Tesla "Full Self Driving" not capable of autonomous driving

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...But we have states where you can drink and drive as long as you aren’t drunk, and we have states that allow you to have a phone in your hand texting or talking while driving, and we have states without tint laws. Every states determines there level of personal liberties.

Not the same, but I think you realize that.

As usual you and I are closer to agreement than disagreement. It's just minor differences in the end.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Except those betas do not put me physically at risk because the user is willing to accept, but not adhere to, the restrictions.

As was said earlier, full autonomy will most likely be functional before it is fully released, since that will require the tech company to take responsibility for faults in the system.

I've been in tech long enough (including time as a programmer) to know that while the system ultimately be better than a human driver, it will be a long time before every contingency is programmed into the system, machine learning or not. Until it gets to 99.999% reliability the tech company would be ill advised to call it autonomous.

How is that different than anyone paying attention or following the rules or laws in any other situation? I think there are far more dangerous drivers on the road than the 2000 beta testers being continuously monitored by Tesla for driver engagement testing a system that aids in driver safety.

It’s already happening. Tesla will probably jump from these level 4 units that might be city locked to level 4 or 5 that is far more functional, but they will claim it is 3 or something just to keep the legal team happy. It doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to be safer than humans on average to be justifiable. Car companies already justify not doing a safety recall if the average settlement is less than the cost of a recall (a la Fight Club). The added security for companies is that they have the black box data telling them what you were doing, how fast you were going, how engaged you were, how many warnings you ignored, the videos of the events, etc. so they can prove their case easy that the driver was negligent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...hnk/index.html

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not the same, but I think you realize that.

As usual you and I are closer to agreement than disagreement. It's just minor differences in the end.

I think the examples I gave were relevant.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think the examples I gave were relevant.

States do not have active information that you are breaking the law. Per your description, Tesla had known, real-time information that some of its testers in the past have ignored or circumvented their agreed to terms of using the system, and Tesla's response was to not take positive action at that time.

Am I misreading you?

Look, in the end, I don't have a real issue with it as long as Tesla is willing to take responsibility for the liability caused by their systems. and the ultimate mistakes or judgements the system will make. The drivers are already held responsible by current law.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

States do not have active information that you are breaking the law. Per your description, Tesla had known, real-time information that some of its testers in the past have ignored or circumvented their agreed to terms of using the system, and Tesla's response was to not take positive action at that time.

Am I misreading you?

Look, in the end, I don't have a real issue with it as long as Tesla is willing to take responsibility for the liability caused by their systems. and the ultimate mistakes or judgements the system will make. The drivers are already held responsible by current law.

Right. They didn’t. Manufacturers could have easily installed tech that limits top speed to less than 80 or notifies the police of your speed when exceeds the max speed limit at a given gps location. Simple tech. They have speed loggers for parents of teen drivers. Old news. Manufacturers could make sobriety scanners mandatory. They can install or already have the ability to monitor and intervene, but they don’t. Tesla isn’t unique in allowing its users a certain degree of liberties with their property.

I don’t think Tesla will have a choice in the matter. If someone sues them and Tesla is at fault then they will have to pay no different than any company who makes a faulty air bag, fuel lines, brakes or seat belts.

[AnalogMan]

A lot of passionate feelings and interesting perspectives and thoughts! I didn't realize I'd touched such a hot button, but thank you for the stimulating and enlightening discussion.

I personally don't worship at the Altar of Tesla, but I respect other people's religious beliefs and will try to keep from blaspheming Saint Elon in the future.

Though I still think he's a hypercapitalist narcissist driven by greed (couldn't resist slipping in one more sacrilege):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...ty-data-shows/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

A lot of passionate feelings and interesting perspectives and thoughts! I didn't realize I'd touched such a hot button, but thank you for the stimulating and enlightening discussion.

I personally don't worship at the Altar of Tesla, but I respect other people's religious beliefs and will try to keep from blaspheming Saint Elon in the future.

Though I still think he's a hypercapitalist narcissist driven by greed (couldn't resist slipping in one more sacrilege):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...ty-data-shows/

We have lambasted Musk for his COVD response. While greed is a possibility, the man has shown many instances of humanity and empathy, coming virtually to tears on camera. From another perspective, he is obsessed with time, with getting things done. It drives his work ethic, his short sleep cycles, and potentially his attitudes about delays from COVID, and it informs his vision for the precarious future he has envisioned. I don’t share his opinions and believed he should have closed down more. He didn’t completely try to ignore COVID:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...ed-11613826001

Meanwhile in China, this is where they are at with their Chrysler Pacifica, retrofitted Robotaxis that is level 4/5 autonomous, and we are trying to put the breaks on Tesla:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...nating-us/amp/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Meanwhile in China, this is where they are at with their Chrysler Pacifica, retrofitted Robotaxis that is level 4/5 autonomous, and we are trying to put the breaks on Tesla

Here's the bottom line for me. Frankly, I don't see a need for level 4/5 automobiles. What problem is it solving that really needs to be solved? Why eliminate a competent human completely as a "safety driver"?

