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?

  • blady_blah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago
    1. Vehicle needed lidar
    2. Vehicle should have a collision detection indicator for anomalous collisions and random mechanical problems
  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Just a small clarification… Teslas only kill forward or backwards. Hardly ever has a car killed left or right 😂.

  • bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Humans are also bad drivers who get edge cases wrong all the time.

      It would be so awesome if humans only got the edge cases wrong.

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’ve been able to get demos of autopilot in one of my friend’s cars, and I’ll always remember autopilot correctly stopping at a red light, followed by someone in the next lane over blowing right through it several seconds later at full speed.

        Unfortunately “better than the worst human driver” is a bar we passed a long time ago. From recent demos I’d say we’re getting close to the “average driver”, at least for clear visibility conditions, but I don’t think even that’s enough to have actually driverless cars driving around.

        There were over 9M car crashes with almost 40k deaths in the US in 2020, and that would be insane to just decide that’s acceptable for self driving cars as well. No company is going to want that blood on their hands.

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes. The question is if the Tesla is better than a anyone in particular. People are given the benefit of the doubt once they pass the drivers test. Companies and AI should not get that. The AI needs to be as good or better than a GOOD human driver. There is no valid justification to allow a poorly driving AI because it’s better than the average human. If we are going to allow these on the road they need to be good.

      The video above is HORRID. The weather was clear, there was no opposing traffic , the deer was standing still. The auto drive absolutely failed.

      If a human was driving in these conditions plowed through a deer at 60 mph and didn’t even attempt to swerve or stop they shouldn’t be driving.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

      • atempuser23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        One trick used is to disengage auto pilot when it senses and imminent crash. This would vastly lower the crash count shifting all blame to the human driver.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        I think their silence is very telling, just like their alleged crash test data on Cybertrucks. If your vehicles are that safe, why wouldn’t you be shoving that into every single selling point you have? Why wouldn’t that fact be plastered across every Gigafactory and blaring from every Tesla that drives past on the road? If Tesla’s FSD is that good, and Cybertrucks are that safe, why are they hiding those facts?

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          If the cybertruck is so safe in crashes they would be begging third parties to test it so they could smugly lord their 3rd party verified crash test data over everyone else.

          Bu they don’t because they know it would be a repeat of smashing the bulletproof window on stage.

    • ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Being safer than humans is a decent starting point, but safety should be maximized to the best of a machine’s capability, even if it means adding a sensor or two. Keeping screws loose on a Boeing airplane still makes the plane safer than driving, so Boeing should not be made to take responsibility.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Given that they market it as “supervised”, the question only has to be “are humans safer when using this tool than when not using it?”

      One of the cool things I’ve noticed since recent updates, is the car giving a nudge to help me keep centered, even when I’m not using autopilot

  • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Is there video that actually shows it “keeps going”? The way that video loops I know I can’t tell what happens immediately after.

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Inb4 it actually stopped with hazards like I’ve seen in other videos. Fuck elon and fuck teslas marketing of self driving but I’ve seen people reach far for karma hate posts on tesla sooooooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Is there a longer video anywhere? Looking closely I have to wonder where the hell did that deer come from? There’s a car up ahead of the Tesla in the same lane, I presume quickly moved back in once it passed the deer? The deer didn’t spook or anything from that car?

    This would have been hard for a human driver to avoid hitting, but I know the issue is the right equipment would have been better than human vision, which should be the goal. And it didn’t detect the impact either since it didn’t stop.

    But I just think it’s peculiar that that deer just literally popped there without any sign of motion.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Ever hear the phrase “like a deer caught in headlights”? That’s what they do. They see oncoming headlights and just freeze.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It depends. If it’s on the side of the road it may do the opposite and jump in front of you. This one actually looked like it was going to start moving, but not a chance.

        It’s the gap between where the deer is in the dark and the car in front that’s odd. Only thing I can figure is the person was in the other lane and darted over just after passing the deer.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          16 hours ago

          The front car is probably further ahead than you think, and a deer can move onto the road quickly and freeze when looking at headlights or slow down if confused. I think in this case the deer was facing away and may not have even heard the vehicle approaching so it wasn’t trying to avoid danger.

