Not really worth talking about unless the crash rate is higher than human average.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
438 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
70266 readers
3942 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
Imagine if people treated airbags that way XD
If Ford airbags just plain worked, and then Tesla airbags worked 999 times out of 1,000, would the correct answer be to say "well thems the breaks, there is no room for improvement, because dangerously flawed airbags are way safer than no airbags at all."
Like, no. No, no, no. Cars get recalled for flaws that are SO MUCH less dangerous.
To be fair, that grey tree trunk looked a lot like a road
It's fine, nothing at all wrong with using just camera vision for autonomous driving. Nothing wrong at all. So a few cars run off roads or don't stop for pedestrians or drive off a cliff. So freaking what, that's the price for progress my friend!
I'd like to think this is unnecessary but just in case here's a /s for y'all.
GPS data predicted the road would go straight as far as the horizon. Camera said the tree or shadow was an unexpected 90 degree bend in the road. So the only rational move was to turn 90 degrees, obviously! No notes, no whammies, flawless
Typical piss poor quality from Leon Hitler. F Tesla.
The car made a fatal decision faster than any human could possibly correct it. Tesla’s idea that drivers can “supervise” these systems is, at this point, nothing more than a legal loophole.
What I don't get is how this false advertising for years hasn't caused Tesla bankruptcy already?
Because the US is an insane country where you can straight up just break the law and as long as you're rich enough you don't even get a slap on the wrist. If some small startup had done the same thing they'd have been shut down.
What I don't get is why teslas aren't banned all over the world for being so fundamentally unsafe.
Well, because 99% of the time, it's fairly decent. That 1%'ll getchya tho.
That's probably not the failure rate odds but a 1% failure rate is several thousand times higher than what NASA would consider an abort risk condition.
Let's say that it's only 0.01% risk, that's still several thousand crashes per year. Even if we could guarantee that all of them would be non-fatal and would not involve any bystanders such as pedestrians the cost of replacing all of those vehicles every time they crashed plus fixing damage of things they crashed into, lamp posts, shop Windows etc would be so high as it would exceed any benefit to the technology.
It wouldn't be as bad if this was prototype technology that was constantly improving, but Tesla has made it very clear they're never going to add lidar scanners so is literally never going to get any better it's always going to be this bad.
...is literally never going to get any better it's always going to be this bad.
Hey now! That's unfair. It is constantly changing. Software updates introduce new reversions all the time. So it will be this bad, or significantly worse, and you won't know which until it tries to kill you in new and unexpected ways :j
To put your number into perspective, if it only failed 1 time in every hundred miles, it would kill you multiple times a week with the average commute distance.
..It absolutely fails miserably fairly often and would likely crash that frequently without human intervention, though. Not to the extent here, where there isn't even time for human intervention, but I frequently had to take over when I used to use it (post v13)
Even with the distances I drive and I barely drive my car anywhere since covid, I'd probably only last about a month before the damn thing killed me.
Even ignoring fatalities and injuries, I would still have to deal with the fact that my car randomly wrecked itself, which has to be a financial headache.
Someone who doesn't understand math downvoted you. This is the right framework to understand autonomy, the failure rate needs to be astonishingly low for the product to have any non-negative value. So far, Tesla has not demonstrated non-negative value in a credible way.
HAL9000 had Oh Clementine!
Has Tesla been training their AI with the lumberjack song?
It got the most recent update, and thought a tunnel was a wall.
... and a tree was a painting.
Took me a second to get it, but that's brilliant.
I wonder if there might even be some truth to it?
It's full self-driving, doesn't need roads. Put into wrong car.
Don't drive Tesla
I have visions of Elon sitting in his lair, stroking his cat, and using his laptop to cause this crash. /s
That tree cast shade on his brand.
It had to go.
Why would you inflict that guy on a poor innocent kitty?
view more: next ›