Are there some cases where I would trust an autonomous car more than drivers I know, sure. But, we could solve that easily as well, and would take no programming. Toughen the standards for having a license. Stop building so much distractions into cars. Heck, make phones not work for anything but basic functions when moving at certain speeds.

Would you fly in an autonomous aircraft, which, frankly is a much easier problem to solve for, and basically already exists? I would not. Why would I want streets full of cars trying to navigate themselves?

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Meanwhile in China, this is where they are at with their Chrysler Pacifica, retrofitted Robotaxis that is level 4/5 autonomous, and we are trying to put the breaks on Tesla:

We should respect, admire, and especially learn from China. Both what they've done well, and the things not so well.

But I would also keep in mind that China may have a different perspective on the value of a human life than in the U.S. I suspect there is a higher tolerance for 'collateral damage' in the interests of expanding the economy in China than many people here would accept.

https://www.lostlaowai.com/blog/gene...ese-hypocrisy/

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Here's the bottom line for me. Frankly, I don't see a need for level 4/5 automobiles. What problem is it solving that really needs to be solved? Why eliminate a competent human completely as a "safety driver"?

Are there some cases where I would trust an autonomous car more than drivers I know, sure. But, we could solve that easily as well, and would take no programming. Toughen the standards for having a license. Stop building so much distractions into cars. Heck, make phones not work for anything but basic functions when moving at certain speeds.

Would you fly in an autonomous aircraft, which, frankly is a much easier problem to solve for, and basically already exists? I would not. Why would I want streets full of cars trying to navigate themselves?

Agree completely! In most states getting a driver's license is far too easy, with woefully little actual education and training required. Consider what it takes to get a driver's license in Germany:

https://idaoffice.org/posts/getting-...iving-license/

Here in the U.S. many people see driving and a having a driver's license as a 'right' and not a privilege that must be earned. I suspect if the U.S. had more stringent standards for driving, the accident rate might be lower than could realistically be achieved with 'autonomous' cars.

We shouldn't look to technology to try to make up for some human failings that are better addresses in other ways, like letting people drive who have no business being in control of a 4000 lb projectile hurtling down the road at 100 feet per second. Yes, an autonomous car would give those people the option to not drive themselves, but more rigorous licensing standards would insure it.

I also wonder how many fewer accidents there might be if touch-screen controls were limited. I admit this is one of my hot buttons, but I think it is irresponsible and negligent to allow cars to have certain primary functions (like heat/A/C and radio) accessible only through a touch screen. Regardless of how big the touch spots are, most people have to take their eyes off the road while they poke at a screen, and often scroll through multiple menus, to change heat/A/C settings.

An awful lot can happen in 2-3 seconds. Like, the vehicle has just travelled another 200-300 feet down the road - the length of a football field - while the driver is stabbing at a screen trying to change the heater or radio settings. Some controls should be left to tactile switches/buttons that can be intuitively accessed without having to look at them.

[End of rant]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Here's the bottom line for me. Frankly, I don't see a need for level 4/5 automobiles. What problem is it solving that really needs to be solved? Why eliminate a competent human completely as a "safety driver"?

Are there some cases where I would trust an autonomous car more than drivers I know, sure. But, we could solve that easily as well, and would take no programming. Toughen the standards for having a license. Stop building so much distractions into cars. Heck, make phones not work for anything but basic functions when moving at certain speeds.

Would you fly in an autonomous aircraft, which, frankly is a much easier problem to solve for, and basically already exists? I would not. Why would I want streets full of cars trying to navigate themselves?

Don't have your head in the sand. You don't see a need for it, but there is a huge demand for it. Traffic collision cost society a huge amount of money and result in thousands of deaths. Crashing vehicles leads to building damages, road damages, wasted resources and cars, increases insurance prices, increases taxes, requires more police, slows traffic and causes gridlock, increases the cost of healthcare, leads to deaths, etc. Businesses who employ people to drive semis, drive taxis/Ubers/Lifts/Grubhub/Doordash, transport goods to construction sites, to business, to hospitals, etc will all want to move to driverless vehicles in the future. This is guaranteed. This is progress that can't be stopped.

Also, you're not being pragmatic and realistic. You are trying to create a solution to human error or to control humans, which isn't possible. Remove the human element. Many people would rather be on their phones, read an article, work on their emails or business, be able to be on a Zoom meeting than waste time commuting. The vast majority of people have no attachment to driving if the alternative is as safe or safer and allows them to do what they would rather be doing.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Don't have your head in the sand. ....

And you completely missed my point.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, I'm saying there's no need to rush to the ultimate destination, if we get there at all. Every thing you mention it "solves" creates its own problems, and does not necessarily eliminate the things you think it will, or replaces it with another issue (eliminate 3.6 million truck drivers in the US, OK where are they going to work?)

There is also not some huge pent up demand for it. Everyone wants enhanced cruise control, sure, but only a very small percentage of persons want true, autonomous sit in the back with no control and watch the vehicle run into a wall on the rare occasion something goes wrong type stuff.

