Elon needs to take responsibility for their death.
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
1131 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
68813 readers
4799 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Every captcha.....can you see the motorcycle? I would be afraid if they wanted all the squares with small babies or maybe just regular folk...can you pick all the hottie's? Which of these are body parts?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Musk = POS Nazi. Who couldn't care less about people being killed by his shit companies.
Five years ago, you could not have brought this up without Musk simps defending it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'm not sure how that's possible considering no one manufactures self-driving cars that I know of. Certainly not Tesla.
Why is self-driving even allowed?
Robots don't get drunk, or distracted, or text, or speed...
Anecdotally, I think the Waymos are more courteous than human drivers. Though waymo seems to be the best ones out so far, idk about the other services.
Don't waymos have remote drivers that take control in unexpected situationsml?
They have remote drivers that CAN take control in very corner case situations that the software can't handle. The vast majority of driving is don't without humans in the loop.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Humans are terrible drivers. The open question is are self driving cars overall safer than human driven cars. So far the only people talking either don't have data, or have reason cherry pick only parts of the data that make self driving look good. This is the one exception where someone seemingly independent has done analysis - the question is are they unbiased, or are they cherry picking data to make self driving look bad (I'm not familiar with the source so I can't answer that)
Either way more study is needed.
Humans are terrible. The human eyes and brain are good at detecting certain things though that allow a reaction where computer vision, especially only using one method of detection, fails often. There are times when an automated system will prevent a problem before a human could even see it. So far neither is the clear winner, human driving just has a legacy that automation has to beat by a great length and not just be good enough.
On the topic of human drivers, I think most on the road drive reactively and not based on prediction and anticipation. Given the speed and possible detection methods, a well designed automated system should be excelling at this. It costs more and it more complex to design such a thing, so we're getting the bare bones of the best minimum tech can give us right now, which again is not a replacement for all cases.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because the only thing worse than self driving is human driving.
Because the march of technological advancement is inevitable?
In light of recent (and let's face it, long ago cases) Tesla's "Full Self Driving" needs to be downgraded to level 2 at best.
Level 2: Partial Automation
The vehicle can handle both steering and acceleration/deceleration, but the driver must remain engaged and ready to take control.
Pretty much the same level as other brands self driving feature.
The other brands, such as Audi and VW, work much better than Tesla's system. Their LIDAR systems aren't blinded by fog, and rain the way the Tesla is. Someone recently tested an Audi with its system against a Tesla with its system. The Tesla failed either 3/5 or 4/5 tests. The Audi passed 3/5 or 4/5. Neither system is perfect, but the one that doesn't rely on just cameras is clearly superior.
Edit: it was Mark Rober.
It's hard to tell, but from about 15 minutes of searching, I was unable to locate any consumer vehicles that include a LIDAR system. Lots of cars include RADAR, for object detection, even multiple RADAR systems for parking. There may be some which includes a TimeOfFlight sensor, which is like LIDAR, but static and lacks the resolution/fidelity. My Mach-E which has level 2 automation uses a combination of computer vision, RADAR and GPS. I was unable to locate a LIDAR sensor for the vehicle.
The LIDAR system in Mark's video is quite clearly a pre-production device that is not affiliated with the vehicle manufacturer it was being tested on.
Adding, after more searching, it looks like the polestar 3, some trim levels of the Audi A8 and the Volvo EX90 include a LiDAR sensor. Curious to see how the consumer grade tech works out in real world.
Please do not mistake this comment as "AI/computer vision" evangelisim. I currently have a car that uses those technologies for automation, and I would not and do not trust my life or anyone else's to that system.
The way I understand it, is that Audi, Volvo, and VW have had the hardware in place for a few years. They are collecting real world data about how we drive before they allow the systems to be used at all. There are also legal issues with liability.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Bribes to local governments and police, mostly.
Because muh freedum, EU are a bunch of commies for not allowing this awesome innovation on their roads
(I fucking love living in the EU)
This is news? Fortnine talked about it two years ago.
TL;DR Tesla removed LIDAR to save a buck and the cameras see two red dots that the 'puter thinks it's a far away car at night when indeed it's a close motorcycle.
It's helpful to remember that not everyone has seen the same stories you have. If we want something to change, like regulators not allowing dangerous products, then raising public awareness is important. Expressing surprise that not everyone knows about something can be counterproductive.
Going beyond that, wouldn't the new information here be the statistics?
like regulators not allowing dangerous products,
I include human drivers in the list of dangerous products I don't want allowed. The question is self driving safer overall (despite possible regressions like this). I don't want regulators to pick favorites. I want them to find "the truth"
load more comments
(1 replies)
It could be two motorcycles side by side.
load more comments
(1 replies)
as daily rider, i must add having a tesla behind to the list of road hazards to look out
I feel like that as a driver. Tesla’s do not move at a consistent speed, which drives me mad
load more comments
(1 replies)
Stop dehumanizing drivers who killed people.
Feature, wrongly called, Full Self-Driving, shall be supervised at any time.
I think it's important to call out inattentive drivers while also calling out the systems and false advertising that may lead them to become less attentive.
If these systems were marketed as "driver assistance systems" instead of "full self driving", certainly more people would pay attention. The fact that they've been allowed to get away with this blatant false advertising is astonishing.
They're also obviously not adequately monitoring for driver attentiveness.
If you’re going to say your car has “full self driving”, it should have that, not “full self driving (but needs monitoring.)” or “full self driving (but it disconnects 2 seconds before impact.)”.