←back to thread

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

(www.reuters.com)
410 points jjulius | 2 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bastawhiz ◴[19 Oct 24 17:33 UTC] No.41889192[source]▶
Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous.

- It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

- It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene.

- In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste.

- It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles.

- It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

- It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

After the system error, I lost all trust in FSD from Tesla. Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system. Hell, even autopilot does dumb shit on a regular basis. I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer this year.

replies(24): >>41889213 #>>41889323 #>>41889348 #>>41889518 #>>41889642 #>>41890213 #>>41890238 #>>41890342 #>>41890380 #>>41890407 #>>41890729 #>>41890785 #>>41890801 #>>41891175 #>>41892569 #>>41894279 #>>41894644 #>>41894722 #>>41894770 #>>41894964 #>>41895150 #>>41895291 #>>41895301 #>>41902130 #
paulcole ◴[19 Oct 24 19:50 UTC] No.41890238[source]▶
> Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system

This is probably the worst way to evaluate self-driving for society though, right?

replies(1): >>41892113 #
bastawhiz ◴[20 Oct 24 01:13 UTC] No.41892113[source]▶
Why would I be supportive of a system that has actively scared me for objectively scary reasons? Even if it's the worst reason, it's not a bad reason.
replies(1): >>41894891 #
paulcole ◴[20 Oct 24 12:25 UTC] No.41894891[source]▶
How you feel while riding isn’t an objective thing. It’s entirely subjective. You and I can sit side by side and feel differently about the same experience.

I don’t see how this is in any way objective besides the fact that you want it to be objective.

You can support things for society that scare you and feel unsafe because you can admit your feelings are subjective and the thing is actually safer than it feels to you personally.

replies(1): >>41896060 #
1. bastawhiz ◴[20 Oct 24 15:40 UTC] No.41896060[source]▶
I also did write about times when the car would have damaged itself or likely caused an accident, and those are indeed objective problems.
replies(1): >>41896487 #
2. paulcole ◴[20 Oct 24 16:28 UTC] No.41896487[source]▶
> It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

I’ll give you this one.

> In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste

Subjective.

> It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene.

Since you intervened and don’t know what would’ve happened, subjective.

> It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles

Subjective.

> It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

Objective.

You’ve got some fair complaints but the idea that feeling safe is what’s needed remains subjective.