US to probe Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' system after pedestrian killed in low visibility conditions
apnews.com
The U.S. government’s road safety agency is again investigating Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” system, this time after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents that it opened the probe on Thursday with the company reporting four crashes after Teslas entered areas of low visibility, including sun glare, fog and airborne dust.
In addition to the pedestrian’s death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.
Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes.”
Eyes can’t see in low visibility.
musk “we drive with our eyes, cameras are eyes. we dont need LiDAR”
FSD kills someone because of low visibility just like with eyes
musk reaction -
It's worse than that, though. Our eyes are significantly better than cameras (with some exceptions at the high end) at adapting to varied lighting conditions than cameras are. Especially rapid changes.
Not only that, when we have trouble seeing things, we can adjust our speed to compensate (though tbf, not all human drivers do, but I don't think FSD should be modelled after the worst of human drivers). Does Tesla's FSD go into a "drive slower" mode when it gets less certain about what it sees? Or does its algorithms always treat its best guess with high confidence?
Hard to credit without a source, modern cameras have way more dynamic range than the human eye.
Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.
Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.
They're also pretty noisy in low light and generally take long exposures (a problem with a camera at high speeds) to get sufficient input to see anything in the dark. Especially if you aren't spending thousands of dollars with massive sensors per camera.
I dunno what cameras you are using but a standard full frame sensor and an F/4 lens sees way better in low light than the human eye. If I take a raw image off my camera, there is so much more dynamic range than I can see or a monitor can even represent, you can double the brightness at least four times (ie 16x brighter) and parts of the image that looked pure black to the eye become perfectly usable images. There is so so so much more dynamic range than the human eye.
Do you know what the depth of field at f/4 looks like? It's not anywhere in the neighborhood of suitable for a car, and it still takes a meaningful exposure length in low light conditions to get a picture at all, which is not suitable for driving at 30mph, let alone actually driving fast.
That full frame sensor is also on a camera that's several thousand dollars.
if he was truthful: "the cost of adding lidar cuts in my profits"
Correction - Older Teslas had lidar, Musk demanded they be removed because they cut into his profits. Not a huge difference but it does show how much of a shitbag he is.
Honestly though, I'm a fucking idiot and even I can tell that Lidar might be needed for proper, safe FSD
You'd think "we drive with our eyes, cameras are eyes." is an argument against only using cameras but that do I know.
He really is a fucking idiot. But so few people can actually call him out... So he just never gets put in his place.
Imagine your life with unlimited redos. That's how he lives.
How Can Cameras Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
Pluck it out!
The cars used to have RADAR. But they got rid of that and even disabled it on older models when updating because they “only need cameras.”
Cameras and RADAR would have been good enough for most all conditions…
What pisses me off about this is that, in conditions of low visibility, the pedestrian can't even hear the damned thing coming.
I hear electric cars all the time, they are not much quieter than an ice car. We don’t need to strap lawn mowers to our cars in the name of safety.
You can hear them, but manufacturers had to add external speakers to electric cars to make them louder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds
I think they are a lot more quiet. I've turned around and seen a car 5 meter away from me, and been surprised. That never happens with fuel cars.
I think if you are young, maybe there isn't a big difference since you have perfect hearing. But middle aged people lose quite a bit of that unfortunately.
I'm relatively young and it can still be difficult to hear them especially the ones without a fake engine sound. Add some city noise and they can be completely inaudible.
'city noise' you mean ICE car noise. We should be trying to reduce noise pollution not compete with it.
It's not safe for cars to be totally silent when moving imo since I'd imagine it's more likely to get run over.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now definitely on Musk's list of departments to cut if Trump makes him a high-ranking swamp monster
Why do you think musk dumping so much cash to boost Trump? The plan all along is to get kickbacks like stopping investigation, lawsuits, and regulations against him. Plus subsidies.
Rich assholes don't spend money without expectation of ROI
He knows Democrats will crack down on shady practices so Trump is his best bet.
He's not hoping for a kickback, he is offered a position as secretary of cost-cutting.
He will be able to directly shut down everything he doesn't like under the pretense of saving money.
Trump is literally campaigning on the fact that government positions are up for sale under his admin.
Alongside the EPA for constantly getting in the way of the FAA trying to slip his SpaceX flight licenses through with a wink and a nudge instead of properly following regulations, and the FAA for trying to keep a semblance of legality through the whole process.
