8 ms·

Without knowing how many FSD miles Teslas have done compared to other brands, it's hard to judge. It could just be that Tesla owners are far more likely to trus

by dagw 2y ago

Without knowing how many FSD miles Teslas have done compared to other brands, it's hard to judge. It could just be that Tesla owners are far more likely to trust and use their cars FSD capabilities, and thus end up in more FSD accidents. Other brands might have so bad FSD that people simply not trust it and basically never use it, and thus never get into an FSD accident.

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
> Other brands might have so bad FSD that people simply not trust it and basically never use it The issue is not quite how good the automation is in absolute terms, it's how good it is vs. how it is sold. Tesla is an outlier here, right down to the use of the term "FSD" i.e. "Full Self-Driving", when it's nothing of the sort.
- dagw 2y ago
  That's kind of my point. We don't know from the data if the problem is that Tesla has worse FSD than the non-accident brands, or if all brands are equally good/bad and Tesla owners are more likely to use the feature. Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market and still lead the accident stats simply because how their users are (ab)using the feature (which I suspect is closest to the truth)
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
    > Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market Tesla could very well have the best FSD marketing on the software. And that's dangerous. Data point: the "First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System" is ... Mercedes-Benz https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-benz-first-to-gain-us-approval-for-level-3-automated-driving-system/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-... The second will be, IDK, maybe BMW? https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combining-level-2-and-level-3-autonomous-driving-systems/ https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combinin...
    - vachina 2y ago
      > First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
      - sroussey 2y ago
        Its Mercedes believing in their tech that they take responsibility if it fails.
        vachina 2y ago
        You didn’t get my point.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        And Mercedes owning liability if you have an incident under their system? That is actually putting your money where your mouth is. Not just “the driver is only in the seat for legal reasons” bullshit (“but watch us throw a press conference to parade your talented data for the world if we think it will protect our reputation at your expense”).
      - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
        I see that you have also said "You can literally watch how (Tesla) FSD perform all readily live on YouTube" I for one find this line of argument - that videos on YouTube are a stronger signal than regulatory approval - to be absolutely wrongheaded, delusional and laughable. YouTube proves nothing, and as a platform, was never intended to. Unlike regulatory approval.
        vachina 2y ago
        Do you need approval to prove LLM is useful in improving your productivity? No? You try it yourself and make that conclusion. Comparing fsd to whatever Mercedes is doing is like chatgpt v Markov chains
  - watwut 2y ago
    I would argue that if Tesla lies to buyers, then those act on the lie because they trust Tesla, then absolutely Tesla is responsible.
audunw 2y ago
I don’t see any way you can spin this in a positive light. Yeah, there may be many more FSD miles on Tesla, but if that leads to a bunch of motorcyclists getting hit, then maybe that’s exactly the problem. We know this is one of the core issues of Tesla FSD: its capabilities have been hyped and over promised time and time again. We have countless examples of drivers trusting it far more than they should. And who’s to blame for that? In large part the driver, sure. But Elon has to take a lot of that blame as well. Many of those drivers would not have trusted it as much if it wasn’t for his statements and the media image he has crafted for Tesla.
- Hobadee 2y ago
  The problem is there isn't enough data here. Killing 5 motorcycles isn't great, but if human driver killed say 100 in the same sample, 5 is actually pretty good. Of course if human drivers kill 1 or 2 in the same sample, 5 is really bad.
  - bink 2y ago
    The difference to me, as a motorcyclist, is that to prevent humans from crashing cars into motorcycles is complicated. There are a multitude of reasons someone may not be paying attention or may not see another vehicle. This problem with Tesla has an easily implemented solution that could be deployed now but isn't. We don't have such a solution for non-Tesla crashes into motorcycles. How many motorcyclists deaths are we willing to accept to save money? How much money is too much to prevent 5 deaths?
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      Installing LIDAR isn't an "easily implemented solution", assuming that's what you mean. Otherwise why not mandate that all cars have LIDAR, self-driving or not?
      - bink 2y ago
        It doesn't have to be LIDAR. Other modern cars that have adaptive cruise control avoid hitting motorcycles using simple radar, and have been doing so for many years.
Hikikomori 2y ago
How good can it be if it rear ends motorcycles?
- ModernMech 2y ago
  This. People arguing over base rates of motorcycle accidents as if Tesla didn't get fooled by a loony tunes wall. If Waymo had killed 5 motorcyclists in SF we would know. But they operate there without an incident for years. Meanwhile, Tesla just after releasing autopilot to the world a man is decapitated because the system is deficient. Then it happened again in 2016 under eerily similar circumstance. Then we observe Teslas hitting broad objects like fire trucks and busses. The correct response to that is not to say "Well what's the base rate for decapitations and hitting broad objects?" No, you find out the reason for this thing happening. And the reason is known: a deficient sensor suit that it prone to missing objects clearly in its field of view. So with the motorcycle situation, we already know what the problem is. This isn't a matter of a Tesla just interfacing with the statistical reality of getting rear-ended by a car. Because we know Teslas have a deficient sensor suit.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > as if Tesla didn't get fooled by a loony tunes wall Important distinction: FSD didn't get fooled by a looney tunes wall. Legacy Autopilot did.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      That's not an important distinction, because the reason it was fooled is the sensor suite is deficient, which is the same whether it's FSD or Autopilot. Other less sophisticated systems are not fooled because they have sufficient sensors. FSD being a more sophisticated system doesn't negate the fact their sensor suite is fundamentally not up to the task.
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        > the reason it was fooled is the sensor suite is deficient, which is the same whether it's FSD or Autopilot. But other people have tried to reproduce the experiment with FSD, and it wasn't fooled.

