this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1504 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

14986 readers
1901 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.

Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.

The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago

They should just program it to drive through the painted tunnel but when another driver comes behind you they crash into it.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 20 points 7 hours ago
[–] teuto@lemmy.teuto.icu 29 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

According to Ol' Elon the robo-taxi service has been a couple months away since 2017 or so. I can't imagine it's much closer now than then.

[–] DogEarBookmark@reddthat.com 13 points 7 hours ago

It's right at the end of the tunnel they're diggin in CA

[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 32 points 10 hours ago (6 children)

All these years, I always thought all self driving cars used LiDAR or something to see in 3D/through fog. How was this allowed on the roads for so long?

[–] Feersummendjinn@feddit.uk 28 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They originally the model S had front facing radar and ultrasonic sensors all round, the car combined the information to corroborate it's visual interpretation.
According to reports years ago the radar saved Tesla's from multiple pileups when it detected crashes multiple cars ahead (that the driver couldn't see).
Elmo in his infinite ego demanded both the radar and ultrasonics be removed, since he could drive with out that input so the car should be able to.. also it is cheaper.

[–] Ronno@feddit.nl 12 points 6 hours ago

Exactly, my previous car (BMW) once saved me in the fog by emergency braking for something I wasn't able to see yet. My current car (Tesla) shuts down almost all safety features when the camera's can't see anything, so I doubt it will help me in such situations. The only time my Tesla works well is in perfect conditions, but I don't live in California.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They do.

But "all self driving cars" are practically only from waymo.
Level 4 Autonomy is the point at which it's not required that a human can intercede at any moment, and as such has to be actively paying attention and be sober.
Tesla is not there yet.

On the other hand, this is an active attack against the technology.
Mirrors or any super-absorber (possibly vantablack or similar) would fuck up LIDAR. Which is a good reason for diversifying the Sensors.

On the other hand I can understand Tesla going "Humans use visible light only, in principle that has to be sufficient for a self driving car as well", because, in principle I agree. In practice... well, while this seems much more click-bait than an actual issue for a self-driving taxi, diversifying your Input chain makes a lot of sense in my book. On the other hand, if it would cost me 20k more down the road, and Cameras would reach the same safety, I'd be a bit pissed.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

On the other hand I can understand Tesla going “Humans use visible light only, in principle that has to be sufficient for a self driving car as well”, because, in principle I agree.

The whole idea is they should be safer than us at driving. It only takes fog (or a painted wall) to conclude that won't be achieved with cameras only.

On the other hand, if it would cost me 20k more down the road, and Cameras would reach the same safety,

You had a lot of hands in this paragraph. 😀

I'm exceptionally doubtful that the related costs were anywhere near this number, and it's inconceivable to me that cameras only could ever be as safe as having a variety of inputs.

Musk's ethos is clear, both in business and government. He will make whatever short term decisions his greed and the ketamine tell him to make, and fuck whatever happens down the road. Let's not work so hard to sanewash him like the media has Trump.

[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

The whole idea is they should be safer than us at driving. It only takes fog (or a painted wall) to conclude that won’t be achieved with cameras only.

Well, I do still think that cameras could reach "superhuman" levels of safety.
(very dense) Fog makes the cameras useless, A self driving car would have to slow way down / shut itself off. If they are part of a variety of inputs they drop out as well, reducing the available information. How would you handle that then? If that would have to drop out/slow down as much, ~~you gain nothing again~~ /e: my original interpretation is obviously wrong, you get the additional information whenever the environment permits.
And for the painted wall. Cameras should be able to detect that. It's just that Tesla presumably hasn't implemented defenses against active attacks yet.

You had a lot of hands in this paragraph. 😀
I like to keep spares on me.

I’m exceptionally doubtful that the related costs were anywhere near this number.

cost has been developing rapidly. Pretty sure several years ago (about when tesla first started announcing to be ready in a year or two) it was in the tens of thousands. But you're right, more current estimations seem to be more in the range of $500-2000 per unit, and 0-4 units per car.

it’s inconceivable to me that cameras only could ever be as safe as having a variety of inputs.
Well, diverse sensors always reduce the chance of confident misinterpretation.
But they also mean you can't "do one thing, and do it well", as now you have to do 2-4 things (camera, lidar, radar, sonar) well. If one were to get to the point where you have either one really good data-source, or four really shitty ones, it becomes conceivable to me.

From what I remember there is distressingly little oversight for allowing self-driving-cars on the road, as long as the Company is willing to be on the hook for accidents.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

tesla uses cameras only, i think waymo uses lidar.

[–] dan@upvote.au 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Most non Tesla brands that have some sort of self-driving functionality use lidar and/or radar. I've got a BMW iX and as far as I know it uses cameras, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 42 minutes ago

It's the only sensible approach. Not just is the notion that "humans use just their eyes too" completely wrong (otherwise how would be able to tell that something is off with the car "with our butt"?), computers are not even remotely close to our understanding and rapid interpretation of the world around us or cooperation beyond of what's pre-programmed, which is necessary to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Cars must offset this somehow, and the simplest way to do so is with vast sensor suites that give them as much information as possible. Of course many humans also utterly fail at cooperation and defensive driving, but that's another problem.

[–] Breadhax0r@lemmy.world 14 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

I remember reading that tesla only uses cameras for it's self driving. My 2018 Honda uses radar for the adaptive cruise so the technology exists, musk is just an idiot.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago

Yep, I could see someone placing a billboard like that with a cliff behind it.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 41 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Honestly all the fails with the kid dummy were a way bigger deal than the wall test. The kid ones will happen a hundred times more than the wall scenario.

Some sort of radar or lidar should 100% be required on autonomous cars.

[–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I think insurances will require that is it comes to self driving at least here in Europe.

[–] DogEarBookmark@reddthat.com 4 points 6 hours ago

EU leading the world in consumer protection laws yet again

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I fully agree, but sadly, investors likely care more about their cars hitting walls than hitting kids. Killing a kid or pedestrian in the US is often a very cheap fine. When my uncle was run over on a sidewalk next to his son, the police ruled it an accident and the city refused to do anything. Same thing happened when my friend was ran over in a bike lane.... So killing humans is probably cheaper than hitting a wall.

[–] shawn1122@lemm.ee 8 points 10 hours ago

Interesting that in the most consumerist nation on earth, objects have more value than people.

load more comments