This is legitimately one of the real reasons Musk is pushing for Trump so hard. NHTSA (and all the other regulatory agencies) were effectively gutted completely by the Trump admin and it's basically the entire reason Elon could grift his way to where he is today. The moment Biden got into office, basically every single agency in existence began investigating him and pushing blocks out of the proverbial Jenga tower of the various Musk companies. He's praying that Trump will get elected and allow him to keep grifting, because otherwise he's almost definitely going to jail, or at a minimum losing the vast majority of his empire.
how is it legal to label this "full self driving" ?
"I freely admit that the refreshing sparkling water I sell is poisonous and should not be consumed."
“But to be clear, although I most certainly know for a fact that the refreshing sparkling water I sell is exceedingly poisonous and should in absolutely no way be consumed by any living (and most dead*) beings, I will nevertheless very heartily encourage you to buy it. What you do with it after is entirely up to you.
*~Exceptions~ ~may~ ~apply.~ ~You~ ~might~ ~be~ ~one.~
That's pretty clearly just a disclaimer meant to shield them from legal repercussions. They know people aren't going to do that.
Last time I checked that disclaimer was there because officially Teslas are SAE level 2, which let's them evade regulations that higher SAE levels have, and in practice Tesla FSD beta is SAE level 4.
In theory this is pure bull, and in practice it is level 4 bull.
That's what I read from an article but I don't think whether they're level 4 or not doesn't really matter. The point is they officially claim to be level 2 but their cars clearly function beyond level 2.
You want to read again what level 4 means.
Between the levels it is not just about function, but about completeness of circumstances.
If customers can't assume that boneless wings don't have bones in them, then they shouldn't assume that Full Self Driving can self-drive the car.
The courts made it clear that words don't matter, and that the company can't be liable for you assuming that words have meaning.
Right? It's crazy that this is legal.
Now go after Oscar Meyer and Burger King. I am not getting any ham in my burger or dog in my hot's. They are buying a product which they know full well before they complete the sale that it does not and is not lawfully allowed to auto pilot itself around the country. The owners manuals will give them a full breakdown as well I'm sure. If you spend thousands of dollars on something and don't know the basic rules and guidelines, you have much bigger issues. If anything, one should say to register these vehicles to drive on the road, they should have to be made aware.
If someone is that dumb or ignorant to jump through all the hoops and not know, let's be honest: They shouldn't be driving a car either.
I sometimes find a small seed in seedless watermelons.
It's the same issue, although the seeds are unlikely to harm you.
It drives your full self, it doesn't break you into components and ship those seperately.
Literally its "partial self driving" or "drive assist"
It is a legal label, if it was safe it would be "safe full self driving".
legal or not it's absolutely bonkers. Safety should be the legal assumption for marketing terms like this, not an optional extra.
Humans know to drive more carefully in low visibility, and/or to take actions to improve visibility. Muskboxes don't.
They also decided to only use cameras and visual clues for driving instead of using radar, heat cameras or something like that as well.
It's designed to be launched asap, not to be safe
I mean, that’s just good economics. I’m willing to bet someone at Tesla has done the calcs on how many people they can kill before it becomes unprofitable
like that
I'm not so sure. Whenever there's crappy weather conditions, I see a ton of accidents because so many people just assume they can drive at the posted speed limit safely. In fact, I tend to avoid the highway altogether for the first week or two of snow in my area because so many people get into accidents (the rest of the winter is generally fine).
So this is likely closer to what a human would do than not.
I also see a ton of accidents when the sun is in the sky or if it is dusty out. \s
Yup, especially at daylight savings time when the sun changes position in the sky abruptly.
Cameras are probably worse here, but they may be able to make up for it with parallel processing the poor data they get.
The question is, is Tesla FSD's record better, worse, or about the same on average as a human driver under the same conditions? If it's worse than the average human, it needs to be taken off the road. There are some accident statistics available, but you have to practically use a decoder ring to make sure you're comparing like to like even when whoever's providing the numbers has no incentive to fudge them. And I trust Tesla about as far as I could throw a Model 3.
On the other hand, the average human driver sucks too.
Yeah, I honestly don't know. My point is merely that we should have the same standards for FSD vs human driving, at least initially, because they have a lot more potential for improvement than human drivers. If we set the bar too high, we'll just delay safer transportation.
