[blendergeek]

Every car "nearly drove itself into oncoming traffic" if the driver doesn't takeover. Its not like he climbed into the backseat and said, "Tesla, takeover". No, he let the car help with the driving, but maintained control of the vehicle to ensure the safety of the child.

[masklinn]

> Every car "nearly drove itself into oncoming traffic" if the driver doesn't takeover.

Those other cars don't claim to drive themselves.

[jchw]

I empathize that people are frustrated with the marketing claims of this particular feature, which are clearly bunk, but the point of the post you're replying to is not to defend it, it's to defend that the other commenter is not being negligent and putting their child in danger...

[alistairSH]

Maybe not his kid, assuming he has more faith in Tesla's crash-worthiness than its FSD.

But, he'd definitely risking other road users and pedestrians if that car keeps trying to run up sidewalks and cause other havoc on the roadway.

[jchw]

If you are fully attentive, you can correct course once you realize a mistake is being made. My Honda Civic has adaptive cruise control and lane keep, and I run into issues with it reasonably often. I'm not complaining: after all, it's not marketed as much more than glorified cruise control. And either way, turning it on is not a risk to me. With any of these features, in my opinion, the main risk is complacency. If they work well enough most of the time, you can definitely get a false sense of security. Of course, based on some of the experiences people have had with FSD, I'm surprised anyone is able to get a false sense of security at all with it, but I assume mileages vary.

Now if the car failed in such a way that you couldn't disengage FSD, THAT would be a serious, catastrophic problem... but as far as I know, that's not really an issue here. (If that were an issue, obviously, it would be cause to have the whole damn car recalled.)

All of this to say, I think we can leave the guy alone for sharing his anecdote. When properly attentive, it shouldn't be particularly dangerous.

[paulryanrogers]

FSD can (sometimes very wrongly) act in milliseconds. Even attentive humans have to move their arms and the wheel, needing hundreds of milliseconds. The same humans who may have become numb to always paying attention, especially if it works well enough most of the time.

[max51]

that makes absolutely no difference in the context of the comments above.

If a product being overhyped prevents you from using it after you paid for it, you're gonna have to live with no computer, no phone, no internet, no electricity, no cars, no bikes.

[cactusplant7374]

If FSD decides to do max acceleration and turn the wheels, can you stop it in time? Zero to 60 is under 3 seconds, right?

[jonfw]

If your brake lines burst, will you be able to coast safely to a stop?

Every piece of technology has a variety of failure modes, some more likely than others. FSD is not likely to take aim at a pedestrian and floor it, just like your brakes aren't likely to explode, and neither of you are irresponsible for making those assumptions

[paulryanrogers]

The difference is brake lines are inspected and understood by humans. Failure to reasonably maintain them is illegal.

No single human fully understands these AI models, and they can change daily. Yet Tesla is putting them in control of multi-ton vehicles and leaving all liability on humans with worse reaction time and little to no understanding of how it works or tends to go wrong.

[Eisenstein]

What if it decides to short the batteries and set the car on fire? Can you stop it from doing that?

I think you are making scenarios that no reasonable person would assume. There is a difference between 'getting confused at an intersection and turning wrong' and 'actively trying to kill the occupant by accelerating at max speed while turning the steering'.

[cactusplant7374]

Battery and battery management is more straightforward. BYD has mastered it.

FSD is a blackbox. Even Tesla appears to be unable to prevent regressions. One of the most sophisticated companies in the world can't prevent regression in a safety critical software they frequently update. Let that sink in.

[sircastor]

So, third-hand story, about 20 years ago, from an acquaintance who heard it from a Police officer who dealt with the following situation:

This police officer was responding to an RV which had run off the road, and was speaking with the driver. The driver, a bit shook up from the experience explained that he was driving down the highway, turned on the cruise control, and got up to make himself a sandwich...

[mikestew]

“3rd-hand story”, from a friend of a friend…uh, huh. Unless I’m missing a heaping bucket of “ironically”, you could have just said “there’s an old urban legend…” instead of passing off an old joke as something true.

[sircastor]

Well, up until a moment ago, I legitimately believed it to be true - even though I was a few steps removed from it. Live and learn I guess.

[sgc]

I have been duped like this before too! Believe a story that just doesn't ring right when you tell it to somebody else years later. Teaching / communicating corrects a lot of errors.

[drivers99]

I remember my grandma telling that story maybe 30-40 years ago. Gotta be an urban legend. Yup: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruise-uncontrol/

[VBprogrammer]

I've no doubt this has probably happened in real life at some point but it's practically a fable by now.

I think the Simpsons done it at least 30 years ago.

[ryantgtg]

I saw a "trying out my parking assist" (I think it was with a Hyundai) video the other day where the guy didn't realize that the function only assists with steering and not the pedals. So he backed right into a car.

[mcguire]

This is literally the story of a Berke Breathed Bloom County (or whatever the follow-on was) comic strip.