by dagw 2y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago

> Other brands might have so bad FSD that people simply not trust it and basically never use it The issue is not quite how good the automation is in absolute terms, it's how good it is vs. how it is sold. Tesla is an outlier here, right down to the use of the term "FSD" i.e. "Full Self-Driving", when it's nothing of the sort.

dagw 2y ago
That's kind of my point. We don't know from the data if the problem is that Tesla has worse FSD than the non-accident brands, or if all brands are equally good/bad and Tesla owners are more likely to use the feature. Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market and still lead the accident stats simply because how their users are (ab)using the feature (which I suspect is closest to the truth)
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  > Tesla could very well have the best FSD software on the market Tesla could very well have the best FSD marketing on the software. And that's dangerous. Data point: the "First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System" is ... Mercedes-Benz https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-benz-first-to-gain-us-approval-for-level-3-automated-driving-system/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kyleedward/2023/09/28/mercedes-... The second will be, IDK, maybe BMW? https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combining-level-2-and-level-3-autonomous-driving-systems/ https://www.bmwblog.com/2024/06/25/bmw-approval-for-combinin...
  - vachina 2y ago
    > First To Gain U.S. Approval For Level 3 Automated Driving System It’s actually more a testament to Mercedes Benz’s ability to navigate regulatory slog. VW would’ve passed emissions if the technicians didn’t take it out of the lab to test for on-road conditions.
    - sroussey 2y ago
      Its Mercedes believing in their tech that they take responsibility if it fails.
      - vachina 2y ago
        You didn’t get my point.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      And Mercedes owning liability if you have an incident under their system? That is actually putting your money where your mouth is. Not just “the driver is only in the seat for legal reasons” bullshit (“but watch us throw a press conference to parade your talented data for the world if we think it will protect our reputation at your expense”).
    - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
      I see that you have also said "You can literally watch how (Tesla) FSD perform all readily live on YouTube" I for one find this line of argument - that videos on YouTube are a stronger signal than regulatory approval - to be absolutely wrongheaded, delusional and laughable. YouTube proves nothing, and as a platform, was never intended to. Unlike regulatory approval.
      - vachina 2y ago
        Do you need approval to prove LLM is useful in improving your productivity? No? You try it yourself and make that conclusion. Comparing fsd to whatever Mercedes is doing is like chatgpt v Markov chains
- watwut 2y ago
  I would argue that if Tesla lies to buyers, then those act on the lie because they trust Tesla, then absolutely Tesla is responsible.

audunw 2y ago

I don’t see any way you can spin this in a positive light. Yeah, there may be many more FSD miles on Tesla, but if that leads to a bunch of motorcyclists getting hit, then maybe that’s exactly the problem. We know this is one of the core issues of Tesla FSD: its capabilities have been hyped and over promised time and time again. We have countless examples of drivers trusting it far more than they should. And who’s to blame for that? In large part the driver, sure. But Elon has to take a lot of that blame as well. Many of those drivers would not have trusted it as much if it wasn’t for his statements and the media image he has crafted for Tesla.

Hobadee 2y ago
The problem is there isn't enough data here. Killing 5 motorcycles isn't great, but if human driver killed say 100 in the same sample, 5 is actually pretty good. Of course if human drivers kill 1 or 2 in the same sample, 5 is really bad.
- bink 2y ago
  The difference to me, as a motorcyclist, is that to prevent humans from crashing cars into motorcycles is complicated. There are a multitude of reasons someone may not be paying attention or may not see another vehicle. This problem with Tesla has an easily implemented solution that could be deployed now but isn't. We don't have such a solution for non-Tesla crashes into motorcycles. How many motorcyclists deaths are we willing to accept to save money? How much money is too much to prevent 5 deaths?
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Installing LIDAR isn't an "easily implemented solution", assuming that's what you mean. Otherwise why not mandate that all cars have LIDAR, self-driving or not?
    - bink 2y ago
      It doesn't have to be LIDAR. Other modern cars that have adaptive cruise control avoid hitting motorcycles using simple radar, and have been doing so for many years.

Hikikomori 2y ago

How good can it be if it rear ends motorcycles?

ModernMech 2y ago
This. People arguing over base rates of motorcycle accidents as if Tesla didn't get fooled by a loony tunes wall. If Waymo had killed 5 motorcyclists in SF we would know. But they operate there without an incident for years. Meanwhile, Tesla just after releasing autopilot to the world a man is decapitated because the system is deficient. Then it happened again in 2016 under eerily similar circumstance. Then we observe Teslas hitting broad objects like fire trucks and busses. The correct response to that is not to say "Well what's the base rate for decapitations and hitting broad objects?" No, you find out the reason for this thing happening. And the reason is known: a deficient sensor suit that it prone to missing objects clearly in its field of view. So with the motorcycle situation, we already know what the problem is. This isn't a matter of a Tesla just interfacing with the statistical reality of getting rear-ended by a car. Because we know Teslas have a deficient sensor suit.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > as if Tesla didn't get fooled by a loony tunes wall Important distinction: FSD didn't get fooled by a looney tunes wall. Legacy Autopilot did.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    That's not an important distinction, because the reason it was fooled is the sensor suite is deficient, which is the same whether it's FSD or Autopilot. Other less sophisticated systems are not fooled because they have sufficient sensors. FSD being a more sophisticated system doesn't negate the fact their sensor suite is fundamentally not up to the task.
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      > the reason it was fooled is the sensor suite is deficient, which is the same whether it's FSD or Autopilot. But other people have tried to reproduce the experiment with FSD, and it wasn't fooled.