A thread to discuss self-driving cars and other vehicles. No politics, please.
Technology, commercial aspects, legal considerations and marketing are all on-topic.
- Companies (e.g. Tesla Inc.) are only on-topic when discussing their self-driving products and research, not their wider activities. The exception is when those wider activities directly impact (or are impacted by) their other business areas - e.g. if self-driving car development is cut back due to losses in another part of the business.
- Technology that's not directly related to self-driving vehicles is off-topic unless you're discussing how it might be used for them in future.
- If we're talking about individuals here, that should only be because they've said or done something directly relevant to the topic. Specifically, posts about Tesla do not automatically need to mention Elon Musk. And Musk's views, politics and personal life are firmly off-topic unless you can somehow show that they're relevant to self-driving vehicles.
Cadillac plans to release a scaled back, more simple version of similar technology by 2015 - what they call "Super Cruise", which isn't total self-driving, but does let you relax on highways. It positions your car in the exact center of a lane, slows down or speeds up as necessary, and is said to be meant for ideal driving conditions (I'm guessing that means ideal weather, no rain or snow, etc.).
I am looking forward to such tech. If enough people prefer to drive this way, and the technology works reliably, it could result in safer roads with fewer accidents. Another possibility is that, using GPS and maybe the ability to know ahead of time which roads are most clogged, they can find the quickest route from place to place.
On the other hand, hacking could be a real concern, and I hope it doesn't become a serious threat. It's looking like we're living more and more like those sci-fi Everything Is Online worlds depicted in fiction for a long time.
(Mod edited to replace original post)
Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 29th 2024 at 4:19:56 PM
A procrastination in of itself
I’d argue that any QA which doesn’t periodically bring in new people to test from the perspective of a new user who has never send the tool before is a poor QA system.
I do something similar for my employer’s HR policy and even coms. They put policy/coms in front of myself and other TU reps so they can get feedback on how a regular person would see what’s being said compared to someone who has spent months developing this policy.
It’s how I got them to start explaining the meanings of the words “should” and “must” and the start of each document.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Lost in Space
Well, I have good news for you: Tesla, unlike any other company in the world, has a ready-made pool of around 5 million quality testers as of the time of posting. They don't even have to consciously volunteer, as their cars can run FSD in shadow mode to compare its own behavior with theirs. Of course, that's only one of the many, many testing and training strategies the company employs.
Everything you're suggesting: paid QA staff, rotating/fresh QA, simulations, shadow mode — is all used, as well as having customers "volunteer", and probably more besides. Self-driving is an extraordinarily hard problem. If it weren't, it would be solved by now.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
FSD Beta 12.3 brakes for a jaywalking pedestrian
while the driver is blinded by sun glare.
Jupiterian Local
That's great for Tesla. Where can I, as a non-Tesla customer, opt out of being a participant in their open beta that's being conducted on public roads?
Because that's the rub. Anyone driving a Tesla and using Full Self-Driving is making a choice to do so, at least theoretically aware of the risks and benefits of doing so.
If I'm on the side of the highway in my Prius because I got a flat tire and a Tesla Full Self-Drives into me at full speed, I didn't get any say on whether I was cool with accepting the risks of using beta software to drive cars in public.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
That's an utterly absurd statement. You don't "consent" to share the road with people who might be drunk, distracted, tired, fleeing from cops, or anything else. Someone could put on cruise control, go in the back for a nap, and ram you. Those types of events are why insurance and other forms of liability exist.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 28th 2024 at 7:58:27 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
I feel like comparing Tesla FSD Beta-Testers to drunks fleeing the cops might not the positive statement you intended…
To be serious, all of thosue things (including driving when overly tired in some places) are opted out of by people by the fact that they elect politicians who have passed laws to make said things illegal. Drivers also will be made to pay more for insurance if they have a history of doing such things.
That does raise an interesting question, how are insurance companies reacting to people doing beta-testing for a private company while operating with personal driving insurance? Because I’d imagine insurance companies wouldn’t be the biggest fan.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
she/her friend to the hooved
"A bunch of bad shit also happens" doesn't suddenly make the one bad thing ethical.
Jupiterian Local
All of those things are illegal. Someone caught doing them will be punished. Tesla using me as part of their beta testing environment without my consent is, somehow, allowed.
That's exactly the issue I have with it.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
Liability is with the driver. It's been that way forever. If you misuse a car with driver-assistance features, it's your responsibility. This has been clearly established across many such incidents. Using an autonomous vehicle is not illegal. Failing to pay attention in such a way that it causes a crash is.
Tesla FSD's regulatory classification is equivalent to SAE Level 2, in which the driver is expected to be in control or supervising the vehicle at all times. Contrast this with a Cruise or Waymo robo-taxi, in which you are a passenger. If it gets in a crash, it's the company's responsibility.
