Hacker News Reader

Comment by valine | Hacker News Reader

Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.

FSD has no safety record as Tesla does not release their datasets for analysis by third partys, research institutes, or government regulators. In fact, they have deliberately misclassified FSD to not be a autonomous vehicle system, despite repeatedly indicating that it is intended to be and currently is a autonomous vehicle, to avoid mandatory California DMV reporting requirements [1]. The only "safety record" available is published by Tesla themselves with no access to the underlying data which is the entity with the greatest financial conflict of interest. You might as well ask Ford how safe the Pinto was or VW how clean their diesel was. There is literally no reason to believe those safety reports, in fact, you should probably anti-believe them as this is the standard pattern of manufacturers of unsafe/inadequate systems.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...

If Tesla had an adequate safety record, they would back their claims by offering liability insurance when self driving is enabled.

The fact that Tesla does not put their money where their mouth is says all you need to know.

Wake me up when someone is willing to take on liability. Until then automated driving does not exist.

FSD isn’t to the point where it can safely operate without a driver monitoring it. You’re arguing against allowing it on the roads with a safety driver on the basis that FSD isn’t ready to be operated without a safety driver. That makes zero sense.

FSD with a safety driver does not pose a threat to public safety. That’s not coming from me, it’s coming from the NHTSA.

I have no problem allowing it on the road. I do have a problem calling something that does not drive itself “self driving”. Much less FULL self driving.

Although, I guess my bigger issue is actually with the government that takes no action about false advertising.

"Full" can mean a lot of things. You chose to interpret it as L5, but to me it clearly compares itself to AP and other lesser ADAS systems which has a much smaller ODD. FSD has a nearly full ODD (it doesn't do parking and reversing yet). I understand you might get the impression that Musk means L5, and clearly that is the long term goal, but that doesn't mean FSD has to be L5. Anyway, arguing about a name is pointless. There are literally thousands of videos online where someone who's about to purchase a product for $15,000 can see exactly what they will get. The "fear" that grown adults will purchase something for $15,000 purely based on a vague name without reading any disclaimers or read/watch a single review is disingenuous and purely false concern.

What does FSD stand for?

I would have thought that something called Full Self Driving would be capable of fully driving by itself.

Sarcasm aside, that’s how most people use it.

The NHTSA hasn’t regulated it, but that doesn’t mean it’s an endorsement. It just means that they haven’t found anything within their legislative mandate that they can regulate here. US agencies are largely reactive, and I’m not sure I trust them with my life to get this right.

Most people use FSD as a driver assist because the software will permanently ban you from the beta program if you don’t keep your hands on the wheel.

No one who has used the software for more than a minute has any misconceptions about FSD.

> No one who has used the software for more than a minute has any misconceptions about FSD.

But people who have heard the name might. Honestly, it's a ridiculous name. Just "Self-driving" might be arguable. What are they going to call it when it's really fully self driving? "Literally Fully Self Driving Totally Serious"

"Adequate" is an interesting choice of a word when describing something's safety record.

Adequate to many is “Kills fewer people than the average human driver.”

And yet, the average driver kills 0 people. It’s in the far margins where deaths occur - a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

This is in comparison to the arguably singular entity “Tesla Autopilot” which has already killed several.

Tesla autopilot replaces a lot more than one human driver, so this is a mathematically nonsensical argument.

So does a bus driver. Or a pilot. Or an engineer.

And we hold them responsible for the humans in their care.

We don't. 42K people are killed in the US every year in automobile accidents. Yet humans are allowed to keep driving and killing people despite their massive flaws.

Individual humans have their license revoked and sometimes even face manslaughter charges if they cause too much death on the road. FSD is like one mind in control of an entire fleet. It's mistakes are amplified relative to a lone human

Reply on news.ycombinator.com