Hacker News Reader

Comment by alberth | Hacker News Reader

Dumb question: why would anyone sign-up for a beta program, that could kill you if gone wrong?

(maybe people just don't think through ramifications)

How would the FSD beta program kill me?

I realize that not everybody is in agreement, but I personally use the FSD beta while remaining fully in control of the vehicle. I steer with it, I watch the road conditions, I check my blind spots when it is changing lanes, I hit the accelerator if it is slowing unexpectedly, I hit the brakes if it is not...

You know, basically behaving exactly as the terms you have to agree to in order to use the FSD beta say you are going to behave.

When I look at the wreck in the tunnel (in San Francisco?) a few months ago, my first thought is: how did the driver allow that car to come to a full stop in that situation? Seriously, you are on a highway and your car pulls over half way out of the lane and gradually slows to a complete stop. Even if you were on your phone, you'd feel the unexpected deceleration, a quick glance would show that there was no obstruction, and the car further slowed to a complete stop.

FSD is terrible in many situations, that is absolutely true. But, knowing the limitations, it can also provide some great advantages. In heavy interstate traffic, for example, I'll usually enable it and then tap the signal to have it do a lane change: I'll check my blind spots and mirrors, look for closing traffic behind me, but it's very nice to have the car double checking that nobody is in my blind spot. There are many situations where, knowing the limitations, the Tesla system can help.

>How would the FSD beta program kill me?

By crashing in a way that is fatal to your life

Sure, you are in control of your Tesla but you are obviously not in control of other Teslas. Someone else who isn't as diligent as you or who doesn't care about it's limitations will happily crash head-on into you, blissfully unaware of their own ignorance.

I'm not in control of any other cars on the road. Many of those cars are driven by drunk, distracted people who cause thousands of deadly accidents every single year.

> how did the driver allow that car to come to a full stop in that situation? ... Even if you were on your phone, you'd feel the unexpected deceleration, a quick glance would show that there was no obstruction

In all honesty, I'd probably spend a few seconds trying to figure out "what does the car see that I don't?" and let it come to a stop. Maybe it's a catastrophic system failure that I can't see. Maybe it's an obstacle headed into my path that hasn't gotten my attention. If my reflexive reaction is supposed to be to distrust the car's own assessment of the situation, then the system isn't good enough yet.

It would kill you by messing up...? Your question is insane. It kills you by fucking up and you don't have time to correct the car.

Good for you that you apparently know how to "use it correctly" or whatever but that's not exactly the point here.

How can you be sure you aren't just being overconfident about your ability to prevent an accident?

... 35 accident-free years? :-). Obviously I don't want to be complacent, and I need to be on top of aging related decline of abilities...

It is a dumb question, but that's the best kind.

"could kill you if gone wrong" is nearly every choice in life. The relevant metric is risk of death or other bad outcomes.

Flying in a commercial airliner could kill you if things go wrong. Turns out it's safer than driving the same distance.

Eating food could kill you if things go wrong (severe allergy, choking, poisoning) yet it's far preferable to not eating food.

Similarly, Tesla's ADAS could kill you if things go wrong but the accident rate (as of 2022) is 8x lower than the average car on the road, and 2.5x lower than a Tesla without ADAS engaged.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I guess they think that not being in the beta program also has a non-zero chance of killing you. Either that or they are willing to exchange lower safety for greater pleasure/convenience (which everyone is willing to do sometimes, otherwise they would stay inside 100% of the time). I wouldn't use it myself, however.

People drive motorcycles, which seems much more dangerous. I don't think the risk of self driving is that high but it does seem stressful.

I'm creating a new bullet proof vest.

Would you like to participate in the beta program, to test stoping bullets being shot at you?

Virtually everyone will take the vest that needs improvement over none at all

Virtually everyone will opt out of the test, because the choice is not, "I'm going to shoot a gun at you as a test. Do you want the experimental bullet proof vest or no bullet proof vest?"

Not if the vest suddenly decides to malfunction and explode or otherwise do something that kills you. Good lord there is some poor logic happening in this thread.

That feels like a very different scenario. A successful test would still leave me winded and bruised. The odds of failure are much higher than 1 in 100,000 per year. I also have no need for a bullet proof vest so why would I be interested in testing it - what's the benefit to me?

Yeah, people don't understand how dangerous motorcycles are. The fatality rate for motorcycles in the US is 23 per 100 million miles traveled. For cars that number is 0.7. Assuming you ride 4,000 miles per year for 40 years, that gives you a 4% chance of death. The chance of being crippled or receiving a brain injury is probably higher than that.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

― George Carlin

Reply on news.ycombinator.com