←back to thread

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

(www.reuters.com)
410 points jjulius | 6 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 1.316s | source | bottom
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 #
TheCleric ◴[19 Oct 24 20:03 UTC] No.41890342[source]▶
> Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it.

There’s a simple answer to this. As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. Until then if Tesla doesn’t trust it, why should I?

replies(9): >>41890435 #>>41890716 #>>41890927 #>>41891560 #>>41892829 #>>41894269 #>>41894342 #>>41894760 #>>41896173 #
bdcravens ◴[19 Oct 24 21:30 UTC] No.41890927[source]▶
The liability for killing someone can include prison time.
replies(3): >>41891164 #>>41894710 #>>41896926 #
TheCleric ◴[19 Oct 24 22:09 UTC] No.41891164[source]▶
Good. If you write software that people rely on with their lives, and it fails, you should be held liable for that criminally.
replies(11): >>41891445 #>>41891631 #>>41891844 #>>41891890 #>>41892022 #>>41892572 #>>41894610 #>>41894812 #>>41895100 #>>41895710 #>>41896899 #
dansiemens ◴[20 Oct 24 00:08 UTC] No.41891844[source]▶
Are you suggesting that individuals should carry that liability?
replies(1): >>41893851 #
izacus ◴[20 Oct 24 08:22 UTC] No.41893851[source]▶
The ones that are identified as making decisions leading to death, yes.

It's completely normal in other fields where engineers build systems that can kill.

replies(2): >>41894849 #>>41901038 #
A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[20 Oct 24 12:16 UTC] No.41894849[source]▶
Pretty much. Fuck. I just watched higher ups sign off on a project I know for a fact has defects all over the place going into production despite our very explicit: don't do it ( not quite Tesla level consequences, but still resulting in real issues for real people ). The sooner we can start having people in jail for knowingly approving half-baked software, the sooner it will improve.
replies(1): >>41895257 #
IX-103 ◴[20 Oct 24 13:31 UTC] No.41895257[source]▶
Should we require Professional Engineers to sign off on such projects the same way they are required to for other safety critical infrastructure (like bridges and dams)? The Professional Engineer that signed off is liable for defects in the design. (Though, of course, if the design is not followed then liability can shift back to the company that built it)
replies(1): >>41898367 #
A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[20 Oct 24 20:53 UTC] No.41898367[source]▶
I hesitate, because I shudder at government deciding which algorithm is best for a given scenario ( because that is effectively is where it would go ). Maybe the distinction is, the moment money changes hands based on product?

I am not an engineer, but I have watched clearly bad decisions take place from technical perspective so that a person with title that went to their head and a bonus that is not aligned with right incentives mess things up for us. Maybe some proffesionalization of software engineering is in order.

replies(1): >>41902255 #
snovv_crash ◴[21 Oct 24 09:31 UTC] No.41902255[source]▶
This isn't a matter of the government saying what you need to do. This is a matter of being held criminally liable if people get hurt.
replies(1): >>41903713 #
1. A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[21 Oct 24 13:01 UTC] No.41903713[source]▶
You are only technically correct. And even then, in terms of civics, by having people held criminally liable government is telling you what to do ( or technically not do ). Note that no other body can ( legally ) do it. In fact, false imprisonment is in itself a punishable offense, but I digress..

Now, we could argue over whether that is/should/could/would be the law of the land, but have you considered how it would be enforced?

I mean, I can tell you first hand what it looks like, when government gives you a vague law for an industry to figure out and an enforcement agency with a broad mandate.

That said, I may have exaggerated a little bit on the algo choice. I was shooting for ghoulish overkill.

replies(1): >>41905305 #
2. freejazz ◴[21 Oct 24 15:37 UTC] No.41905305[source]▶
> You are only technically correct

You clearly have no idea how civil liability works. At all.

replies(1): >>41905548 #
3. A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[21 Oct 24 16:03 UTC] No.41905548[source]▶
I am here to learn. You can help me by educating me. I do mean it sincerely. If you think you have a grasp on the subject, I think HN as a whole could benefit from your expertise.
replies(1): >>41905564 #
4. freejazz ◴[21 Oct 24 16:04 UTC] No.41905564{3}[source]▶
Civil liability isn't determined by the "gov't" it's determined by a jury of your peers. More interesting to me is how you came to the impression that you had any idea what you were talking about to the point you felt justified in making your post.
replies(1): >>41905827 #
5. A4ET8a8uTh0 ◴[21 Oct 24 16:34 UTC] No.41905827{4}[source]▶
My friend. Thank you. It is not often I get to be myself lately. Allow me to retort in kind.

Your original response to my response was in turn a response to the following sentence by "snovv_crash":

"This isn't a matter of the government saying what you need to do. This is a matter of being held criminally liable if people get hurt."

I do want to point out that from the beginning the narrow scope of this argument defined the type of liability as criminal and not civil as your post suggested. In other words, your whole point kinda falls apart as I was not talking about civil liability, but about the connection of civics and government's ( or society's depending on your philosophical bent ) monopoly on violence.

It is possible that the word civic threw you off, but I was merely referring to the study of the rights, duties, and obligations of citizens in a society. Surely, you would agree that writing code that kills people would be under the purview of the rights, duties and obligations of individuals in a society?

In either case, I am not sure what are you arguing for here, It is not just that you are wrong, but you seem to be oddly focused on trying to .. not even sure. Maybe I should ask you instead.

<<More interesting to me is how you came to the impression that you had any idea what you were talking about to the point you felt justified in making your post.

Yes, good question. Now that I replied I feel it would not be a bad idea ( edit: for you ) to present why you feel ( and I use that verb consciously ) you can just throw salad willy-nilly not only with confidence, but, clearly, justification worthy of a justicar.

tldr: You are wrong, but can you even accept that you are wrong.. now that will be an interesting thing to see.

<< that you had any idea

I am a guy on the internet man. No one has any idea about anything. Cheer up:D

replies(1): >>41906548 #
6. freejazz ◴[21 Oct 24 17:52 UTC] No.41906548{5}[source]▶
In a criminal court, guilt (not liability) is also determined by a jury of your peers, and not the gov't.