3 ms·

Those 999 other times, the system might work fine for the first 60 miles. This is a cross-country trip. LA to New York is 2776 miles without charging. It crash

Those 999 other times, the system might work fine for the first 60 miles. This is a cross-country trip. LA to New York is 2776 miles without charging. It crashed the first time in the first 2% of the journey. And not a small intervention or accident either. How you could possibly see this as anything other than FSD being a total failure is beyond me.

fuzzfactor 1y ago
>asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? >They made it about 2.5% of the planned trip on Tesla FSD v13.9 before crashing the vehicle. This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. And so far that's 2.5% as good as you would need to make it one way, one time. Or 1.25% as good as you need to make it there & back. People will just have to wait and see how it goes if they do anything to try and bring the average up. That's about 100:1 odds against getting there & back. One time. Don't think I would want to be the second one to try it. If somebody does take the risk and makes it without any human assistance though, maybe they (or the car) deserve a ticker-tape parade when they get there like Chas Lindbergh :)
- jjav 1y ago
  > This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. Statistically yes, but look at the actual facts of the case. A large object on the road, not moving, perfect visibility. And the Tesla drives straight into it. Not hitting static objects in perfect visibility is pretty much baseline requirement #1 of self driving. And Tesla fails to meet even this.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    It does look like lower performance than a first-time driving student. I really couldn't justify 1000:1 with such "sparse" data, but I do get the idea that these are some non-linear probabilities of making it back in one piece. It seems like it could easily be 1,000,000:1 and the data would look no different at this point.

fuzzfactor 1y ago

>asking a different question: how good would the FSD system be at completing a coast-to-coast trip? >They made it about 2.5% of the planned trip on Tesla FSD v13.9 before crashing the vehicle. This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. And so far that's 2.5% as good as you would need to make it one way, one time. Or 1.25% as good as you need to make it there & back. People will just have to wait and see how it goes if they do anything to try and bring the average up. That's about 100:1 odds against getting there & back. One time. Don't think I would want to be the second one to try it. If somebody does take the risk and makes it without any human assistance though, maybe they (or the car) deserve a ticker-tape parade when they get there like Chas Lindbergh :)

jjav 1y ago
> This really does need to be considered preliminary data based on only one trial. Statistically yes, but look at the actual facts of the case. A large object on the road, not moving, perfect visibility. And the Tesla drives straight into it. Not hitting static objects in perfect visibility is pretty much baseline requirement #1 of self driving. And Tesla fails to meet even this.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  It does look like lower performance than a first-time driving student. I really couldn't justify 1000:1 with such "sparse" data, but I do get the idea that these are some non-linear probabilities of making it back in one piece. It seems like it could easily be 1,000,000:1 and the data would look no different at this point.