A 2025 Tesla Model 3 in Full-Self Driving mode drives off of a rural road, clips a tree, loses a tire, flips over, and comes to rest on its roof. Luckily, the driver is alive and well, able to post about it on social media.

I just don’t see how this technology could possibly be ready to power an autonomous taxi service by the end of next week.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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?

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        What I don’t get is why teslas aren’t banned all over the world for being so fundamentally unsafe.

        I’ve argued this point the past year, there are obvious safety problems with Tesla, even without considering FSD.
        Like blinker on the steering wheel, manual door handles that are hard to find in emergencies, and distractions from common operations being behind menus on the screen, instead of having directly accessible buttons. With auto pilot they also tend to break for no reason, even on autobahn with clear road ahead! Which can also create dangerous situations.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        To put your number into perspective, if it only failed 1 time in every hundred miles, it would kill you multiple times a week with the average commute distance.

        • KayLeadfoot@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Someone who doesn’t understand math downvoted you. This is the right framework to understand autonomy, the failure rate needs to be astonishingly low for the product to have any non-negative value. So far, Tesla has not demonstrated non-negative value in a credible way.

          • bluewing@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            You are trying to judge the self driving feature in a vacuum. And you can’t do that. You need to compare it to any alternatives. And for automotive travel, the alternative to FSD is to continue to have everyone drive manually. Turns out, most clowns doing that are statistically worse at it than even FSD, (as bad as it is). So, FSD doesn’t need to be perfect-- it just needs to be a bit better than what the average driver can do driving manually. And the last time I saw anything about that, FSD was that “bit better” than you statistically.

            FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.

              Yeah people keep bringing that up as a counter arguement but I’m pretty certain humans don’t swerve off a perfectly straight road into a tree all that often.

              So unless you have numbers to suggest that humans are less safe than FSD then you’re being equally obtuse.

              • bluewing@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                A simple google search, (which YOU could have done yourself), shows it’s abut 1 in 1.5 million miles driven per accident with FSD vs 1 in 700,000 miles driven for mechanical cars. I’m no Teslastan, (I think they are over priced and deliberately for rich people only), but that’s an improvement, a noticeable improvement.

                And as a an old retired medic who has done his share of car accidents over nearly 20 years-- Yes, yes humans swerve off of perfectly straight roads and hit trees and anything else in the way also. And do so at a higher rate.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          …It absolutely fails miserably fairly often and would likely crash that frequently without human intervention, though. Not to the extent here, where there isn’t even time for human intervention, but I frequently had to take over when I used to use it (post v13)

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        For many years the “supervised” was not included, AFAIK Tesla was forced to do that.
        And in this case “supervised” isn’t even enough, because the car made an abrupt unexpected maneuver, instead of asking the driver to take over in time to react.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The driver isn’t supposed to wait for the car to tell them to take over lol. The driver is supposed to take over when necessary.