V11 supposedly uses neural nets for deciding the driving path and speed (rather than hand coded C++ rules).

Jokes aside, it's gotta be damn tough to QA a system like this in any sort of way that resembles full coverage. Can't even really define what full test coverage means.

edit: looks like no.. the largest was 578607 cars... also by Tesla lol

This morning I tried to turn it on, and the car immediately veered left into the oncoming lane on a straight, 2 lane road. Fortunately, there were no other vehicles nearby.

I immediately turned it off in the settings, and have no intention of re-enabling.

I have FSD, I use it every single day. I love it. If every car on the road had this the road would be a substantially safer place.

Obviously attention should be drawn to the fact that there is a critical safety update being pushed OTA, but "recall" is too overloaded a term if it means both "we're taking this back and destroying it because it's fundamentally flawed" vs. "a software update is being pushed to your vehicle (which may or may not be fundamentally flawed...)"

I do think something beyond "software update" is necessary, though - these aren't your typical "bug fixes and improvements" type release notes that accompany many app software releases these days. I don't think it would be too difficult to come up with appropriate language. "Critical Safety Update"?

It is not so much software, as well as <other people on the road> problem.

Also anytime I'd pass an exit I wasn't taking in the right lane it would veer and slow down aggressively, same with trying to speed match a car rapidly accelerating on an on ramp.

Bottom line, there's absolutely nothing that isn't driver assist; everything requires a significant amount of vigilance when you aren't driving in a straight line, in the left lane, on an empty highway with no one entering and exiting.

Many drivers would see the cyclist before and be very careful when passing the other vehicle (although we don't predict correctly 100% of the time either). I haven't had a chance to test any self-driving system yet so I'm legitimately interested, do those systems reliably detect such things?

Not to mention people (esp. kids) racing through intersections on electric scooters, casually ignoring traffic rules...

I disagree with your point here, but whether correct or not you should be consistent: if words conjuring things is important, then the previous commenter's point is valid.

When the model S was at its sales peak from 2013-2020, Lidar was still pretty expensive. So he put cameras in the original Teslas.

When Karpathy took over in 2018-ish, Tesla realized that all their advantages (dataset size, quality of researchers) was in the 2D realm. Waymo had been doing lidar for longer, seemed to have better 3d engineers & could keep upgrading lidar devices as they went.

Tesla's insistence on 2D cameras has to do with stubborn desperation more so than a willingness to play catch up. Elon needs 2D cameras to 'win' because even as early as 2019, he thought that it was too late to start playing catch up in 3D.

But this backlash to my comment about hard braking and wrecks is kind of hilarious.

Basically, my point is that Tesla has made egregiously bullshit claims about FSD and autopilot. They have given them misleading names. And people who want to “live in the fuuuuture” have eaten it up and are using the Teslas like they are actually capable of driving themselves 100% of the time. In all conditions.

If anything, it has made people who rely on it seemingly worse, inattentive drivers.

So while I’m glad y’all enjoy your purchased vehicle, don’t pretend all gripes and complaints lobbed at them are invalid or someone else’s fault. That’s asinine and childish.

I’m the type of person who keeps a lot of car lengths between me and the car ahead like you are /supposed to/ but I’ve also had someone panic stop in from of me and, due to road conditions, I cannot stop in time and have hit them. Not hard. But did all the same.

FSD and similar aren’t magic bullets that would prevent that. People like you who seem to think they are are also part of the problem.

Would a completely automated roadway be fucking awesome for safety and productivity and relaxation? Yes. Is it going to happen anytime soon? Doubtful.

Blows my mind how many people are totally willing to risk their own safety and everyone else’s using known buggy as fuck software. On the road. At 70mph. In a 2 ton vehicle.

… but it hasn’t been an issue for you! You say. Ok.

But I also watch dumb asses lane hop with barely enough room to pass likes it’s a video game and then act surprised when they wreck. So I guess I’m giving people too much credit.

You really just can't trust Tesla at all, about anything. There's no integrity there. They won't even be honest with the name of their headline feature!

Those odds are good enough for the occasional trip home from a cocktail party, but hardly cost-competitive with Rideshares/Taxis.

How many 9's do we need before we can say it's reliable enough to trust it? A few more, for sure.

Most of Europe doesn't have ideal public transport either, I'd imagine South America, Africa being the same or even worse in this aspect. It gets drastically worse the moment you want to go somewhere in the countryside.

nit: Jo[a]n

Where did you find this info? The article says it was Tesla that did a voluntary recall. The NHTSA was not the one who did any testing and was not involved in the decision. The report, which is linked in the article is authored by Tesla with no involvement from NHTSA.

