Tesla pulls its new Full Self-Driving beta due to software 'issues' | Hacker News Reader

Tesla pulls its new Full Self-Driving beta due to software 'issues'

reuters.com

22 pointssizzle28 comments

"Please note, this is to be expected with beta software. It is impossible to test all hardware configs in all conditions with internal QA (quality assurance), hence public beta," he said.

Move fast and run over pedestrians?

Move fast and break legs.

I mean that is kinda how cars were developed. Look at how unsafe they were then they first rolled out. If we had waited to deploy cars on roads until we could make cars as safe as they would be 2010 we would still be waiting.

The question for me is not, are there risks that could be addressed, but do the risks outweigh the relative benefits.

When the whole society is on high risk mode such as people back in the late 1800s and early 1900s then you are just going with the flow. That is what you are referring to. That is what Karl Benz did.

When society is in risk averse mode like we are in 2021 then you just look like an inconsiderate a-hole , which Musk never fails to do.

There are places around the world where this approach is acceptable, mainly because life is worth less over there (eg. India, sub-saharan Africa)

Unfortunately those people don't have enough money to buy what is essentially a luxury go-kart for rich people.

The error was a false warning of a collision danger ... so it was in fact being safer than it should have been.

Breaking hard inappropriately is pretty dangerous as well. It's a good way to get hit.

Only if someone is violating the law by driving too closely too fast to brake in time though.

A typical technocratic response. The fact is--and it will always be a fact--people tailgate and drive too close. No amount of "ackshually, they shouldn't" makes a difference.

Why do cars have rear bumpers?

Looks like a typical layman response. Having car bumpers make people drive closer.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/3...

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,0...

https://aaafoundation.org/understanding-the-impact-of-techno...

"all hardware configs".

I would hope that a CAR manufacturer actually has a very limited number of hardware configurations that run task-critical software.

We're not talking about building a desktop PC from components here.

This article is kind of clickbait, on top of being almost 2 weeks old. The beta software mentioned here was only released to a subset of people who had a 100/100 safety score and opted-in to the program. Regular folk don't have it yet.

I'm not sure why its newsworthy that a private beta was rolled back. For the rest of us FSD is still just vaporware.

I believe the left turn issue is still happening after the newest update:

https://twitter.com/bagguley/status/1456628357131644928

A 100/100 safety score isn't enough for the reflexes you need for this thing, at any second it can slam into a head-on with someone going the opposite way. It hasn't happened yet, but they shouldn't have released it IMO.

FSD has been released to private beta testers for well over 2 years now. The 100/100 safety score is just the newest criteria for getting in.

>at any second it can slam into a head-on with someone going the opposite way

That would actually be newsworthy.

> "Regression in some left turns at traffic lights found by internal QA in 10.3. Fix in work, probably releasing tomorrow," he tweeted on Saturday.

I don't think I'd want to take a patch for my car that was released on a Sunday. Seems to me that those engineers should be extremely well-rested while developing software for a 1-ton+ vehicle.

Are Tesla employees allowed to be well-rested?

Wow... almost like they forgot that it's a car, nearly 2 tons of metal and glass traveling 60+mph, which can easily kill people.

They have their head in the clouds so much they forgot what this software really means when deployed.

This isn't "oh, ha, looks like the company lost a few hours of productivity today when the email went down!"

In fact, to be honest, having 2+ tons of metal and glass going so fast under human control wasn't a great idea to begin with.

Here's one of the videos of the left turns at lights "regression" possibly: https://twitter.com/bagguley/status/1456628357131644928

But this was on 10.3.1, after the article and after things were reinstated.

That’s pretty dangerous.

This is from 12 days ago.

Exactly. Also, most of the beta testers said that they were very satisfied with the speed of Tesla’s response.

This is the system working how its supposed to.

pedestrians would probably like to opt out of this private beta

Don't worry, they'll A/B test it and release the one with the least body count.

To opt out just wear a coat with "_nofsd" printed on it in large font.

i would reaaaally hope they ARE testing with all hardware configs given that they own the hardware layer.

By "impossible," I guess that they mean that they don't keep one of each hardware configuration that they've manufactured, because that would cut into their profit margin.

If self-driving actually worked, they'd have amazingly cool footage of the entire sample fleet of self-driving cars queueing up for a test course, administering a self-test, and re-parking themselves.

I'll never understand why people want these cars.

Reckless 0-100 launch capability, buggy automation that contributes to accidents, constant over the air updates to "fix" them, and just enough range to drive back and forth to work.

I want zero emissions cars to be come commonplace but I'm quite tired of them being these exotic style luxury cars with ipads glued into the center console.

I think Toyota is on a much better path with their "Prime" plug-in hybrid models.

This is why:

Software updates should not be allowed to be performed by car manufacturers.

Instead, software updates should be submitted to an organization like NHTSA, which then keeps the software for 6 months in escrow, until it is fully tested.

The software can then be uploaded into the car by authorized parties.

If a bug is found in a car that is potentially dangerous, then cars have to be grounded, or self-driving disabled.

To be clear, there should be no such thing as "quick fixes".

As a software engineer this is the sort of thing that always rubbed me the wrong way with some of Elon and Tesla's boasting about Autopilot and FSD. "Autopilot has driven 3 billion miles so we're always learning and getting safer", they say. Ok, sure, that's probably the general trend. But that's counting miles driven with previous hardware and software suites that probably aren't even relevant anymore. And we know they don't have perfect regression testing - folks have pointed out issues where a car had been well-behaved on a familiar road or at a familiar intersection until an update introduced bad behavior. I'm sure the engineers at Tesla are working very hard on this problem and trying their best to prevent dangerous regressions, but errors happen. I don't care how many miles a 2015 Model S with the older Autopilot suite drove safely if my 2024 Model 2 downloads an update and proceeds to steer me into a wall.

I don't know the best way to handle this, but I suspect it is something along the lines of your update through NHTSA idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com