Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
So not actually FULL anything and Tesla should be held accountable for creating safety issues due to false advertising.
The driver is to blame for their actions, but not the only one to blame.
the driver of a Tesla who crashed into a house in June had pressed the accelerator pedal to 100%, overriding the company’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software.
Yes the naming convention is dumb but it wasn’t at fault here.
Can we trust that pedal didn’t malfunction this time and was actually pressed?
Even if that was the case, the driver should’ve pressed the brakes which would’ve overrode the accelerator.
If it’s anything like the e-pedals used in Subaru and Honda vehicles, they should have two different independent position sensors in the pedal. The ecu monitors both, and the value from both must match. If there is a discrepancy, it uses the lower value or zero. So it’s extremely unlikely the pedal could malfunction in a way to show 100% pressed.
But I don’t know if Tesla does the same.
Driver claims he was passed out, so his account isn’t necessarily conflicting with the pedal being pressed.
Yup. It’s completely false advertising and dangerous to call something Full Self-Driving or Autopilot when it clearly does not do what the common understanding of the names imply.
Good thing its called Full Self Driving (Supervised) then.
Are you suggesting the system should ignore full pedal press?
I think it is very clear from what they wrote that they want Tesla’s advertising practices, such as calling their driver aids “Full Self-Driving” to stop, since it creates a false impression.
Ah, so just botching in general and not at all related to the article in someone died.
If I want crass, I’ll go to Facebook.
Lemmy never lets silly things like “relevance” get in the way of their hate boners.
Nor can they handle critism.
Tiny little egos with low emotional intelligence and no desire to grow, just point fingers and whine.
Who is “they” on a decentralised platform?
Who is being crass now?
I think you’re telling us more about yourself than anything else.
Critize away. I love the feedback.
Good try though.
Not at all and I have no idea how you got from ‘this name is misleading in a dangerous way’ to suggesting it work differently.
No, I get it. You could resist the opportunity.
I sure the victim and her family appreciates you guys using her death to drag Tesla despite being on a platform where almost everyone is in agreement.
I’m sure Tesla appreciates you defending them and a check will be in the mail soon.
I didn’t defend tesla at any point. You injected it that for your own personal narrative to make sense.
Shouldn’t the so-called smart technology pick up on the fact that you are driving full speed into a house? Is that not an easy error to avoid?
I mean, I think the reasons that automated systems should allow for overrides by human operators should be pretty apparent.
I might have to drive over highwaymen, or dodge between 30 or 40 wild boar. I don’t need Asimov’s first law of robotics to confuse my car and make life or death decisions for me.
With how all cars are connected these days, we could easily throttle them using GPS data depending on the road you’re on. I don’t really get why cars can even go so fast in general, max should be twenty over the highway limit.
Nobody really wants that though I’m guessing.
When you car slams on the brakes suddenly because it thinks you’re suddenly driving on the jog road next to the highway, don’t complain to me.
The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house. Hence why I said most don’t want that. Some clear drawbacks.
That being said, putting a max speed that is only a bit above highway speed is an easy win imo.
The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house.
It really really really doesn’t
If the car can’t be trusted to know if it’s on the highway or a residential street, it can’t be trusted to know if it’s on the highway or on a residential street in front of a house.
I don’t know what system would work for one but not the other.
If your misunderstanding of how a machine works is that fundamental I don’t think there’s a reason to continue this.
It’s all the same type of software that would be used and it would sometimes break randomly for no clear reason no matter the use case. Why would they tackle detection differently between being on the highway, on a residential street or on a street in front of a house? The same edge cases would apply to each (like billboards or faulty GPS signal for example).
Slamming the brakes on the highway because either map data is incorrect, it misread a sign, or GNSS is misplacing the car is not a drawback, it’s a massive fucking safety hazard.
A massive safety hazard is a clear drawback…
No a drawback would be a minor nuisance. You can live with a drawback. That would not be a minor nuisance and definitely not something you could live with.
You are arguing semantics and aren’t even right about it. A drawback can be minor or major. We are in agreement but your being silly about the words I use even though they are completely valid. You might want a synonym that’s harsher but that doesn’t make the use of the word wrong.
I’m basically saying it’s a problem and you are going “no fool, it’s a really really big problem”, like no shit, that’s what I said. I even added the word clear to show that’s it’s not a small drawback but a major one.
It’s a skill issue on the driver’s part… or do you want the Tesla to come to a screeching halt on the highway every time the cameras white out from the sun?
I want vehicles that rely on cameras for detecting obstacles to be banned.
Anything that uses reasonable object detection methods should be banned if it lets you drive into a house. My Kia won’t let me drive into a house.
Honestly curious, what will your Kia do if you point it at a house and floor the accelerator from a few hundred meters away? I have no idea how my BYD would react and I’m not eager to test it. It has emergency braking, but I don’t know how effective that actually is.
if you point it at a house and floor the accelerator from a few hundred meters away?
I don’t know for sure and I can’t think of a good way to test. It certainly wouldn’t hit it when “driving itself” with smart cruise control or if I tried to drive into it from a few metres away.
And what if you were doing 70mph for a few hundred meters before the house?
You’d be going right into that house. No car will stop that.
Did you try it?
My kid tried to drive it into a hedge and it wouldn’t let them. Not the same as accelerating from across the road at a house but also the car makes no self driving claims.
You may as well say you want people banned from driving then. We use “cameras” for object detection.
We use “cameras” for object detection
lol
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
Personally, I want cars that automate driving to use more than one type of sensor so that they react more realistically in more circumstances. Tesla going camera-only was a mistake and Elon just keeps doubling down on it.
I’d want it to not use sensors that get washed out by the sun. IR lidar, for example, instead of naive visible light cameras.
This is the system that’s meant to drive the car autonomously?
Autopilot will let a plane fly a heading, or even follow waypoints and land, but you the pilot still have to be watching the sky and the plane, ready to take over when something goes wrong. And airlines have way more stringent safety measures than cars.
That means auto drive systems still require the meatsack to monitor the driving, ready to take over when something goes wrong.
In this case, either the driver was hooning it and did a full send into the house, or he had a skill issue and put the
brakeaccelerator to the floor in a panic moment.Right so if autopilot swerves into oncoming traffic faster than the driver can react, that’s the drivers fault? The creators of the software never have any culpability in your eyes?
If you don’t want that rush you don’t use the software. Simple.
I don’t trust anything that makes Tesla look innocent. This administration is too full of fucking shit and bending over backwards too far to tongue musks asshole already I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked to hear that NTSB is fully fucking compromised and corrupt as fuck.
The guy literally had a google history asking how to make his Tesla go faster
How can one trust the data from the car without an audit into the software/hardware running at the time?
How do you know this wasn’t done?
Because why would Tesla ever do that
Because legally they have to.
When have they ever followed the law
When haven’t they?
‘The family of the victim has since sued the alleged driver.’
Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. You can’t be accused of driving. It’s not ‘alleged.’
Makes sense. It’s not uncommon for people who aren’t paying attention to accidentally slam on the gas instead of the brake when they see they’re about to crash. Almost certainly what happened here.
Driver claims he was unconscious at the time, in case you’re unfamiliar with the details so far.
And he only claimed this after Tesla looked at the data and publicly refuted his version of events to begin with, which was that the car just drove into the house by itself.
Drunk, speed happy, suicidal, or something else?
Tesla, enough said
Most cars will go forward if you slam your foot on the accelerator while in drive.
…but it takes a Tesla to go through a house and fuck up this bad