If I am misinterpreting something I thank you in advance for pointing it out.

No, I said it's way worse than me. Probably around performance of the average human driver.

I am training to be an astronaut, so on the advanced side.

This is why startups are allowed to project massive sales next year but Elizabeth Holmes is headed to jail.

If it turns out that FSD has had a fatal crash and Tesla lied about it Musk is headed to jail too.

Beyond that, you may be surprised how many people would wake you up for your stop. Especially in US Commuter Rail systems people tend to follow similar habits and get to know each other over the years. Even on a normal city bus I quickly (months) got used to the pattern of the same people getting on and off at their various stops. If you’re asleep at your stop someone can usually nudge you

I personally can't fall asleep on trains.

It doesn't because Tesla's FSD model is just a rules engine with an RGB camera. There's not "purpose" to any hallucination. It would just be a misread of sensors and input.

Tesla's FSD just doesn't work. The model is not sentient. It's not even a Transformer (in both the machine learning and Hasbro sense).

I know what you're saying, but that is not what I'd meant. Also, I don't follow too closely.

The difference here is that almost always a driver will brake depending on the happenings in front of them. So, if you pay attention to not only the car in front, but in front of them and in the neighboring lanes and so on, you can sense and also detect patterns in how a particular driver is driving. There are many skittish drivers who brake every 1 second and some don't, and so on. Basically based on your driving experience you can predict a little.

The problem here is that this stupid POC FSD will brake randomly or change lane randomly or whatever, so there is no way you can predict, and hence my concern and issue with it. I just prefer to change the lane, but that's not always an option.

I'm not into space exploration but sometimes I look up at the moon and it blows my mind that we actually went there. Almost feels impossible even. Mars is that x100.

I personally wouldn't want to die on Mars but I understand the appeal.

Death is guaranteed either way.

It's an interesting watch (especially with the context of labor relations in mind).

No, it's just gloating, right? We get it, he hates Elon, and when you hate someone you'll throw whatever dart you've got on hand at them.

https://www.tesla.com/support/safety-score#version-1.2

And looking at the rest of the criteria, they're ok, but hardly comprehensive. This is like, the bare minimum. It doesn't measure what I would call "doing stupid shit". Like crossing several lanes of traffic to get in a turn lane. Forcibly merging where you shouldn't. Nearly stopping in the middle of traffic before merging into a turn lane at the last minute. Straddling lanes because you're not sure if you really want to change lanes or not. Making a left turn from a major artery onto a side street at a place that is not protected by a light. Coming to a near complete stop for every speed bump, then rushing ahead to the next.

And a host of other things that demonstrates the person does not consider other people on the road at all.

Here's an entire article about how to game the safety score:

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/14/three-quick-tips-for-a-...

One of the tips is to "drive around the neighborhood when traffic is light".

And the car doesn't ding autopilot for behaviors it would knock a human for. Because the assumption is that the car would know better I guess. But then why isn't the safety score simply a deviation from what autopilot would do in a situation? If autopilot would brake hard to avoid a collision, shouldn't you?

Yes, you have to pay $15k just to apply to the beta program, and you still may not get accepted into the program.

That's a significant amount of cash for features that I would likely never use.

How often do you use this and how well does it work?

Yeah, that's what I mean by "dangerous".

There are clearly far FAR better entrepreneurs in history but if you keep fellating him I'm sure Daddy Elon will love you one day. You got this, don't give up!

(This is why the engines for Starship are designed to use methane).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

No, I'm "hiding" behind the truth. I'm "hiding" behind the benchmark Tesla very publically sets for itself. Every year. Year after year:

https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne...

> that's leading you to some really emotionally dark places

Okay, this is just sad now. It's like a kind of Stockholm syndrome. Cult members go one of two ways when confronted with realities which contradict their beliefs: they either finally recognise the silliness of their beliefs or they become even more ardent believers.

It's better to try to find a way to be objective. You shouldn't let people con you and you certainly shouldn't propagate the lie.

The fact of the fiction is terrifying.

Hahaha talk about a loaded question. You see enthusiasm I see manic grift.

FWIW, NHTSA "recalls" are often OTA software updates nowadays rather than something the vehicle or feature has to be taken off road for to fix or update. The NHTSA legislation from the 60s was drafted when cars didn't have software and any fix/"recall" likely required "recalling" the car to a shop for a mechanic to perform the change.

