They're just not that good - nowhere near human vision performance. And a human in a car has a surprisingly good view of the road and a very fast pan tilt system to look around.

Tesla's do not actually have 360 degree full binocular vision coverage - nor the ability for a camera to lean left or right to improve an ambiguous sensor picture.

So while I fully believe that vision only self driving could work, within the constraints of automobile platforms and particularly the Tesla and it's current camera deployments, it is not remotely similar enough to human visual fidelity for that to solve a valid argument.

And this is an amazingly stupid statement. Humans drive with most of their senses, not just vision. In fact our proprioception plays an important role in driving.

Even Tesla's use of cameras is poor because they're monocular and fixed in place. Most humans have binocular vision and those visual sensors have multiple degrees of freedom and the ability to adjust focus.

Even if you wanted to only use vision for navigation it's irresponsible to not use binocular configurations that get more reliable depth sensing.

At this point I truly don't understand why anyone cares what that liar says.

I also own a Tesla, and there is no indication shown to the user that FSD's vision is degraded. They need to add this in.

For example, numerous times I have been driving my Tesla with FSD activated with ostensibly a clean and clear windshield when suddenly the car will do the "clean the windshield in front of the camera routine" without any indication that the car's camera is degraded. If people haven't seen this "clean the windshield routine", the wiper fluid is dispensed and the wiper will vigorously wipe in front of the camera only -- the rest of the windshield only gets a cursory wipe.

This indicates to me that the camera has poor visibility and I am not informed or aware of this as a driver, which is concerning. I am often curious if there is a thin occluding film on the windshield in the camera box in front of the camera, or something that has degraded FSD's vision, but they do not give you the ability to view the camera feed, nor do they notify you that the vision is degraded. I think a "thin occluding film" may be in the camera box because my normal windshield outside of the camera box started to show a thin chemical film after a couple of months, which apparently (according to a Google search) happens when a new car off-gasses, adding a thin film of chemical byproduct to the windshield. This is my first new car so I've no idea if this is normal or not.

In any case, it seems reasonable to me that the human should be making the decisions once conditions become adverse. It’s a simple liability issue for the car company but also I’d rather trust my own judgment if it’s only 80% certain it’s not driving me off a cliff.

Systems built from cameras that are only nearly as capable as human eyes and software that is only nearly as capable as the human brain will fall short overall. To match or surpass human performance, the individual components need to exceed human abilities where possible--and that's where LiDAR provides an advantage.

FSD is a better driver than me 99% of the time.

99.9% of driving of sea-level, non-rainy, near-the-coast California/Austin weather, maybe. I would guess it's a no-go in the inland foggy conditions in CA, for example, or freezing rain in TX.

In terms of ALL conditions? 60-70% maybe.

This is an expected and understood result given the hardware and software involved.

You will not get past these issues without a RADICAL improvement in camera technology paired with specialized, dedicated processing hardware matched against several (and I mean several several) "common" environment profiles.

FSD is a scam. It's not safe. It is not technically sound.

The fact that there aren't many more accidents with the system is a by product of consistent and well thought out road standards, car standards, other safety systems present on cars, and driver education.

Eh, while I agree with you on the permeation of reddit culture on this board, this post is in no way clickbait or political in nature.

In fact, the title of this post is literally copy and pasted from the problem description.

The reason this stuff shoots to the top is because Elon Musk and his companies are a red alert menaces to society. People are sick of him and the damage he causes with his money, and wish he and his cars would just fuck off for good. From his cars slamming into people and property, his website spreading hate, his starships raining fiery debris, or he's personally taking an axe to government programs we rely on, everyone has cause to be absolutely done with his antics.

But since businesses can apparently unleash autonomous murderbots onto the public roadways with zero repercussions for 10+ years, I guess we'll have to settle for endless flamewars about Musk's campaign of destruction on HackerNews instead.

The gravity is weaker so just jump down /s

https://www.thedrive.com/news/tesla-autopilot-fails-wile-e-c...

> If Tesla FSD is better than the average driver using it, isn't it still a net win, even if it might crash in different scenarios than a human?

That was the analysis when the industry was in its infancy. I think a lot more work has to go into that argument for people to accept it now that the driverless car industry has been operating for a decade+, it's not really clear that this pans out.

For example, today you can look at a car and predict how it's going to behave because you have a good model for how people drive. But let's say in the future driverless cars are much "safer" on paper than human drivers, but they behave very differently from them such that it's hard for people to predict their behaviors.

Now you've created a highly dynamic system where you don't have a good model for the all the actors because some of them behave one way but others behave a completely different way. Does this increase the overall safety of the system or decrease it, despite the new actors being statistically safer than the current ones?

I don't think you can with great confidence say what's going to happen just by looking at crash rates and comparing to the current system. You're going to change the whole system by introducing large numbers of actors who "crash in different scenarios than a human"

Yes!!! Thank you hopefully I will get credit for inventing this attack :)

>> IncreasePosts 39 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Tesla: Failure of the FSD's degradation detection ...

What are wile e coyote attacks? Painting a tunnel entrance on a wall?

>> If Tesla FSD is better than the average driver using it, isn't it still a net win, even if it might crash in different scenarios than a human?

I don't think so because it is fooled by simple things that could easily be prevented and counting on a human to override is very risky because the human is simply not alert in the passive mode.

I think cameras are great, but there is no excuse not to also use LIDAR.

tesla cars killing people would be all over the news each time and nobody would care that similar or even marginally smaller amount of people would die anyway. People simply expect way more for giving up control.

Is it really that hard to see?