this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
647 points (89.3% liked)

Technology

70266 readers
3969 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

OK, its just a deer, but the future is clear. These things are going to start kill people left and right.

How many kids is Elon going to kill before we shut him down? Whats the number of children we're going to allow Elon to murder every year?

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The autopilot knows deers can't sue

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 months ago (10 children)

Driving is full of edge cases. Humans are also bad drivers who get edge cases wrong all the time.

The real question isn't is Tesla better/worse in anyone in particular, but overall how does Tesla compare. If a Tesla is better in some situations and worse in others and so overall just as bad as a human I can accept it. Is Tesla is overall worse then they shouldn't be driving at all (If they can identify those situations they can stop and make a human take over). If a Tesla is overall better then I'll accept a few edge cases where they are worse.

Tesla claims overall they are better, but they may not be telling the truth. One would think regulators have data for the above - but they are not talking about it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Tesla claims overall they are better, but they may not be telling the truth. One would think regulators have data for the above - but they are not talking about it.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/nhtsa-opens-probe-into-24-mln-tesla-vehicles-over-full-self-driving-collisions-2024-10-18/

The agency is asking if other similar FSD crashes have occurred in reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if Tesla has updated or modified the FSD system in a way that may affect it in such conditions.

It sure seems like they aren't being very forthcoming with their data between this and being threatened with fines last year for not providing the data. That makes me suspect they still aren't telling the truth.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

How does that compare to the number of deer/miles traveled of "regular" cars? That's the important part.

If you live in deer country you know how often you see dead ones on the side of the road, it's just scandalous because it was a car on autopilot, but if it's still safer per miles traveled than having humans behind the wheel then it's still a win.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It was an illegal deer immigrant, it recognised it, added it to the database on Tesla servers, and mowed it down before it took any jobs or whatever the hate-concern was.

/s

... but some actual technically human people do the same when they see an animal, don't they?
:(

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I hate Tesla as much as the next guy in here.

But I learned at my driving lessons that you shouldn't hit the breaks for animals running into your lane, because it can result in a car crash that's way worse. (think truck behind you with a much longer break length.)

Don't know if there's different rules.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

That's why humans have brains, for situational awareness.

And it's less about not breaking for an animal, as it is about not wildly swerving.

Also, you should probably revise your thinking on this before you visit any states that have large animals like Moose on the roads. Because if you plow into one with a car, it can easily kill you when it crushes you after impact.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You absolutely need to hit the brakes, but don't swerve. A deer weighs over 200lbs and will likely crash into your windshield if you hit it head on. You need to safely loose as much speed as you can because even a side hit on the deer is likely to wreck your axel and prevent you from driving.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. I know somebody who died when a deer came through the windshield…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah, I heard about people dying in crashes with deers also. I just remembered we were taught this, and I just thought it might be programmed to ignore animals because of this.

But it's probably wrong, and as someone pointed out, it seems like it didn't even see the deer.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.

The point here isn't actually "should it have stopped for the deer" , it's "if the system can't even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?"

The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

At the same time, it would have located it if it was using radar, but Musk decided that cameras are the future (contrary to all other brands)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it's flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It's hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.

Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don't even understand to consume those inputs effectively.

But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to "see" better than a human? I want that!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (13 children)

Agree, it didn't do anything to avoid the obstacle. A human could probably see it as an obstacle and try to swerve to the side, albeit not knowing what it is. Not saying it's possible to avoid, but some reaction would be made.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oooooh, can we shut Elon down? I mean literally shut down actual Elon. Does he have an off switch? He's gone wonky and I'd like to turn him off now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I’d like to turn him off now.

Just as well. If you turn him on he offers to buy you a pony.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

its just a deer

Deer are people too...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How many deer are on that road? It's mowing down dozens of them in that video!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Deer often travel in herds so where there is one there are often more. In rural area you can go miles without seeing one, and then see 10 in a few hundred feet. There are deer in those miles you didn't see them as well, but they happened to not be near the road then.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›