Do I think it's coming, yes. Will it be any time soon? Probably not. It depends on whether the manufacturers are willing to take on the liability (and not have to be sued for it). I am not going to pay for insurance to cover their liability if their system fails.

I think we are at the agree to disagree point.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

Agree completely! In most states getting a driver's license is far too easy, with woefully little actual education and training required. Consider what it takes to get a driver's license in Germany:

https://idaoffice.org/posts/getting-...iving-license/

Here in the U.S. many people see driving and a having a driver's license as a 'right' and not a privilege that must be earned. I suspect if the U.S. had more stringent standards for driving, the accident rate might be lower than could realistically be achieved with 'autonomous' cars.

We shouldn't look to technology to try to make up for some human failings that are better addresses in other ways, like letting people drive who have no business being in control of a 4000 lb projectile hurtling down the road at 100 feet per second. Yes, an autonomous car would give those people the option to not drive themselves, but more rigorous licensing standards would insure it.

I also wonder how many fewer accidents there might be if touch-screen controls were limited. I admit this is one of my hot buttons, but I think it is irresponsible and negligent to allow cars to have certain primary functions (like heat/A/C and radio) accessible only through a touch screen. Regardless of how big the touch spots are, most people have to take their eyes off the road while they poke at a screen, and often scroll through multiple menus, to change heat/A/C settings.

An awful lot can happen in 2-3 seconds. Like, the vehicle has just travelled another 200-300 feet down the road - the length of a football field - while the driver is stabbing at a screen trying to change the heater or radio settings. Some controls should be left to tactile switches/buttons that can be intuitively accessed without having to look at them.

[End of rant]

I would argue that the majority of accidents don't happen because of competency, but rather, because of behavior. People know distracted driving isn't safe, but they do it anyways. People know it isn't good to drive while under the influence, but they do it anyways. People speed, yet they know it is illegal. People do whatever they believe they can get away with, so laws can help, but they don't prevent much. Regardless, driverless cars are coming for pure economics and profits, even if vehicle safety wasn't the chief concern, as I stated above.

https://www.compare.com/auto-insuran...d-driving-laws

The answer is yes, a group of researchers found out: Having some kind of texting law was linked to a 2.3 percent decrease in overall traffic fatalities for all drivers.

[WolfpackS2k]

Level 5 isn't coming any time soon. Decades maybe. Advances have been huge in last 1-2 decades but it's easy to get to 90 or 95% of what's needed for Level 5. The last 5% is extremely difficult to achieve and without it you might as well be at 0%.

Not happening. Of course the ignorance of the general population shouldn't be surprising. I'd imagine that half of Gen Z'ers don't even know what information a tachometer conveys. My last gf didn't even know why a car needed gears (and she's a millennial).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

And you completely missed my point.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, I'm saying there's no need to rush to the ultimate destination, if we get there at all. Every thing you mention it "solves" creates its own problems, and does not necessarily eliminate the things you think it will, or replaces it with another issue (eliminate 3.6 million truck drivers in the US, OK where are they going to work?)

There is also not some huge pent up demand for it. Everyone wants enhanced cruise control, sure, but only a very small percentage of persons want true, autonomous sit in the back with no control and watch the vehicle run into a wall on the rare occasion something goes wrong type stuff.

Do I think it's coming, yes. Will it be any time soon? Probably not. It depends on whether the manufacturers are willing to take on the liability (and not have to be sued for it). I am not going to pay for insurance to cover their liability if their system fails.

I think we are at the agree to disagree point.

I don't think anyone is rushing. If Tesla wanted to rush then they would have deployed/hired thousands of people to drive beta cars all over the world on top of opening the beta software to the entire fleet.

It is going to happen regardless of whether the world is ready for it or not. We can try to protect dying industries like coal or people who work as a driver, but the landscape is changing fast and people will need to adapt. We might have to consider a UBI as more jobs get animated out of existence, and hopefully, people will find new jobs like we have done for thousands of years moving past an universally, agrarian lifestyle to something more diverse.

There is a huge demand for the product. The product just doesn't exist yet. Before the iPad, would anyone say there was a huge demand for tablets when laptops and smartphones existed? The cellular phones, the TV, the personal computer, etc. I think you know better, that if the product cost was negligible, the safety was better than the standard driver, and it was available on all cars, then the demand would be through the roof. Like people owning flip phones, bunny ear antenna TVs, and mullets from the 80's, some minority will resist change, but the demand for the individual and industry will be huge.

Who says you will pay? The insurance company will pay, and if the system fails then it wasn't your fault, right? The insurance can't raise your insurance rates because of an "act of god" or because a tire blew out or some object in the road was there. You wouldn't be at fault, so your insurance rates wouldn't go up, and the company is fine paying out for damages, and if they want to go after Tesla then they can. I'm sure Tesla or any other car company will be able to provide all the video footage, sensor data, etc., but you were in the back seat, so it isn't your fault, right? You weren't driving. You were just a passenger. I guess cars will be much safer with everyone riding in the back of their cars.