You can't measure this, because it has drivers behind the wheel. Even if it did three "pedestrian-killing" mistakes every 10 miles, chances are the driver will catch every mistake per 10000 miles and not let it crash.
But on the other hand, if we were to measure every time the driver takes over the number would be artificially high - because we can't predict the future and drivers are likely to be overcautious and take over even in circumstances that would have turned out OK.
The only way to do this IMO is by
The median driver sure, but the bottom couple percent never miss their exit and tend to do boneheaded shit like swerving into the next lane when there's a stopped car at a crosswalk. >40,000 US fatalities in 2023. There are probably half a dozen fatalities in the US on any given day by the time the clock strikes 12:01AM on the west coast.
Edit: some more food for thought as I've been pondering:
FSD may or may not be better than the median driver (maybe this investigation will add to knowledge), but it's likely better than the worst drivers... But the worst drivers are the most likely to vastly overestimate their competence, which might lead to them actively avoiding the use of any such aids, despite those drivers being the ones who would see the greatest benefit from using them. We might be forever stuck with boneheaded drivers doing boneheaded shit
Tesla: Why would we need lidar? Just use visual cameras.
FTFY
This of course assumes 1) that cameras are just as good as eyes (they're not) and 2) that the processing of visual data that the human brain does can be replicated by a machine, which seems highly dubious given that we only partially understand how humans process visual data to make decisions.
Finally, it assumes that the current rate of human-caused crashes is acceptable. Which it isn't. We tolerate crashes because we can't improve people without unrealistic expense. In an automated system, if a bit of additional hardware can significantly reduce crashes it's irrational not to do it.
Also, on a final note...
Why the fuck would you limit yourself to only human senses when you have the capability to add more of any sense you want??
If you have the option to add something that humans don't have, why wouldn't you? As an example, humans don't have gps either, but it's very useful to have in a car
Unfortunately the answer to that is: Elon's cheap and Radar is expensive. Not so expensive that you can't get it in a base model Civic though, which just makes it that much more absurd.
Lidar isn't that expensive, it's more expensive than the cameras but it's probably more useful than the cameras so perhaps you could install less cameras and more Lidar. Also the cost will go down as production rates go up, currently it's high price has a lot to do with its limited applications and thus limited customer base. The more cars that have lidar, the more customers there will be, and the less each individual unit will cost.
Because a global pandemic broke your sensor supply chain and you still want to sell cars with FSD anyway, so cameras-only it is!
This is directly a result of Elon's edict that Tesla cars don't use lidar. If you aren't aware Elon set that as a requirement at the beginning of Tesla's self driving project because he didn't want to spend the money on lidar for all Tesla cars.
His "first principles" logic is that humans don't use lidar therefore self driving should be able to be accomplished without (expensive) enhanced vision tools. While this statement has some modicum of truth, it's obviously going to trade off safely in situations where vision is compromised. Think fog or sunlight shining in your cameras / eyes or a person running across the street at night wearing all black. There are obvious scenarios where lidar is a massive safety advantage, but Elon made a decision for $$ to not have that. This sounds like a direct and obvious outcome of that edict.
This kind of idiocy is why people tried to build airplanes with flapping wings. Way too many people thought that the best way to create a plane was to just copy what nature did with birds. Nature showed it was possible, so just copy nature.
To be fair, we achieved flight by copying nature. Once we realized the important part was the shape of a wing more than the flapping.
My vacuum robot uses lidar. How expensive could it be??
You need slightly more advanced lidar for cars because you need to be able to see further ahead then 10 ft, and you need to be able to see in adverse weather conditions (rain, fog, snow), that I assume you don't experience indoors. That said, it really isn't as expensive as he is making it out to be.
Humans move with only feet so cars should be limited to using feet. And only 2 of them.
Well building battlemechs does seem like the obvious next step on Elon's progression
You mean promising to build battlemechs, and fucking around for 5 years while grifting his stock valuation sky-high, then coming forward with a cheap robot that can't even walk?
Not only that, specifically doing it to fuck the momentum of another project that would have competed with his entire market but would have been better for pretty much everyone (including those who stayed in the market he was targeting).
Regarding point number 2, I have no doubt we'll be able to develop systems that process visual/video data as well as or better than people. I just know we aren't there yet, and Tesla certainly isn't.