To date, Tesla has not been found directly liable for any crashes involving misuse of Autopilot or FSD, although it was required by the NHTSA to improve how Autopilot responds to emergency vehicles that may be obstructing the roadway. That was quite a few versions ago.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 28th 2024 at 8:09:19 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
Not exactly. If someone driving a delivery lorry crashes then liability may sit with either or both of the driver and the company. My workplace makes all our staff take out business car insurance if they’re going to use the car for work purposes.
So does doing beta-testing for Tesla amount to engaging in a commercial activity on behalf of the company? I expect we’ll all have our own takes but it’s something I can see ending up in court eventually, insurance companies strike me as exactly the kind of company that mgiht try and deny a claim on the grounds that by running FSD beta-testing the driver had being commercial activity and invalidated their insurance.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Lost in Space
If the company is paying you, they share liability. If you pay the company, it's your risk.
While there have been no commercially deployed Level 4/5 autonomy systems outside of very specific areas, like San Francisco, I'm not averse to the idea of requiring such vehicles to display some kind of indicator, because then it is the company's responsibility as opposed to the driver's.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 28th 2024 at 8:38:54 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
Except in this instance there is no payment either way, it’s being done on an unpaid volunteer basis.
Which makes the better comparison something like volunteering for a charity/Scouts troop/church and using your vehicle to do work for them. Are you meant to get special insurance when you do that?
I can only guess the answer in U.K. law and that is irrelevant to the Tesla situation, but with all 50+ US jurisdictions having different driving laws I’m not convinced there is even going to be a single common answer across the US.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Lost in Space
As you say, it's very much up to the jurisdiction. Right now, Tesla FSD and Autopilot are classed exactly the same as any other ADAS that includes automatic lane-keeping and traffic-aware cruise control. Its additional capabilities do not relieve the burden of driver supervision, and I don't have to turn on some kind of warning light when I engage EyeSight in my wife's Subaru.
Tesla sells FSD as an add-on product for its vehicles: an additional feature. There is no way to construe that as you working for the company, unless someone wants to argue it in a court.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 28th 2024 at 8:46:33 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jupiterian Local
That's not germane to my point. I don't care who's legally liable for any accidents at the end of the day. I care that Tesla is outsourcing some of its testing to untrained volunteers on public streets — you know, where I drive — and I don't get any say so.
This isn't a hypothetical. This materially affects me. Hell, you admitted it yourself:
Some number of Tesla drivers are going to misuse this. The fact that this exists and is available to the public makes the roads less safe.
You can make a utilitarian argument that it's worth the tradeoff of being slightly less safe now in exchange for developing a much more safe fully level 4 driving system in the future. That's fine, you're allowed to make that choice — for yourself. But in the meantime, your choice affects me, because I'm using the same roads you are.
Which is fucked up. This is a classic case of a company privatizing benefits (data toward development of a level 4 system) and socializing risk (decreased road safety for everyone, not just Tesla drivers, in the meantime).
Tesla is making me less safe and there's nothing I can do about it.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
''To be clear, I also would not send my self-driving car to pick up the kids from school on its own until they're vastly more mature than they are today. Meaning the cars, not the kids. That's not likely to happen for some time anyway, since it would require Level 4 certification at the very least, along with a "robo-taxi" mode that can follow commands without a driver/owner present.
ETA: It would also undoubtedly require changes in school policy to make sure the kids don't accidentally get in the wrong car.''
And even if all that worked, it would also require the kids to actually get in the car rather than, say, going off to play with their friends. The school staff aren’t baby-sitters responsible for looking after the kids after school hours, whether than means making sure they get in the right car or making sure they get in any car. That’s parents’ responsibility. That’s why dropping off and picking up your kids from school and other activities involves more than the manual function of driving the car.
Lost in Space
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Oh, come on. This sort of performative emotional response is the exact opposite of helpful. Tesla is well aware of the liability issues and wouldn't release the software widely if it weren't confident that it is capable of performing at least as well as an average driver. At least I hope not, because that would be stupid.
Maybe we'll see a rash of complaints about FSD doing unsafe things and the free trial program will be canceled. That's one possible outcome. Another is that it really does work as advertised. I don't know, since I lack the necessary insider information and don't own a Tesla myself, yet.
Statistically, you are far more likely to be crashed into by a teenager on their phone than by a self-driving car that screws up.
Yes, all those are valid concerns too. I don't see robo-taxi pickups from schools happening any time soon, not without some pretty major changes in other areas.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 29th 2024 at 8:40:49 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
So Tesla should be doing something proactive to sell the average person on the safety of the system.
The company only ever seems to play catch-up with bad news and while Musk does sometimes try to get ahead of it…he’s Elon Musk and a ton of people just inherently super dislike him at this point, especially with his very solidly proven track record of being incredibly unreliable.
