Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fomite | Hacker News Reader

"Driver is mostly disengaged, but then must intervene in a sudden fail state" is also one of the most dangerous types of automation due to how long it takes the driver to reach full control as well.

View on HN

Yeah, I don't drive but I would think it would be worse than actually paying attention all the time

It's also a problem that gets worse as the software gets better. Having to intervene once every 5 minutes is a lot easier than having to intervene once every 5 weeks. If lack of intervention causes an accident, I'd bet on the 5 minute car avoiding an accident longer than the 5 week car for any span of time longer than 10 weeks.

I feel like the full self driving cars should have a "budget". Every time you drive, say, 1000 km in FSD, you then need to drive 100 km in "normal" mode to keep sharp. Or whatever the ratio / exact numbers TBD. You can reset the counter upfront by driving smaller mileage more regularly.

Just as driving practice?

It's not going to help the problem of keeping up vigilance when monitoring a level 3 system.

That's not solving the right problem. That keeps you sharp driving, but does not keep you sharp supervising. If the car did drive you 1000 km flawlessly, but can still kill you with a random erratic bug on the 1001th km (or on the 1234th). That is where people will zone out. Keeping people driving will keep them able to drive, but won't make them less zoned out when they are not driving.

You are required to pay attention all the time. That's what the "supervised" in "FSD (supervised)" means.

FSD stands for Fully Supervised Driving, right?

yeah, that sounds like Elon’s marketing to me.

Same energy as

Unlimited Data!! (up to 100GB)

The point is the transition from "Driving Supervisor" to "Driver" is non-trivial in terms of time.

It's more like being a driving instructor, which has a higher effort and skill bar than just driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com