I like to come at the argument from the other direction though; humans drive with eyesight because that's all we have. If I could be equipped with sonar or radar or lidar, of fucking course I'd use it, wouldn't you?
Really fucking stupid that we as a society intentionally choose to fuck around and find out rather than find out before we fuck around.
You got one part wrong. The people fucking around aren't the ones having to do the "finding out" part.
By refusing to vote in competent regulatory bodies, the ones finding out are a part of the problem with the societal ails. I don't want specific people punished with prejudice, I want a rule of law that holds all people accountable as equals and averts all harm before it can happen.
Are you victim blaming the
killedmurdered pedestrians?I am speaking about societal problems in context of society as a whole, as I have been the entire time.
Full Self Driving shipping
202520262027309844841e+156Makes you wonder if removing the lidar and using fucking cameras isn’t part of the problem… cheap bastards.
Was that cause of the cost? Didnt Elon come out claiming lidar was a "crutch" or something?
It's an extra 60k.
Well he said all sorts to try and justify it but really it was a cost-cutting exercise, of course it was a cost cutting exercise, why else would they do it?
Anyway that explanation doesn't make sense, if using lidar was a crutch then surely that's a good solution right. It's a bit like going, no you shouldn't use wings on your aircraft that's a crutch, you should be using the antigravity tech that we don't have yet.
In the long run there probably are going to be better solutions (that's how civilizations advance), but those better solutions don't exist yet, so... maybe we should use what we have.
If anyone was somehow still thinking RoboTaxi is ever going to be a thing. Then no, it’s not, because of reasons like this.
It doesn't have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.
Exactly. The current rate is 80 deaths per day in the US alone. Even if we had self-driving cars proven to be 10 times safer than human drivers, we’d still see 8 news articles a day about people dying because of them. Taking this as 'proof' that they’re not safe is setting an impossible standard and effectively advocating for 30,000 yearly deaths, as if it’s somehow better to be killed by a human than by a robot.
If you get killed by a robot, it simply lacks the human touch.
If you get killed by a robot, you can at least die knowing your death was the logical option and not a result of drunk driving, road rage, poor vehicle maintenance, panic, or any other of the dozens of ways humans are bad at decision-making.
It doesn't even need to be logical, just statistically reasonable. You're literally a statistic anytime you interact w/ any form of AI.
Or the result of cost cutting...
or a flipped comparison operator, or a "//TODO test code please remove"
The problem with this way of thinking is that there are solutions to eliminate accidents even without eliminating self-driving cars. By dismissing the concern you are saying nothing more than it isn't worth exploring the kinds of improvements that will save lives.
"10 times safer than human drivers", (except during specific visually difficult conditions which we knowingly can prevent but won't because it's 10 times safer than human drivers). In software, if we have replicable conditions that cause the program to fail, we fix those, even though the bug probably won't kill anyone.
But they aren't and likely never will be.
And how are we to correct for lack of safety then? With human drivers you obvious discourage dangerous driving through punishment. Who do you punish in a self driving car?
It needs to be way way better than ‘better than average’ if it’s ever going to be accepted by regulators and the public. Without better sensors I don’t believe it will ever make it. Waymo had the right idea here if you ask me.
But why is that the standard? Shouldn't "equivalent to average" be the standard? Because if self-driving cars can be at least as safe as a human, they can be improved to be much safer, whereas humans won't improve.
I'd accept that if the makers of the self-driving cars can be tried for vehicular manslaughter the same way a human would be. Humans carry civil and criminal liability, and at the moment, the companies that produce these things only have nominal civil liability. If Musk can go to prison for his self-driving cars killing people the same way a regular driver would, I'd be willing to lower the standard.
Sure, but humans are only criminally liable if they fail the "reasonable person" standard (i.e. a "reasonable person" would have swerved out of the way, but you were distracted, therefore criminal negligence). So the court would need to prove that the makers of the self-driving system failed the "reasonable person" standard (i.e. a "reasonable person" would have done more testing in more scenarios before selling this product).
So yeah, I agree that we should make certain positions within companies criminally liable for criminal actions, including negligence.
I think the threshold for proving the "reasonable person" standard for companies should be extremely low. They are a complex organization that is supposed to have internal checks and reviews, so it should be very difficult for them to squirm out of liability. The C-suite should be first on the list for criminal liability so that they have a vested interest in ensuring that their products are actually safe.
