A 2025 Tesla Model 3 in Full-Self Driving mode drives off of a rural road, clips a tree, loses a tire, flips over, and comes to rest on its roof. Luckily, the driver is alive and well, able to post about it on social media.
I just don’t see how this technology could possibly be ready to power an autonomous taxi service by the end of next week.
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.
I’ve argued this point the past year, there are obvious safety problems with Tesla, even without considering FSD.
Like blinker on the steering wheel, manual door handles that are hard to find in emergencies, and distractions from common operations being behind menus on the screen, instead of having directly accessible buttons. With auto pilot they also tend to break for no reason, even on autobahn with clear road ahead! Which can also create dangerous situations.
What false advertising? It’s called “Full Self Driving (Supervised)”.
For many years the “supervised” was not included, AFAIK Tesla was forced to do that.
And in this case “supervised” isn’t even enough, because the car made an abrupt unexpected maneuver, instead of asking the driver to take over in time to react.
The driver isn’t supposed to wait for the car to tell them to take over lol. The driver is supposed to take over when necessary.
The attention required to prevent these types of sudden crashes negates the purpose of FSD entirely.
Well, because 99% of the time, it’s fairly decent. That 1%'ll getchya tho.
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.
Many Tesla owners are definitely dead many times, on the inside.
…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)
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.
You are trying to judge the self driving feature in a vacuum. And you can’t do that. You need to compare it to any alternatives. And for automotive travel, the alternative to FSD is to continue to have everyone drive manually. Turns out, most clowns doing that are statistically worse at it than even FSD, (as bad as it is). So, FSD doesn’t need to be perfect-- it just needs to be a bit better than what the average driver can do driving manually. And the last time I saw anything about that, FSD was that “bit better” than you statistically.
FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.
Yeah people keep bringing that up as a counter arguement but I’m pretty certain humans don’t swerve off a perfectly straight road into a tree all that often.
So unless you have numbers to suggest that humans are less safe than FSD then you’re being equally obtuse.
What is the failure rate? Unless you know that you can’t make that claim.
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.
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.
Saying it’s never going to get better is ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. It has improved in leaps and bounds over generations. It doesn’t need LiDAR.
The biggest thing you’re missing if that with FSD **the driver is still supposed to be paying attention at all times, ready to take over like a driving instructor does when a learner is doing something dangerous. Just because it’s in FSD Supervised mode it slant mean you should just sit back and watch it drive you off the road into a lake.
Your saying this on a video where it drove into a tree and flipped over. There isn’t time for a human to react, that’s like saying we don’t need emergency stops on chainsaws, the operator needs to just not drop it.
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