the vehicle was decelerating or accelerating at the moment of impact, etc. It could decide that the best method of protecting a passenger in a 25mph collision is to fire the seatbelt tensioners, not the airbags. According to Tesla, this would "not be a reported incident". It also includes accidents where the vehicle is so severely damaged airbag systems -fail- to deploy. Also not an incident.) - A previous fatality collision had Tesla holding a press conference when too much heat was coming toward their AP/FSD systems, to mislead the public. A Tesla spokesperson implied that the vehicle was actively warning the driver about inattentiveness and that that lead to the collision. When the NHTSA concluded their investigation they found that: the vehicle -had- warned the driver about inattentiveness, -one time-, and crucially, that that single incident happened -eighteen minutes- prior to the collision.
- dinobones 2y ago
  There's more shadiness behind Tesla's autopilot/FSD history... - Actually, blatantly faking videos of Tesla FSD. - Elon claiming unsupervised NY to LA would be possible by end of 2016 (almost 10 years ago). - Elon claiming all cars sold today (years ago) have required hardware to become robotaxis. - Tesla salesmen of the past telling customers their cars were investments because they would become robotaxis that would make money. Theranos lasted 15 years, so I'm surprised $TSLA is being called this early. As someone who personally knows people in the industry, I'm pretty confident in saying that TSLA will never actually deliver any type of robust, safe autonomous driving system. The organization itself is just not capable of it anymore. All that are left are people trying to game metrics and not get fired, that type of culture just can't produce it.
  - TheAlchemist 2y ago
    "called this early" - got a pretty good laugh ! The difference with Theranos is that Tesla managed to become one of the biggest (by market cap) companies on earth, while it's CEO become the richest person on earth. The eventual fallout will be much, much worse.
    - lawn 2y ago
      To be fair, Tesla is also producing actual drivable cars. (Maybe that's why it's surprising that it's declining so soon.)
      - TheAlchemist 2y ago
        It's true. That's also why people are so confused about those who call the company a Con or scam. But in current context, with cratering sales, that's actually a disadvantage - these 100k people and different factories still need to be paid and maintained. This part of business will be bleeding cash in Q1 already.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > As someone who personally knows people in the industry, I'm pretty confident in saying that TSLA will never actually deliver any type of robust, safe autonomous driving system. The organization itself is just not capable of it anymore. Very much so. I think it's at least a decade out, and when it comes, it won't be from Tesla. Like you say, the org mindset isn't there. I'm reminded of this story from a component manufacturer about the mindset of Tesla: "Hey, we sent you over the new firmware for the component, check it out." (The test suite for this component takes approximately 36 hours to execute.) Three hours later: "This is working so much better, thanks a lot!" "???" "Oh, we just flashed a car we have here and took it out for a drive." "?!?" Oof.
parliament32 2y ago
It's neat that we now have video evidence of Autopilot self-disengaging itself when it detects an unavoidable crash, instead of slamming on the brakes (as one would expect) to minimize impact.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  Do we? I'm no Musk supporter by any means, but Rober's testing seems to have substantial methodology flaws and potential 'questions'. In the article, for instance, you can see he activates autopilot while the car is at 39mph. The set point is also 39mph. When you see the next shot when autopilot is not activated (right before the 'brick wall' crash), the car is driving 42mph. Standard autopilot would not accelerate beyond the set point (which, by default, should be the exact speed you're currently driving). How would the speed manage to go up an additional 3mph unless Rober was pressing the accelerator to override it?
  - choult 2y ago
    Please watch this unedited video of the run up and impact: https://xcancel.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898 https://xcancel.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898 I am happy to take more comments from those who know Teslas more than I, but lets base our critiques on the available information (especially when it is indicated in the article).
    - diebeforei485 2y ago
      This appears to be a different take based on the speedometer value. Also, he turned the system on 3 seconds before the wall, while giving the other system much more time. More importantly than all this, why didn't he used FSD, why is he using legacy Autopilot?
      - watwut 2y ago
        Because he was testing automatic collision avoidance.
      - 2y ago
gbin 2y ago
The disengagement before the crash feels like a decision to avoid harsh reactions when they inevitably get false positives. The autonomy stack might create even more of a PR nightmare with sudden full on ABS braking with no visible reason. So overall it is a way to mask the quality of your autonomy stack.
diebeforei485 2y ago
The driver disengaged it using his foot, or perhaps the steering wheel. Self disengagement makes a very different sound. It's super sus that they aren't using FSD.

65 points by choult 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dtagames 2y ago

TL;DR: NHTSA finds, on average, Tesla autopilot disengages less than 1 second before a crash.