Sure, the "reasonable person" would be a competitor who generally follows standard operating procedures. If they're lagging behind the industry in safety or something, that's evidence of criminal negligence.
And yes, the C-suite should absolutely be the first to look at, but the problem could very well come from someone in the middle trying to make their department look better than it is and lying to the C-suites. C-suites have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, whereas their reports don't, so they can have very different motivations.
The c-suites have the ultimate power and therefore ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in their organization. Similar to how parents can be held criminally liable for their children's actions. It's just that much more incentive for them to make sure things are in order in their organization.
Also, Citizen's United ruled that corporations are people, so they can be held to the same standards of responsibility as other people.
It's a pretty limited liability, as can be seen in a lot of incidents (e.g. mass shootings). You have to prove a pretty high standard of negligence for a parent to be responsible for their kids' actions.
The same should be true for anyone else as well, if the C-suite is unaware that something negligent or illegal was going on two levels below, they shouldn't be held liable for that. You should only be liable for a crime that you are aware of, or should have been aware of if you were doing your due diligence. But yes, in many cases, the C-suites should be held to task here.
That's the thing though...I think it is part of their due diligence to know what's going on in their own business. If they can't guarantee that it's safe, they shouldn't release it.
If their reports are lying to them, and not in a way that they should have detected, then I don't think it falls on them if things go sideways. And that happens somewhat regularly, when you have a VP or something somewhere painting a much rosier picture that what is actually happening on the ground.
At that point, it comes down to a call on whether they were negligent.
Humans absolutely improve.
Not on average as drivers, safety protections in do improve though.
The average human driver is tried and held accountable
That is the minimal outcomes for an automated safety feature to be an improvement over human drivers.
But if everyone else is using something you refused to that would have likely avoided someone's death, while misnaming you feature to mislead customers, then you are in legal trouble.
When it comes to automation you need to be far better than humans because there will be a higher level of scrutiny. Kind of like how planes are massively safer than driving on average, but any incident where someone could have died gets a massive amount of attention.
It's bit reductive to put it in terms of a binary choice between an average human driver and full AI driver. I'd argue it has to hit less pedestrians than a human driver with the full suite of driver assists currently available to be viable.
Self-driving is purely a convenience factor for personal vehicles and purely an economic factor for taxis and other commercial use. If a human driver assisted by all of the sensing and AI tools available is the safest option, that should be the de facto standard.
Charge the stupid fuck Tesla chain of decision making with murder. This bullshit "self driving" advertising is premeditated, that's no longer manslaughter.
And charge the driver(s) with manslaughter under aggravating circumstances.
But oh no, muh profts, hurr-durrr....
Wouldn't it be death by negligence rather than pre-meditated murder. After all I don't think anyone at Tesla actually wanted this particular person to die, they just didn't really care to take any action to prevent it.
"I aimed my rifle at that person's head and pulled the trigger, but I swear I didn't want them to die"
Tesla should be broken up and reassembled with zero overlap in management.
And yes, legally it won't stick, but the shitty south african oligarch should absolutely be tried for murder.
Every time I hear something about pedestrian being killed by something self-driving, it begins to irk me as to why are we pushing for such and such technology.
The bad news is people hitting and killing pedestrians is so common you don't hear about it. Fuck Musk and all that, but some number of people are always going to get killed. Even the FSD system that was as close to perfect as possible would still occasionally kill someone in large enough numbers, because there's too many variables to account for. If the numbers are lower than a human driving, it's a positive.
We should be trying to move away from cars though ideally. Fuck electric cars, FSD cars, and all other cars. A bus, train, bike, or whatever else would be safer and better for the environment.
Public transport is the way to go, just need to break the cycle of six decades of automobile addiction.
Lets install adaptive headlights to stop blinding people or allowing manufacturers to install chrome accents on the rear of a vehicle to again stop blinding people or even just maybe make a smaller truck that isn't lifting ego and instead actual building materials.
NHSTA:
That's easy to say, but do you want to be one of the people who gets killed? I don't.
Yeah, it's that easy to say and yeah, I don't want to be one of the people killed, driverless or not. Cars are fucking deadly. 20 pedestrians die every day to cars. If we can get that number down but have them die to FSD vehicles, that's better. I don't care who or what is driving.
I'd rather not have cars everywhere, but if we do I want them to be as safe as possible (for everyone, not just the driver). If that includes FSD we should do it, even if the number of pedestrian deaths doesn't hit zero (it never will) because the alternative is well above zero.