          I avoided a deer in a similar situation while driving last week, and the car ahead of us was closer than this clip. Just had to brake and change lanes.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Sure and living in Wyoming I’ve seen that happen often enough right in front of me but the more I watch this video the more I want to know how that deer GOT there.

        I can see a small shrub in the dark off the (right) side of the road but somehow you can’t see the deer enter the lane from either the right or left. The car in front of the Tesla is maybe 40 feet past the deer at the start of the video (watch the reflector posts) but somehow that car had no reaction to the deer standing in the middle of the lane?!

      • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        That’s why you flash your lights on and off at them, to get them to unfreeze before you get too close.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Deer will do that. They have absolutely no sense of self-preservation around cars.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That is because at a distance they freeze in case a predator hasn’t noticed them yet. Theey don’t bolt until they think an attack is imminent, and cars move to fast for them to react.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Is there a longer video anywhere? Looking closely I have to wonder where the hell did that deer come from?

      I have the same question. If you watch the video closely the deer is located a few feet before the 2nd reflector post you see at the start of the video. At that point in time the car in front is maybe 20’ beyond the post which means they should have encountered the deer within the last 30-40 feet but there was no reaction visible.

      You can also see both the left and right sides of the road at the reflector well before the deer is visible, you can even make out a small shrub off the road on the right, and but somehow can’t see the deer enter the road from either side?!

      It’s like the thing just teleported into the middle of the lane.

      The more I watch this the more suspicious I am that the video was edited.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    the deer is not blameless. those bastards will race you to try and cross in front of you.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Finally someone else familiar with the most deadly animal in North America.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I’d give the moose the top spot. Maybe not in sheer numbers of deaths, but I’d much rather have an encounter with a deer than a moose.

        Though for sheer number, I also wouldn’t give that to deer, that spot would go to humans, though I can admit it’s a bit pedantic.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours 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.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 hours ago

    For the 1000th time Tesla: don’t call it “autopilot” when it’s nothing more than a cruise control that needs constant attention.

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Real Autopilot also needs constant attention, the term comes from aviation and it’s not fully autonomous. It maintains heading, altitude, and can do minor course correction.

      It’s the “full self driving” wording they use that needs shit on.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It is autopilot (a poor one but still one) that legally calls itself cruise control so Tesla wouldn’t have to take responsibility when it inevitably breaks the law.

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    You just need to buy the North America Animal Recognition AI subscription and this wouldn’t be an issue plebs, it will stop for 28 out of 139 mammals!

  • Nytixus@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I roll my eyes at the dishonest bad faith takes people have in the comments about how people do the same thing behind the wheel. Like that’s going to make autopiloting self-driving cars an exception. Least a person can react, can slow down or do anything that an unthinking, going-by-the-pixels computer can’t do at a whim.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      How come human drivers have more fatalities and injuries per mile driven?

      Musk can die in a fire, but self driving car tech seems to be vastly safer than human drivers when you do apples to apples comparisons. It’s like wearing a seatbelt, you certainly don’t need to have one to go from point A to point B, but you’re definitely safer with it - even if you are giving up a little control. Like a seatbelt, you can always take it off.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I honestly think it shouldn’t be called “self driving” or “autopilot” but should work more like the safety systems in Airbusses by simply not allowing the human to make a decision that would create a dangerous situation.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It doesn’t have to not kill people to be an improvement, it just has to kill less people than people do

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      True in a purely logical sense, but assigning liability is a huge issue for self-driving vehicles.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        As long as there’s manual controls the driver is responsible as they’re supposed to be ready to take over

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Because it’s not, it’s a car with assisted driving, like all cars you can drive at the moment and with which, surprise surprise, you are held responsible if there’s an accident while it’s in assisted mode.

    • ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      That’s a low bar when you consider how stringent airline safety is in comparison, and that kills way less people than driving does. If sensors can save people’s lives, then knowingly not including them for profit is intentionally malicious.