FireBeyond 2y ago

So much shadiness. Here's a few other ways: - Tesla's statistics on AP/FSD-related crash incidents specifically does not include fatality incidents. - Tesla's statistics on AP/FSD-related crash incidents specifically does not include any incidents without SRS airbag deployment (this may not seem egregious, but realize that current airbag algorithms are far more sophisticated than 'collision at x speed, deploy', and take into account angle of attack, whether the vehicle was decelerating or accelerating at the moment of impact, etc. It could decide that the best method of protecting a passenger in a 25mph collision is to fire the seatbelt tensioners, not the airbags. According to Tesla, this would "not be a reported incident". It also includes accidents where the vehicle is so severely damaged airbag systems -fail- to deploy. Also not an incident.) - A previous fatality collision had Tesla holding a press conference when too much heat was coming toward their AP/FSD systems, to mislead the public. A Tesla spokesperson implied that the vehicle was actively warning the driver about inattentiveness and that that lead to the collision. When the NHTSA concluded their investigation they found that: the vehicle -had- warned the driver about inattentiveness, -one time-, and crucially, that that single incident happened -eighteen minutes- prior to the collision.

dinobones 2y ago
There's more shadiness behind Tesla's autopilot/FSD history... - Actually, blatantly faking videos of Tesla FSD. - Elon claiming unsupervised NY to LA would be possible by end of 2016 (almost 10 years ago). - Elon claiming all cars sold today (years ago) have required hardware to become robotaxis. - Tesla salesmen of the past telling customers their cars were investments because they would become robotaxis that would make money. Theranos lasted 15 years, so I'm surprised $TSLA is being called this early. As someone who personally knows people in the industry, I'm pretty confident in saying that TSLA will never actually deliver any type of robust, safe autonomous driving system. The organization itself is just not capable of it anymore. All that are left are people trying to game metrics and not get fired, that type of culture just can't produce it.
- TheAlchemist 2y ago
  "called this early" - got a pretty good laugh ! The difference with Theranos is that Tesla managed to become one of the biggest (by market cap) companies on earth, while it's CEO become the richest person on earth. The eventual fallout will be much, much worse.
  - lawn 2y ago
    To be fair, Tesla is also producing actual drivable cars. (Maybe that's why it's surprising that it's declining so soon.)
    - TheAlchemist 2y ago
      It's true. That's also why people are so confused about those who call the company a Con or scam. But in current context, with cratering sales, that's actually a disadvantage - these 100k people and different factories still need to be paid and maintained. This part of business will be bleeding cash in Q1 already.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > As someone who personally knows people in the industry, I'm pretty confident in saying that TSLA will never actually deliver any type of robust, safe autonomous driving system. The organization itself is just not capable of it anymore. Very much so. I think it's at least a decade out, and when it comes, it won't be from Tesla. Like you say, the org mindset isn't there. I'm reminded of this story from a component manufacturer about the mindset of Tesla: "Hey, we sent you over the new firmware for the component, check it out." (The test suite for this component takes approximately 36 hours to execute.) Three hours later: "This is working so much better, thanks a lot!" "???" "Oh, we just flashed a car we have here and took it out for a drive." "?!?" Oof.

parliament32 2y ago

It's neat that we now have video evidence of Autopilot self-disengaging itself when it detects an unavoidable crash, instead of slamming on the brakes (as one would expect) to minimize impact.

Kirby64 2y ago
Do we? I'm no Musk supporter by any means, but Rober's testing seems to have substantial methodology flaws and potential 'questions'. In the article, for instance, you can see he activates autopilot while the car is at 39mph. The set point is also 39mph. When you see the next shot when autopilot is not activated (right before the 'brick wall' crash), the car is driving 42mph. Standard autopilot would not accelerate beyond the set point (which, by default, should be the exact speed you're currently driving). How would the speed manage to go up an additional 3mph unless Rober was pressing the accelerator to override it?
- choult 2y ago
  Please watch this unedited video of the run up and impact: https://xcancel.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898 https://xcancel.com/MarkRober/status/1901449395327094898 I am happy to take more comments from those who know Teslas more than I, but lets base our critiques on the available information (especially when it is indicated in the article).
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    This appears to be a different take based on the speedometer value. Also, he turned the system on 3 seconds before the wall, while giving the other system much more time. More importantly than all this, why didn't he used FSD, why is he using legacy Autopilot?
    - watwut 2y ago
      Because he was testing automatic collision avoidance.
    - 2y ago

gbin 2y ago

The disengagement before the crash feels like a decision to avoid harsh reactions when they inevitably get false positives. The autonomy stack might create even more of a PR nightmare with sudden full on ABS braking with no visible reason. So overall it is a way to mask the quality of your autonomy stack.

diebeforei485 2y ago

The driver disengaged it using his foot, or perhaps the steering wheel. Self disengagement makes a very different sound. It's super sus that they aren't using FSD.