Not really worth talking about unless the crash rate is higher than human average.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
409 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
70268 readers
4873 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Imagine if people treated airbags that way XD
If Ford airbags just plain worked, and then Tesla airbags worked 999 times out of 1,000, would the correct answer be to say "well thems the breaks, there is no room for improvement, because dangerously flawed airbags are way safer than no airbags at all."
Like, no. No, no, no. Cars get recalled for flaws that are SO MUCH less dangerous.
To be fair, that grey tree trunk looked a lot like a road
It's fine, nothing at all wrong with using just camera vision for autonomous driving. Nothing wrong at all. So a few cars run off roads or don't stop for pedestrians or drive off a cliff. So freaking what, that's the price for progress my friend!
I'd like to think this is unnecessary but just in case here's a /s for y'all.
GPS data predicted the road would go straight as far as the horizon. Camera said the tree or shadow was an unexpected 90 degree bend in the road. So the only rational move was to turn 90 degrees, obviously! No notes, no whammies, flawless
The car made a fatal decision faster than any human could possibly correct it. Tesla’s idea that drivers can “supervise” these systems is, at this point, nothing more than a legal loophole.
What I don't get is how this false advertising for years hasn't caused Tesla bankruptcy already?
Because the US is an insane country where you can straight up just break the law and as long as you're rich enough you don't even get a slap on the wrist. If some small startup had done the same thing they'd have been shut down.
What I don't get is why teslas aren't banned all over the world for being so fundamentally unsafe.
Well, because 99% of the time, it's fairly decent. That 1%'ll getchya tho.
That's probably not the failure rate odds but a 1% failure rate is several thousand times higher than what NASA would consider an abort risk condition.
Let's say that it's only 0.01% risk, that's still several thousand crashes per year. Even if we could guarantee that all of them would be non-fatal and would not involve any bystanders such as pedestrians the cost of replacing all of those vehicles every time they crashed plus fixing damage of things they crashed into, lamp posts, shop Windows etc would be so high as it would exceed any benefit to the technology.
It wouldn't be as bad if this was prototype technology that was constantly improving, but Tesla has made it very clear they're never going to add lidar scanners so is literally never going to get any better it's always going to be this bad.
...is literally never going to get any better it's always going to be this bad.
Hey now! That's unfair. It is constantly changing. Software updates introduce new reversions all the time. So it will be this bad, or significantly worse, and you won't know which until it tries to kill you in new and unexpected ways :j
It got the most recent update, and thought a tunnel was a wall.
... and a tree was a painting.
Took me a second to get it, but that's brilliant.
I wonder if there might even be some truth to it?
HAL9000 had Oh Clementine!
Has Tesla been training their AI with the lumberjack song?
Typical piss poor quality from Leon Hitler. F Tesla.
It's full self-driving, doesn't need roads. Put into wrong car.
Don't drive Tesla
I have visions of Elon sitting in his lair, stroking his cat, and using his laptop to cause this crash. /s
That tree cast shade on his brand.
It had to go.
Why would you inflict that guy on a poor innocent kitty?
Why someone will be a passenger in self-driving vehicle? They know that they are a test subjects, part of a "Cartrial" (or whatever should be called)? Self-Driving is not reliable and not necessery. Too much money is invested in something that is "Low priority to have". There are prefectly fast and saf self-driving solutions like High-speed Trains.
I have no idea, I guess they have a lot more confidence in self driving (ESPECIALLY Tesla) than I do.
"I'm confident that Save full self driving (SFSD) will be ready next year"
The worst part is that this problem has already been solved by using LIDAR. Vegas had fully self-driving cars that I saw perform flawlessly, because they were manufactured by a company that doesn’t skimp on tech and rip people off.
I wouldn't really called it a solved problem when waymo with lidar is crashing into physical objects
NHTSA stated that the crashes “involved collisions with clearly visible objects that a competent driver would be expected to avoid.” The agency is continuing its investigation.
It'd probably be better to say that Lidar is the path to solving these problems, or a tool that can help solve it. But not solved.
Just because you see a car working perfectly, doesn't mean it always is working perfectly.
Are those the ones that you can completely immobilize with a traffic cone?
You say that like it's a bad thing lol if it kept going, that cone would fly off and hit somebody.
Probably Zoox, but conceptually similar, LiDAR backed.
You can immobilize them by setting anything large on them. Your purse, a traffic cone, a person :)
Probably makes sense to be a little cautious with the gas pedal when there is an anything on top the vehicle.
That and if you just put your toddler on the roof of the car or something or trunk for a quick second to grab something from your pocket.....VROooOMMM baby gone.
Yes lol
I mean, if Elon was my dad, I'd probably have some suicidal tendencies too.
More like the abusive step-father
I use autopilot all the time on my boat. No way in hell I'd trust it in a car. They all occasionally get suicidal. Mine likes to lull you into a sense of false security, then take a sharp turn into a channel marker or cargo ship at the last second.
They have auto pilot on boats? I never even thought about that existing. Makes sense, just never heard of it until just now!
They've technically had autopilots for over a century, the first one was the oil tanker J.A Moffett in 1920. Though the main purpose of it is to keep the vessel going dead straight as otherwise wind and currents turn it, so using modern car terms I think it would be more accurate to say they have lane assist? Commercial ones can often do waypoint navigation, following a set route on a map, but I don't think that's very common on personal vessels.
They've had it forever. Tie a rope to the wheel. Presto. Autopilot.
I'll point this post out to Wall Street Bets, Maersk stock will pop 10%+ overnight.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›