US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

There are also endless videos of teslas driving into pedestrians, plowing full speed into emergency vehicles parked with flashing lights, veering wildly from strange markings on the road, etc. etc.

"works for me" is a very strange response for someone on Hacker News if you have any coding background - you should realize you are a beta tester unwittingly if not a full blown alpha tester in some cases

All it will take is a non-standard event happening on your daily drive. Most certainly not wishing it on you, quite the opposite, trying to get you to accept that a perfect drive 99 times out of 100 is not enough.

Those are Autopilot videos this discussion is about FSD. FSD has driven ~2 billion miles at this point and had potentially 2 fatal accidents.

The US average is 1.33 deaths/100 million miles. Tesla on FSD is easily 10x safer.

Every day it gets safer.

How many miles does it have on the latest software? Because any miles driven on previous software are no longer relevant. Especially with that big change in v12.

The miles driven are rising exponentially as the versions improve according to company filings. If the miles driven on previous versions are no longer relevant how can the NHTSA investigation of previous versions impact FSD regulation today?

Given that the performance has improved dramatically over the last 6 months, it is very reasonable to assume that the miles driven to fatality ratio also improving.

Using the value of 1.33 deaths per 100 million miles driven vs 2 deaths in 2 billion miles driven, FSD has saved approximately 24 lives so far.

Considering HN is mostly technologists, the extent of Tesla-hate in here surprises me. My best guess is that it is sublimated Elon-hate. (Not a fan of my former neighbor myself, but let's separate the man from his creations.)

People seem to be comparing Tesla FSD to perfection, when the more fair and relevant comparison is to real-world American drivers. Who are, on average, pretty bad.

Sure, I wouldn't trust data coming from Tesla. But we have government data.

That seems an odd take. This is a technologist website, and a good number of technologists believe in building robust systems that don’t fail in production. We don’t stand for demos, and we have to fight off consultants peddling crapware that demos well but dies in production. I own a Tesla, despite my dislike of Musk, because it is an insanely fun car. I will never enable FSD, did not even do so when it was free. I see even the best teams have production outages. Until Tesla legally accepts, and the laws allows them to, legal responsibility, and until it’s good enough that it doesn’t disengage, ever, then I’m never using it and nobody else should.

> ... systems that don’t fail in production.

I'll say it again: "compared to what?"

A minimum bar, for societal harm, would be against an identical data set of US drivers. The data for human drivers covers vastly more situations than FSD does. FSD refuses to activate in those situations. So an apples-to-apples comparison doesn't exist. The FSD data is effectively cherry picked for ideal driving conditions. Tesla's claims that FSD is safer than the average driver are not supported by their data, and as others have said, either their statisticians are incompetent or liars. This is basic stuff.

However the minimum bar for me to activate it is "compared to me". I've never come close to driving under a truck or into a divider. I slow down driving into the sunset and use a baseball hat if necessary to make sure I can see.

> However the minimum bar for me to activate it is "compared to me".

I see where you're coming from. That's totally fair.

As a highly-informed (about health) consumer, I feel the same way about most nutrition advice.

But the parameters for government policy decision-making are different. AND I get your point about cherry-picked data. I'd like to have better data.