If I'm get killed by a driver on their phone, I want them to go to prison.
If I'm killed by a Waymo or whatever, who goes to jail then?
If we really must have self driving cars, limit their speed to 20mph in built up areas.
If you're dead, why the fuck do you care who goes to jail? Shouldn't we care more about people dying than revenge after?
Don't reason deterrentists, they cause wars and send millions to prison
I wouldn't care. I hope my wife and family would.
"He died for a good cause: Tesla's stock price" is not what they want to hear.
I don't like Tesla, but no one is dying to support FSD. They're dying because multi-ton vehicles driving down the road next to fleshy meatbags sometimes ends up with them colliding. It doesn't really matter who, if anyone, is behind the wheel. I'd rather them not come into contact. I'm in favor of everything that reduces that. I don't really care if it ruins someone's revenge fetish.
OK, we'll make it simple then.
If you make a self driving car and it kills a pedestrian, then you give the family of the victim $50 million, and a seat on the board. Forever. Every decision you make from then on will be looking into the faces of the people whose lives you destroyed, while they turn down your bonuses.
Also, I don't believe for one second that a self driving car is safer than somebody who should legally be behind the wheel of a car. If the sun is in your eyes, you slow down. If you can't see the conditions ahead, you slow down.
Number of people killed by Waymos self driving: 0? Number of people appear to think Waymo's self driving has killed: hundreds?
Tesla's don't have the tech to make it safe enough, but Waymo hasn't been the ones at fault for all this fear mongering.
Because it is generally proven to save lifes. You'll never hear of "thanks for the auto-brake system no one got injured and everything was boring as usual" but it happened a lot (also to me in first person).
I don't like Musk but in general its a good thing to push self driving cars IMO. I drive 2 hours per day and the amount of time where I see retarded people doing retarded stuff at the wheel is crazy.
This is the thing. Musk and everything his company does in terms of labour and marketing, and just their whole ethos is unethical as fuck, and I can't stand that as a society we are celebrating Tesla.
But self driving cars are not inherently bad or dangerous to persue as a technological advancement.
Self driving cars will kill people, they'll will hit pedestrians and crash into things.
So do cars driven by humans.
Human driven cars kill a lot of people.
Self driving cars need to be safer than human driven cars to even consider letting them on the the road, but we can't truly expect a 0% accident rate on self driving cars in the early days of the technology when we don't expect that of the humanity driven cars.
Air travel is generally safer than driving too, but every accident is studied thoroughly. Self-driving is fine, but anyone trying to implement it should be held to a high standard. Boeing slacked off and they're facing some backlash.
No, it is not generally proven to save lives, you are listening to lies somewhere. Its not a good thing to push self-driving cars and Musk is the one being retarded. Plus he supports Trump and not Harris.
The technology behind it is proven to save lifes. The reaction time of a full brake to stop a car crash i had the "luck" of experiencing on a Volkswagen was outstanding.
Same thing for the lane assist function if you are sleepy
If you are sleepy behind the wheel, you need to pull over, get off the road, and take a rest.
Thanks mom. I brought cases to prove my point I'm not saying you should go on a road trip while sleepy.
Because self-driving cars are safer than human drivers, when implemented properly. A proper one is absolutely loaded with sensors, radar, laser, sonar; not just some cameras like Tesla's system.
If you ever get the chance to, hop in a Waymo and you'll become a believer too (currently available only in Cali and AZ). These little robotaxis see everything at all times, not just what's in front of them like humans. I trust them more than I'd trust any human driver. They can avoid accidents that you and I would never see coming. Witnessed this first-hand.
There is no proof they are safe, and we should stop trying to replace people.
Again, ride in one yourself when you get the chance and I promise you you'll change your mind immediately.
Again, not only no valid proof they are safe, but they are being used to put people out of work like Taxi and Uber drivers.
It's for the better. They will find other jobs. You sound like the people crying about coal mines being closed down.
The worst way to die would be getting hit by a shitbox Tesla. RIP.
I mean I'll take it over being burned alive or brutally eaten alive by a pack of ravenous wolves.
I'll take the wolves
Neither of those are necessarily quicker or less painful than getting hit by the car.
For some real fun, try for all three at once!
Thats just a south park skit.