> https://repository.law.umich.edu/mtlr/vol28/iss1/5/

https://www.tesla.com/support/safety-score#version-1.2

Tesla is the insurer. Tesla is also the manufacturer of the insured item.

You are using as proof of the claim, the fact that the group making the claim says they're right. This is big "We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" energy.

To me, design hubris is forcing someone to accept a choice-limiting or poorly documented form of automation in order to accept a more basic form. I have a Fiat 124 Spider... love it, but it has one "feature" that I absolutely hate, which is that if you hold the clutch down and brake while stopped on an uphill incline, it holds the brake for 2 seconds after you take your foot off. Presumably this is for people who don't know how to balance clutch on a hill... although the overlap between those people and the people who'd buy this car must be vanishingly low. You can disable this dumb thing - but the only way to do it is to pull the fuse that controls antilock brakes. It's infuriating.

So like every Honda Accord as well.

In the Subaru when it would engage it would turn on a light on the dashboard. It also only engaged on very steep hills where you would always be stomping on the gas no matter what.

I think the Subaru just had a much better execution of it than the Fiat.

Edit: Maybe call the dealership and see if the level sensor can be adjusted? It really should only hold the brakes if you are on a hill that is so steep that you are naturally worrying about rollback.

"Recall" with cars is a legal term that means something specific.

> But it's fundamentally different than "this car is fundamentally broken and you have to take it back to the manufacturer"

That's not a criteria for a recall. A recall can be for a small thing completely unrelated to driving safety. Someone else mentioned having a recall to replace a sticker. My most recent recall was to replace the trunk lifts.

"Recall" for a car just means a specific procedure now has to be followed, tracked and reported. It says nothing about the safety criticality of the fix.

I recall getting a recall notice from GM that included "until repaired, remove key from keychain".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_ignition_switch...

I leverage this complaint against my own car. The AEB radar just stopped passing start up self tests for a while, and I had no idea why, and could not find out without going to the dealership. While waiting to be able to do that, it started working again. I don't consider it a backup, or a helper or anything. It's an independent roll of the dice for an upcoming crash that I already failed to prevent. If it does anything in that case then that's probably an improvement, but I don't exactly trust it to save my bacon.

i have never heard of someone who characterized autopilot as a poorly trained teenager. not sure how thats possible since its just adaptive cruise control for the most part. and poorly trained teenagers can and do drive every day. i think we are past the point of accusations of fraud.

Formal verification is obviously better if you can do it. But it's still really really difficult, and plenty of software simply can't be formally verified. Even in hardware where the problem is a lot easier we've only recently got the technology to formally verify a lot of things, and plenty of things are still out of reach.

And even if you do formally verify some software it doesn't guarantee it is free of bugs.

Could still be related.

That it could be even better does not mean it is not a substantial improvement.

US passenger automobiles are more unsafe.

> The FSD Beta system may allow the vehicle to act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution. In addition, the system may respond insufficiently to changes in posted speed limits or not adequately account for the driver's adjustment of the vehicle's speed to exceed posted speed limit. [https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2020/TESLA/MODEL%252520Y/SUV/A...]

"entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop" sounds a lot like the thing they already issued a recall over in Janary 2020 (further down the same web page), so it seems a bit odd that it would still be an issue. And "due caution" to yellow lights seems like it could just be tuning some parameter. On the other hand, failing to recognize turn-only lanes sounds more like a failure of the computer vision system...

I'm hopeful about Tesla FSD, and don't think it necessarily needs to be perfect, just significantly better than humans. So I'm rooting for Tesla FSD/Autopilot overall. I just don't see how given the findings there is a solution without removing removing the entire FSD feature.

There are only like 16 million intersections in the US. Why not test them all?

Also, they don't really have an inattentive to do that, so why should they.

There's no data that would support that anything than human level AGI is required to drive cars with how current infrastructure looks like.

OTA updates carry a perverse set of incentives. Look at the gaming industry. They went from putting out rock solid games because of necessity (the reality of publishing physical cartridges and CD-ROMs without network updates) to the absolute dogshit of No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077. Gamers have effectively become an extension of QA to the point that some game devs simply stop doing QA at all. Which we are seeing clearly with the "beta" version of self-driving software.

