Hacker News Reader

What you have in the Kia is a level 2 autonomous driving [1]. This feature is called a Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) is now even available inside non luxury cars and vehicles, and I think one of nicest features is able to perform the ADAS in traffic jam thus the vehicle can perform stop and go function if the vehicles have electronic parking brake rather than the manual [1].

Level 5 will be equivalent to AGI, and most people think that it is most probably not achievable in the near future.

[1]The 6 Levels of Vehicle Autonomy Explained:

https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-level...

Same, I was quite happy with the adaptive cruise control on my Tesla Model 3. I decided to try enabling FSD beta, and it's basically a disaster. I've experienced it:

* Get confused about its lane position and swerve around in the lane

* Attempt to get into the left lane despite a right turn coming up in a few seconds

* Try to change lanes into a lane that doesn't exist, off the side of the road

Once a month or two, I decide to give it another fair chance, and almost every time, it seems to want to do something stupid and/or dangerous.

> It enables me to take my eyes off the road for enough time to rest my eyes, stretch my back, feet, change the tunes, grab something from the back seat

Oh for your and the sake of others, please don't do this.

I have a similar system in my car, works great 99% of the time. But that 1%, where it went wrong, could have resulted in crashes had i taken my eyes or my hands or my feet or my mind off the driving aspect.

There is no room for error here. Just stop on the side of the road if its too tiring. Focus more if you're late. Or just take an Uber or have someone else drive. Or better yet, take public transport. If none of these are options, just suck it up and drive.

Please don't put yourself, or others in danger relying on this bullshit. When things go wrong, only one person is at fault and pays the price, it's you. Not Kia, not Tesla, just you, your family, the people in the crash and their family. Not worth it really.

I’m not sure your risk analysis is correct, if the driver is going to do those activities anyway, without the aid of self driving tech.

People already do things like grab food from the backseat, fiddle with the music, read their texts etc.. while driving. Are they less of a risk to those around them if they have some self driving guard rails? I would argue very likely yes.

Your conclusion of “you’re bad if you do this, so don’t do it” is rarely going to change human behavior. Giving people a tool to make the behavior they already want to do much safer is more likely to succeed.

My knee jerk reaction was to point out the flaws in your argument, but I figure thats not constructive, so here goes.

My first point is that taking eyes off the road while driving is risky business whether in a 2024 FSD Tesla or a 1996 Toyota tacoma. It's clear we don't want that.

My second point is the risk is entirely on the driver, and the people involved in the crash, not the producer of the technology who absolves themselves of all liability from the use and effects of said technology.

My personal experience that formed my opinion on this is that the technology is not ready to be fully trusted, not to the extent of taking eyes off the road (which really brought out my instinctive comment).

I will agree that this does have potential to avoid some crashes. But human nature would make us sloppier drivers.

So what, in your view, is the value of adaptive cruise control? Why did you purchase it? If I have to keep my eyes glued to the road, hands on the wheel and foot over the pedals 100% of the time, what’s the point? I’d rather just drive.

To be clear I’m not saying I shut my eyes and nap - “rest” in this case meant “look at something other than the road / car in front of me / taillights”. I’m doing things that, as another commenter said, I’m already going to do anyway, but now it’s safer to take a momentary break to do them without resorting to “knee-steering” or other hacks. I’m also doing these things only when it’s a straight section of open road with little traffic.

Wait until you realize Tesla is behind on self driving compared to the major manufacturers.

I drove a Volvo rental that was a couple of years old that had level 3 self driving that vastly outperformed any Tesla self driving. And that wasn't even the latest tech from Volvo.

Tesla are behind on self driving and they charge extra for it!

Volvo has never shipped level 3 autonomous driving. At most they are level 2.

https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

The current market leader in terms of shipping products that are available for consumers to purchase is probably Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot. They are legitimately at level 3 and significantly ahead of Tesla in most (but not all) respects.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45326503/mercedes-benz...

Wow, since Tesla is so behind I guess my Volvo must be able to drive me through LA? https://youtu.be/0kvK_20mNuo?si=ooQj7S98GyCMAJEI

No? No unprotected lefts, no roundabouts? Not even turning? Sounds very advanced, Tesla must be in a panic they're so far behind...

This is the same type of thinking that prevents most developers from working in safety-critical fields. The presence of a feature, or even its impressive capabilities, is/are not what constitutes "performance." It's also the same type of thinking that gets Tesla drivers decapitated or slammed into an abutment.

That would have an acceptable point to make if FSD was not capable of safely doing what all other ADAS systems can do, but it obviously can. It's just that Tesla has no interest in restricting its features and get L3 approval for such a small subset of driving.

If today you claim FSD V12 is "behind" the lane keeping assist of other manufacturers, that is just delusion, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm truthfully not understanding whether you've missed the point or if you're so interested in defending Tesla that you choose to look past it.

I'm not making a claim about relative feature capabilities (yes, having replied in this specific thread makes that confusing, but that's where your comment was). I'm making a claim that the vast majority of developers do not know how to judge a system's safety.

As an example of this from you, and for a more critical view of Tesla from me, I'll say that when I look at Tesla's capabilities, I could not make a claim that it does anything safely. Safety implies that the system knows its limits and refuses to operate outside of them. This is definitely not Tesla's way. Else it would be impossible, for example, to have sun blind spots make it not "see" a semi.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dhxK4OKHhOw

My point stands: just because Tesla chooses to make FSD an L2 system at the moment doesn't mean that it's unable to act safely in the same scenarios as for instance Mercedes L3. So concluding that FSD is behind Mercedes is delusional. If you actually look at evidence available, (the thousands of videos available for FSD, and the ... tens available for other brands), and still claim FSD is behind, that is delusional.

I'm defending Tesla because these comments are just insanity, and it points to an extreme anti-Tesla or Elon bias, which is very common these days. If you can't impartially evaluate a piece of technology that is clearly more advanced in every possible way, you really need to reflect.

I don't quite understand how anyone could actually compare systems from different vendors. The failure modes aren't something the vendors have been able to identify in advance of a cataclysmic event.

So I agree with your "delusional" statement, and also consider your remarks of the same caliber. You cannot determine a system's safety by watching videos.

Think how many videos there would be by now of the 737max taking off, flying, and landing if airplanes were as hip and new as robotic drivers.