I thought it was illegal to call it full self driving? So I thought Tesla had something new.
Apprently it's the moronic ASSISTED full self driving the article is about. So nothing new.
Tesla does not have a legal full self driving system, so why do articles keep pushing the false narrative, even after it's deemed illegal?
Assisted full self driving is an oxymoron.
Absolutely, but that's what Tesla decided, that or supervised, because it's illegal to call it actually full self driving.
But an oxymoron is also fitting for Musk. You can even skip the oxy part. 😋
100% agree. Who sells assisted full self driving anyway? Tesla’s is supervised which means it drives and the person behind the wheel is liable for its fuckups.
Did they change it again? It was FSD Beta, then Supervised, now you’re telling me it’s ASSISTED? Since that’s not in TFA…
IDK I heard assisted, maybe they decided on supervised? The central point is that it's illegal in some states to call it full self driving, because it's false advertising.
The same reason that simple quadcopters have been deemed by the press to be called "drones". You can't manufacture panic and outrage with a innocuous name.
Calling it a drone has nothing to do with how many propellers it has, some drones are Jet driven. some are boats and some are vehicles.
A Drone is simply an unmanned craft, controlled remotely or by automation.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone
It sure doesn't say when that was updated, but for a long period of time the use of drone when discussing unmanned aircraft was reserved for military craft that were usually armed and used to kill people. In the attempt to demonize hobby rc use, the press started calling simple quadcopters (and other propeller configurations if we are being pedantic) drones and not what they were normally called by the people using and making them in the hobby. My point still stands, the press likes to change the wording of things, and will perpetuate their narrative in order to garner views. Manufacturing fear is part of their tactic, and is why I replied what I replied to the question of why the press continues to push the false narrative of these cars being "self driving".
This meaning probably dates back before you were born, as it's use can be tracked back to at least early 19 hundreds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles
I'm pretty sure I remember the word used in SciFi novels from the 70's. where drones are mindless automatons a kind of primitive robots, very much in line with this description point 3:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/drone
I don't see that. it just seems you were ignorant of the actual meaning and use of the word.
It was called that name at the time when the kills happened.
To be fair its marketed as full self driving, not full self no crashing
It sure crashed its full self
I purchased FSD when it was 8k. What a crock of shit. When I sold the car, that was this only gave the car value after 110k miles and it was only $1500 at most.
In five years guys!!
Does anyone else find this enraging ?
It’s a decade too late.
Maybe have a safety feature that refuses to engage self drive if it's too foggy/rainy/snowy.
Inb4 someone on TikTok shows how to bypass that sensor by jamming an orange in it -__-
They need to just ban this technolgy from cars and semis entirely.
Preventing engaging something in bad conditions is a lot easier than what do you do if the conditions suddenly happen.
If it's suddenly foggy it needs to be able to handle the situation well.
Cameras/Lidar don't work well in fog. Radar does, but it isn't a primary sensor and can't be driven on safely alone in any circumstance.
So now you need to slow down (which humans will do) but also since the sensors are failing or insufficient, safely get out of the way of what might be other incoming vehicles behind you, or slow/stopped vehicles ahead of you.
You could restrict hours the system can be engaged which will reduce the likely hood of certain events (e.g morning fog, or sunrise/sunset head on sun) but there's still unpredictability.
If it took them this long to look at Full Self Driving, I don't have a lot of hope. But I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
I wonder if they will now find the Emperor has no clothes.
They will have to look long and hard...
This is why you can’t have an AI make decisions on activities that could kill someone. AI models can’t say “I don’t know”, every input is forced to be classified as something they’ve seen before, effectively hallucinating when the input is unknown.
I'm not very well versed in this but isn't there a confidence value that some of these models are able to output?
All probabilistic models output a confidence value, and it's very common and basic practice to gate downstream processes around that value. This person just doesn't know what they're talking about. Though, that puts them on about the same footing as Elono when it comes to AI/ML.
Right, which is why that marvelous confidence value got somebody ran over.
Are you under the impression that I think Teslas approach to AI and computer vision is anything but fucking dumb? The person said a stupid and patently incorrect thing. I corrected them. Confidence values being literally baked into how most ML architectures work is unrelated to intentionally depriving your system of one of the most robust ccomputer vision signals we can come up with right now.