To make matters worse, firmware devs are on the lower totem pole of the developer hierarchy. They live more on the cost center side than the profit center side (think airbag control vs. the guy that did the whoopee cushion sounds). The quality of firmware is already incredibly poor across the range of consumer devices. OTA incentivizes corporations to release software earlier than they currently do knowing that they can always fix it later if necessary.

Incidentally, when you point out the issue of missing a theoretical electronic version of the notice because of spotty Internet connectivity, in such a scenario, they wouldn't be able to receive the OTA update either.

That said, I think even just basic machine-readable road metadata like signs, speed limits, lanes etc would improve matters.

We think the solution should always be human. That the way to solve climate change is homesteads, the solution to poverty is individuals working harder, etc.

When anything we don't want happens, we think "I'll try harder next time" not "We will eliminate this as a possibility".

People treat life as a sport rather than an engineering challenge, they want to "win fairly", not make it impossible to lose, they want everything they do to say something about their own ability rather than say something about a clever process that makes individual skill irrelevant.

I really don't exactly like that aspect of humanity, constantly making everything into a sport.

> Cambridge Mobile Telematics also found that people driving Teslas were 21% less likely to engage in distracted driving with their phone in their Tesla compared to when they drove their other car.

Maybe the software integration helps avoid this? Lots of other cars have much more complicated interfaces to hook up calls and reading texts. My mom struggled to figure out her car even supported Android Auto.

It might just be it's a higher end car, but they didn't see it for an EV Porsche

> These findings include an analysis of Tesla drivers who also operate another vehicle. These drivers are nearly 50% less likely to crash while driving their Tesla than any other vehicle they operate. We conducted the same analysis on individuals who operate a Porsche and another vehicle. In this case, we observed the opposite effect. Porsche drivers are 55% more likely to crash while driving their Porsche compared to their other vehicle.

The reduction in speed is likely influenced by automated driving, especially considering how fast a Tesla car can accelerate vs normal cars:

> They were 9% less likely to drive above the speed limit.

https://electrek.co/2022/05/27/tesla-owners-less-likely-cras...

I have a winding road near me with a speed limit of 35 mph, but 15 mph on certain curves as indicated by a speed limit sign. It ignores those speed limit signs and will attempt to make the turns at 35 mph resulting in it wildly swerving into the other lane and around a blind turn with maybe 30 feet of visibility. It has also attempted to do it so poorly that it would have driven across the lane and then over the cliff without immediate intervention.

Unsupported claims by a manufacturer that compulsively lies about the capabilities of their products except when directly called on it are the opposite of compelling evidence.

Locations where multiple Tesla vehicles are likely to congregate - Superchargers and Tesla retail/service locations - already have good internet connectivity.

I don't know where you get that, most clinical trials last 26 weeks, even in phase III.

and about "more thorough than you imagine" no, most are subcontracted to CROs and the way clinical trials are conducted is messy.

Below is story from the POV of a PI.

But similarly many patients complain about the way they are treated in visits and the lack of interest of the nurse/doctor who receive them.

https://milkyeggs.com/biology/why-are-clinical-trials-so-exp...

I almost didn't catch the sarcasm of this comment, but there are other comments in this thread that are saying basically the same thing, but actually meaning it. It defies logic.

People seem to think that the government is being mean, and singling out Tesla, and being nasty using the word "recall." A recall is a legal process. The word means something very specific, and when a company issues a recall, they do so because they don't want to be sued.

It's almost like complaining about the word "divorce" or "audit" or "deposition" or other similar words that describe a legal process. The words used mean something specific. Tesla is conducting a legal process, and there's a very specific word for that process, and it means something. It's a recall.

They rolled out software with critical safety issues. They have to be called out.

What. No! At an absolute minimum, I want to be aware of any changes to the thing in my life most likely to kill me. Maybe we could use a better term like "Software Fuckup Remediation" or "Holy Shit How Did We Not Get The Brakes Right".

Maybe Tesla should stop doing things that result in it receiving poor publicity? just a thought

A "recall" is just a public record that a safety-related defect existed, the products impacted and what the manufacturer performed in terms of a corrective action.

Additionally, I believe that the possibility exists that Tesla must update the vehicle software at a service center due to configuration issues. Only a small number of vehicles may require that type of corrective action, but the possibility exists.

Historically, there exist product recalls (especially outside of the automotive domain) where the product in question does not have to be returned (replacement parts are shipped to the impacted customers, for example).

ah, a made up term in order to justify your point. how convenient.

I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means at all.

