←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rootusrootus ◴[] No.41892630[source]
I'm on my second free FSD trial, just started for me today. Gave it another shot, and it seems largely similar to the last free trial they gave. Fun party trick, surprisingly good, right up until it's not. A hallmark of AI everywhere, is how great it is and just how abruptly and catastrophically it fails occasionally.

Please, if you're going to try it, keep both hands on the wheel and your foot ready for the brake. When it goes off the rails, it usually does so in surprising ways with little warning and little time to correct. And since it's so good much of the time, you can get lulled into complacence.

I never really understand the comments from people who think it's the greatest thing ever and makes their drive less stressful. Does the opposite for me. Entertaining but exhausting to supervise.

replies(5): >>41894715 #>>41896317 #>>41896773 #>>41898129 #>>41898671 #
darknavi ◴[] No.41894715[source]
You slowly build a relationship with it and understand where it will fail.

I drive my 20-30 minute commutes largely with FSD, as well as our 8-10 hour road trips. It works great, but 100% needs to be supervised and is basically just nicer cruise control.

replies(4): >>41895075 #>>41895464 #>>41895891 #>>41895943 #
1. sumodm ◴[] No.41895943[source]
Something along this lines is the real danger. People will understand common failure modes and assume they have understood its behavior for most scenarios. Unlike common deterministic and even some probabilistic systems, where behavior boundaries are well behaved, there could be discontinuities in 'rarer' seen parts of the boundary. And these 'rarer' parts need not be obvious to us humans, since few pixel changes might cause wrinkles.

*vocabulary use is for a broad stroke explanation.