Yes, but confidence values are not magic. These values are calculated based on how familiar the current input is to a previous observed input. If the type of input is unfamiliar to the model, what do you think happens? Usually, there will be a category with a high enough confidence score so that it will be chosen as the correct one, while being wrong. Now, assuming you somehow manage to not get a favorable confidence score for any decision. What do you think happens in that case? I never encountered this, but there can only be 3 possible paths: 1) Choose a random value. Not good. 2) Do nothing. Not good. 3) Rerun the model with slightly newer data? Maybe helps, but in the case of driving a car, slightly newer data might be too late.
There's plenty you could do if no label was produced with a sufficiently high confidence. These are continuous systems, so the idea of "rerunning" the model isn't that crazy, but you could pair that with an automatic decrease in speed to generate more frames, stop the whole vehicle (safely of course), divert path, and I'm sure plenty more an actual domain and subject matter expert might come up with--or a whole team of them. But while we're on the topic, it's not really right to even label these confidence intervals as such--they're just output weighting associated with respective levels. We've sort of decided they vaguely match up to something kind of sort approximate to confidence values but they aren't based on a ground truth like I'm understanding your comment to imply--they entirely derive out of the trained model weights and their confluence. Don't really have anywhere to go with that thought beyond the observation itself.
Who's at fault?
The government for letting tesla get away with false advertising. They let them do it because they swallowed the hype along with Musk climate saviorism.
What about the people for letting the government get away with bad governing. They let them do it because they swallowed the hype.
Still governement's fault for brainwashing the population with neoliberal governemental donothing-ism which fedback into the system as paralysis and letting liars lie for clout and money (Yes, I mean the Musky one)
Fuck Elon musk.
But self-driving is one of the most needed technologies to aim for in the near future. And it's a shame that as American space industry it has , apparently, let be in the hands of a lunatic.
The potential to reduce road mortality. And to give back to humans thousands of hours back of their time (you can do other things while not driving).
I don't really care about the philosophical question on who is to blame if a self driving car run over one person if road mortality got statistically reduced by a big value thanks to the technology.
The anti technology I see on some supposedly progressive people nowadays really scares me. Bad omen. It's like having a choice between rich conservatives and poor conservatives, but only conservatives nonetheless.
That’s just a train/bus with extra steps and far more risk. Cities with cars as the main mode of transport are still ugly places to live.
I live in what is supposedly taught as the better mobility solution. A dense european city.
It's true, I can go everywhere walking and by public transport.. and it sucks.
Such density to allow for good public transport means living in apartments like ants, instead of houses.
I like walking but in winter or summer it can be miserable. Buses you get really tired of very quickly, crowded, crazy people, smells, having to be on foot because no seats, dizziness, and in big cities pickpocketing. It's a lot of misery IMHO.
I've live like this many decades and I cannot see the time I can move out of the city, well knowing I'll need a car for everything because lower densities does not allow for walking/good public transport. But I find higher densities just miserable to live in.
As such I would love to have self driving cars. Seems such a life quality improvement.
oh so you're just an unhappy person
I'm unhappy of sharing this world with people with such low empathy, yes.
Be easier to automate various types of rail.
As stated in other comment of mine. Public transport/walkikg is good for high density cities.
Not everyone would be happy living in such environment. I fact I think most people won't. Low density environment have a need for cars. And I think if cars are needed, they'd better be electric and self driving.
Then it's a difference of opinion, I think they would be happier with better public transport.
It could be measured I suppose.
Giving completely free will without economic pressure most people would chose one environment or the other.
I suppose there's enough statistical data on the world to make such analysis. Not that I'm going to do it. But I think it could be measurable what people chose when money is not a factor, as in I need to live X because I don't have money to live in Y.
Anyway it's almost a fact that there would be people that would love to live in one place and some people on the other. So best solution could probably be good public transport in the city and self driving cars in the countryside.
I think a lack of availability is what is stopping the free market from choosing the better form of transportation.
You don't even need self driving if it's mostly just the countryside. That's just not a lot of people and the resources required to get it working would be better spent on building mass transit and walkable areas in cities where people actually live (and thus where culture and economy actually happen)
My country already have mass transit and walkable areas really.
But people who chose to live far away from cities because cities give them anxiety also have rights and deserve nice things.
Why is it the most needed though?
I'm not really sold on the importance of it anymore tbh. It was a cool scifi dream but driving is not even at the top 1000 issues we need solving right now.