Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

Here is a comparison of this test with an older video:

https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1478802681141645322 (This is January 5th 2022)

Same author, same test, months later:

https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1556991029814886404 (This is August 9th 2022)

The difference? There is absolutely no improvement.

Expecting that the FSD (Fools Self Driving) beta software would get better over time as promised by Elon, this video shows that it doesn't look good at all with this latest failure which drivers on the road, and even pedestrians were no better off and are no safer with these updates.

It is not early days anymore and even with these updates, it is still an unsafe contraption which not only has been falsely and deceptively advertised by Tesla, it is not even near the claims of the robo-taxi level of FSD (Level 4 - 5) with the number of price increases over the years with a product which doesn't work looks more like a scam.

At this point, FSD is essentially Fools Self Driving.

Accident rate per million miles of driving.

Which competing EVs do you like and why?

FSD needs to be substantially better than the average human driver - not on par or worse (which this is).

Nobody is going to tolerate FSD vehicles bugging out and randomly driving into parked cars or pedestrians, killing people in the process.

You can tout millions of miles all day ever day, but it doesn't matter. When these vehicles are put into even semi-tricky situations, they fail far too often. Tesla's software doesn't even require tricky situations... it'll just randomly drive you into a wall or fire truck without warning.

Why? Human drivers do all of those things. Why should I care if I'm killed by a computer or a human? At least if I'm killed by a computer, the data will go into the training set and make future computers safer. But human drivers will learn nothing.

Despite the narrative being spun by FSD companies like Tesla and the rest - human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex, dynamic situations.

These systems however, are not.

I think most folks would rather not be killed because Elon's ego decided a decade ago that Tesla would never consider Lidar sensors, for example, despite the mounting evidence simple cameras are not sufficient.

Recall the Toyota stuck accelerator pedal issue years back? There are people who still refuse to own a Toyota.

What about the Boeing 737-MAX fiasco? An entirely software related bug caused a statistically trivial and insignificant amount of people to lose their lives - yet today there are still people who will never fly on a Boeing aircraft again, despite the issue being resolved.

People will not tolerate loss of life from these systems. They must be substantially better than the average human for the public to be interested.

> human drivers are actually really good at navigating complex situations. These systems however, are not.

This determination needs to be made with data. As far as I can tell there is no conclusive evidence that Teslas on autopilot are involved in more crashes per mile than human drivers, and some evidence that it is safer, though that comes from Tesla, so not giving that much weight. So either it's somewhere close to as safe as human drivers, or data collection in this area is just really bad. I don't know which.

The evidence provided by the likes of Tesla does not compare to real-world driving. They cannot produce that evidence yet, despite however many millions of miles on test circuits and well-known roads they want to tout - it's a false statistic designed to deliberately mislead the public into thinking the software is better than it really is.

The burden of proof is on the FSD companies, not average drivers. The likes of Tesla have to prove their software is far superior to human drivers - and so far they have failed to do so.

There are far too many FSD beta videos out recorded by real users that demonstrate obvious safety issues. The software is just not there yet, and may not be there for a long time, if ever.

Articles like this come out far too often to just be discarded as media "hit" pieces.

No, you need a hard metric like "Accident rate per million miles driven" in order to compare the relative hazard.

> despite the issue being resolved.

Boeing fixed their management/culture problems?

I'm unsure what that has to do with a software bug?

> FSD needs to be substantially better than the average human driver - not on par or worse (which this is).

The states of the average driver also include drunk and drugged drivers. Texting drivers. It need to be way better than the average driver until a driver that does not do those things gets a safety benefit.

I would expect Tesla FSD to behave worse than humans when there is a vehicle malfunction too.

>Accident rate per million miles of driving.

Are all driving miles equivalent? Do you think accidents that occur with FSD enabled are the same as where they most often occur under normal human control? What proportion of miles are driven in sunny US states?

> Are all driving miles equivalent?

Which metric is proposed?

Is this an argument supported by data? What about a sound experimental design?

Perhaps we could look to medicine (instead of automotive engineering) for guidance regarding which reductions in stratified accident incidence rate are significant and warrant continued investment in sensor fusion and assistive AI?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com