Comment by statop | Hacker News Reader

Comment by statop | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That isn't how humans work. In any case, most humans are capable of FSD. Your Tesla isn't. No one cares about 360 degree 30Hz cameras. Just like two eyes aren't the solution to driving. Lots of animals have two eyes, most of them won't ever drive a vehicle.

Other commenter "My coworker gave me a ride in his Tesla ... FSD tried to cross over into the opposing lanes, ran a red, narrowly avoided hitting a cyclist"

Your reply "Huh. FSD (Mine) took my kid to diving practice this afternoon. Weird world. Just please stop with the hate."

I'm not sure what you hope to prove by replying to anecdotes about unacceptable autopilot with anecdotes about acceptable autopilot? It doesn't mean everyone else is a hater any more than you're a shill. It just means autopilot performance across hardware and environmental factors is not within the envelope it needs to be.

Maybe try replacing "FSD" in these comments with the names of two fictional friends.

"Steve tried to cross over into the opposing lanes, ran a red, narrowly avoided hitting a cyclist"

"Huh. Rick took my kid to diving practice this afternoon. Weird world. Just please stop with the hate."

Should we trust Steve because Rick is a good driver?

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, though with one minor exception: while Steve and Rick are two people with different experiences, risk acceptance, attentiveness, etc, FSD is FSD.

Speaking of risk acceptance, I wouldn't trust my life or anyone else's to FSD. I don't have FSD in my Model 3, but I have used all of the other driver assist features. There have been too many times when those features have made serious mistakes, so I don't use them. Even at it's best, FSD appears to be about as good as the worst drivers on the road. One anecdote of poor performance, for me, is one too many.

> Should we trust Steve because Rick is a good driver?

We should accept that all drivers make mistakes, even you, and demand measurable safety metrics from all our control systems. Is that really so weird?

What we should not do is start thousand-comment flame wars on HN about how Steve is unsafe and that we should take away his license. In fact, those three mistakes are of course routine for human drivers. I bet you personally, statop, have done them in the past. And yet, no lynch mob.

That's the "hate" part I'm talking about. Please stop. Please. It's really hurting the discourse about a product area that's actually very subject to measurement, and about a specific product that is objectively very safe.

Tesla's self-driving/ADAS have more confirmed fatalities than the self-driving/ADAS of every other automaker in the world combined.

The NHTSA shows that Tesla AP/FSD is 50+x more likely to get into an accident than Ford and Toyota's systems, despite Tesla AP/FSD being available in a tiny fraction of the cars. Tesla AP/FSD is more than 3x more likely to get into an accident than the second worst automaker's comparable systems.

It doesn't matter how you try to analyze the statistics, Tesla AP/FSD is objectively the most dangerous in the world.

> The NHTSA shows that Tesla AP/FSD is 50+x more likely to get into an accident than Ford and Toyota's systems

You just made that up. This is untrue, period. It's a lie. Please. Stop. I don't understand why you want to do this or what you think you're achieving by this kind of argument.

Swerve into oncoming traffic, run red lights, and come dangerously close to hitting cyclists? Who do you think I am, Vin Diesel at the Tour de France?

“Objectively safe“ was a pretty quick r/agedlikemilk given the recall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com