If an accident happens where someone misuses a self-driving car and it kills someone, sure Tesla might not be liable, but that’s a really fucking bad pitch for self-driving, because it’ll signal really loud “TESLA DRIVERS ARE MORONS WHO CAN’T USE THE SYSTEM PROPERLY” which isn’t gonna be good for widespread adoption of the system, and Tesla will have serious problems pushing back against that narrative because it’s not really about Tesla.
Edited by Zendervai on Mar 29th 2024 at 8:52:44 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Lost in Space
It sounds like you're suggesting that Tesla needs to fix people first, which is insane. Just let the product speak for itself.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
Or instead of being really condescending, you could realize that I was talking about Tesla actively and proactively making it clear what the software can actually do at this point. Not “oh, we have a disclaimer on our website and a disclaimer when you turn the car on” because someone who does not have a Tesla is not going to see those, like, an actual advertising campaign talking about what it can do now, what the beta testing is, where they hope it’ll go in the future, that sort of thing.
Instead of “hey, everyone is supposed to magically know that Full Self Driving is not full self driving based on information the vast majority of people will never see because they don’t have Teslas”. Seriously, I know I said it before, but Tesla officially calling the program Full Self Driving was incredibly goddamn fucking stupid because now we’re in a situation where people just need to magically figure out based on no information that the name of the program is wrong.
“Let the product speak for itself”
Well, okay, the first thing it says is that it’s called Full Self Driving. Except it’s not Full Self Driving. That’s a problem.
Edited by Zendervai on Mar 29th 2024 at 9:06:11 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Jupiterian Local
I've very clearly and calmly laid out the logical basis for my case. Which parts are "performative"? Which parts are an appeal to emotion? You don't get to dismiss my point just by declaring it bad faith without actually addressing it.
Also, helpful to who? To Tesla? To the cause of full autonomous vehicles in general? Am I supposed to feel bad that I might be curtailing Tesla's glorious autonomous future by complaining that they're putting me at risk to achieve it? Because I well and truly do not give a shit. If Tesla can't get there by doing it the right way — the way that doesn't risk harm to uninvolved third parties — then they shouldn't get there at all. I've already addressed the utilitarian argument. I categorically reject the notion that Telsa should be allowed to increase risk to me without my consent.
Tesla may well be stupid. Or they may be acting rationally (ie they correctly believe that the benefits of this decision to them are likely to outweigh the risks to them), but that still doesn't mean it's not harmful to me and/or the public at large. History is rife with examples of companies making decisions that harm the public because it benefits their bottom line.
Using your phone while driving is already illegal in many states (and should be in the ones where it isn't). Tesla Autopilot with Full Self-Driving Capability(tm) is not.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Oh, bother.
The teenager example also doesn’t work because damn near everyone has a phone. Teslas with FSD is thankfully not nearly as widespread.
You are also statistically much less likely to die in a plane crash. It is still a big fucking deal when a plane crashes.
If Tesla wants to use the public to beta test their shit, they should compensate the public in some way.
Edited by M84 on Mar 29th 2024 at 9:15:22 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Lost in Space
This conversation is an excellent illustration of the challenges that vehicular autonomy faces in the general public. It's not just about Tesla, although it is being used as a scapegoat here because it is closer than any other company to deploying the technology at scale.
Rather than fearmongering, let's see the actual data. Obviously, there will be crashes, because no matter how safely FSD drives, it can't prevent other people from being stupid. So let's see the statistical — not anecdotal — data about safety, which will take some time to come in.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Oh, bother.
No, the problem with Tesla specifically is that they are using the public to beta test their stuff.
This FSD shouldn't have been sold to the public before it was actual full-blown FSD.
I think Early Access videogames are bullshit, and those at least aren't a risk to life and limb!
Edited by M84 on Mar 29th 2024 at 9:35:39 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Lost in Space
Counterpoint: Versions of FSD have been operating in public for years without a statistically significant increase in crashes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ehhhh, going to disagree on this... I have done QA testing before, admitantly not for any kind of major product but a part of a development team for a game mod.... A fairly notable one however.
And like....
We accidentally signed off on an update that broke the new game button, because no-one in the testing environment used it, we just booted right into our testing sandbox, and missed that we had broke world generation.
And like this isn't just some amatures making a fuck up kind of deal, not only are there professional software devs on the team.... this kind of thing is so common that there is industry jokes about it.
First real customer walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The bar bursts into flames, killing everyone.
QA testers are your first line of testing, but at some point you have to test via deployment because your QA isn't going to catch every thing, its just not possible to get the kind of feed back scale deployment gets.
Tesla may have a bunch of issues, but FSD has been in development long enough I can believe its ready for deployment testing.
Edited by Imca on Mar 28th 2024 at 3:02:37 AM