This should be labeled "holy shit need to fix this now, people could die"

1. I know people working at Tesla.

2. Much more important one - Elon's Twitter feed. They're doing last minute changes, and once it compiles and passes some automated tests, it's tested internally only over few days before it's released to the customers. Even if they had world class internal testing (they don't), for something having to work in such a diverse environment like self driving system without any geo-fencing, those timelines are all you need to know.

For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that they have the lowest probability of injury scores of any car manufacturer? Because they do.

Did you predict, based on speculation about Elon Musk's incompetence in predicting that self-driving would happen, that there are millions of self-driving miles each quarter? Because there are.

Did you predict, based on speculation about Tesla incompetence in full self-driving, that the probability of accident per mile is lower rather than higher in cars that have self-driving capabilities? Because they do.

I know this sort of view is very controversial on Hacker News, but I still think it is worth stating, because I think people are actually advocating for policies which kill people because they don't actually know the data disagrees with their assumptions.

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

I think you and I must've watched a different video.

Head of AP, testified under oath, that they don't know what's Operational Design Domain. I'll just leave it at that.

> > speed of pushing stuff to customers (on the order of days) > this is also false and doesn't happen

Never ever Musk tweeted about .1 fixing some critical issues coming in next few days? I must live in a different timeline.

> > you cannot possibly claim you can even such a basic things like proper change management (no, commit message isn’t that) or validation. > you know absolutely nothing about the internal timelines of developments and deployments at tesla and to suggest it's impossible without that knowledge is just dishonest

Let's assume I have no internal information. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Because of the FSD false promises, Tesla encourages dangerous behavior from drivers.

I don't want to be next to a Tesla driving in autonomous mode while it's driver at the wheel is not paying attention to me.

You claim that I said that we should focus on the good, but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at the data.

Now I feel as if you are trying to argue that looking at data is wrong because not all decisions should be made on the basis of the data. This seems inconsistent to me with your previous assertion that my ignoring data was bad, because now you argue against your own previous position.

That said, uh, datasets related to bayesian priors support your assertions about deference in decision making. So you could, if you cared to, support that claim with data. It would contradict your broader point that I should not want to have data, but you could support it with data and I would agree with you, because contrary to your assertion I was making an argument for evidence informed statements. Your inference about whether I think the evidence leans should not be taken as an argument that I believe my positions would always be what was reached by looking at the evidence, because I don't think that is true. I'm obviously going to be wrong often. Everyone is.

Unfortunately, I think you lie too much and shift your goalposts too much. So I'm not going to talk to you anymore.

I had a VW car that was "recalled" shortly following the emissions scandal. The dealership asked me to come in for a free software update related to emissions. So you can say it's a "recall" to the lawmakers but call it a "free software update" to the user.

If Tesla had willingly walked this back, it'd be a software update, or a beta delay, or whatever they wanted to call it.

What laypeople don't realize is that this is being called a recall because the NHTSA pushed them into it: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCLRPT-23V085-3451.PDF

-

FSD has been a cartoonish display for the better part of a year now, it wasn't until last month that the NHTSA actually pushed on them to do a recall, and from there they "disagreed with the NHTSA but submitted a recall"... which is code for "submitted the recall NHTSA forced on them to submit"

Elon knows better, but he knows he can weaponize people's lack of familiarity with this space and inspire outrage at the "big bad overreaching government"

That's where the word came from, that's true. But a legal framework has built up around the concept over the decades which isn't dependent on you having to drive the car to the dealer, all of which still applies, so the word is still used.

Your argument seems to be about protecting Tesla's reputation

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2023/Samsung-Recalls-Top-Load-W...

Other cars get "recalls" all the time that amount to updating the software in the ECU or TCU. Tesla is simply being treated like everyone else.

Hell, even in food, a "recall" usually means "throw it away" not return it.

As a car owner, those scenarios are drastically different to me. I have a hard time imagining anyone saying "It doesn't really matter to me if my car receives an OTA update or if I need to drive 2 hours to a dealership or if my car is melted to slag."

Because in one I have to book a time with a dealer and take half a day off of work and in the other I have to do... nothing and it will just fix itself.

A recall should unambiguously mean that some action from the owner is required to resolve the issue (e.g. taking it to a dealer to get a software update installed.)

If no action is required (other than caution / not using the product feature), we should use some other term such as "safety advisory" to avoid ambiguity around critical safety information.

you can, in fact, 'recall' software. this is semantically accurate description of what is happening.