>> Go to the actual incident and you watch the computer planned trajectory it is very clear that the planned route has the Tesla entering the center left turn lane directly ahead of it. There wasn't going to be a head on collision and if there was it wouldn't have been the Tesla's fault.

Someone else posted an image in a different thread ( https://i.imgur.com/Hj6glgu.png ) and its pretty clear the car's planned route was to move into the opposing traffic's lane which makes very little sense but would've 100% definitely made the accident the Tesla's fault.

Read my post again. I clearly articulated that there is a timestamp where it plans a bad route briefly. That is something to investigate and fix even if it didn't ultimately keep that route. It is a very serious issue and no one should diminish it.

I'm sorry that you only get your information from second hand sources and so can't understand how I can both know what you said, but also know that you are under-informed. I realize that a headline and a single screenshot may seem extremely informative to you, especially if you skim comments rather than reading them in their entirety. However, I didn't look at a screenshot. I watched the video multiple times, including in slow motion, with special emphasis on the time where the incident occurred.

I strongly feel that if you are going to try to correct someone, you should really finish reading their post before you try to correct them.

I share your concern for that timestamp and think this error needs attention from Tesla.

The Tesla clearly crosses double yellow lines into the center no-driving buffer zone at 8:05, continues through that into the opposite lane of travel at 8:06, and nearly collides with a car going the other direction at 8:07. It ends up in back in the center turn lane at 8:09 only because the human driver intervened.

It doesn't matter whether Tesla ultimately planned to enter the center left turn lane; what matters it that it decided to cross into a no-driving lane and an opposing lane of traffic en-route to its purported destination, and the unrefuted visual evidence is that the planned trajectory violated multiple traffic laws and nearly caused the death of at least 2 people, at least 1 of whom did not consent to being Elon Musk's guinea pig.

From my original post:

- There is a timestamp where it plans a bad route briefly. That is something to investigate and fix even if it didn't ultimately keep that route.

- It also enters a lane with markings indicating that it shouldn't be entered. That is another serious issue that needs to be addressed.

> It doesn't matter whether Tesla ultimately planned to enter the center left turn lane;

It absolutely matters; figuring out the root cause of the issue is the essential thing, not scaring people. Self-driving cars are already safer to use than regular vehicles. Scaring people out of them rather than solving the root cause of issues with them will kill people.

What I'm doing, which others aren't, which makes me seem so counter-cultural, is that I'm putting this video in context rather than accepting the headline at face value.

This is a video of a self-driving car + human not getting into an accident. People who hate Tesla want to make that seem like a horrifying thing. In contrast, there are roughly 30,000 deaths a year due to driving accidents in the US alone. If you treated self-driving like you treat human-driving we would watch videos of deaths every single day on Hacker News. Every single day, without fail, there would be a new video we could post where someone died. We wouldn't get once in a month a video where someone didn't even get into an accident. People would die in the video, because humans are worse drivers than humans + AI.

I know that context. I know that regular cars are killing people everyday. I'm not forgetting that when I watch a video where an accident doesn't happen. I'm not accepting the empirically falsified perspective that self-driving is less safe, because the stats don't back up that assertion. I'm instead noticing that the video title was editorialized. I'm noticing that goes against the Hacker News guidelines. It disgusts me that it is, because I'm aware that convincing people that self-driving cars + humans are less safe than they are has the net effect of killing people by reducing prevalence. I don't consider that a good thing.

People who are freaking out over Tesla have a very distorted sense of how safe these cars are and a very distorted sense of how safe human drivers are. We're definitely not at the point where the vehicles can drive on their own, but we are definitely past the point where it is better to let the human drive on their own than to pair them with an AI. One video a month where someone doesn't get into accident in a Tesla, but I see as many cases where the Tesla stops an accident. Yet if I engaged in the same behavior as OP for regular cars, I could post literally hundreds of videos of actual death. I wouldn't need to editorialize.

> They empirically validated that removing radar improved the systems performance. Then did so. Anecdotally, I haven't had a false-positive break check while going under an underpass since then

If the failure mode is well known and the system is advanced enough to interpret what it sees, why wouldn't it factor in that they are about to be in an underpass to adjust the reliability factors of the sensors? What sense does it make to completely remove the other sensor to avoid a possible-to-predict edge-case?

If you rely on radar when you shouldn't rely on radar, people can die. So the answer to half your question is that even a minuscule probability of misidentification has intolerable consequences. If you rely on radar, because you can't rely on vision, people can also die. You are driving while blind to things like stop lights. Unless vision conditions improve it isn't safe to drive. Also there are going to be the same edge cases where radar failed, but now vision won't be able to compensate for them. Since radar can also fail by failing to detect something there, not just detecting something that isn't there, this is a fatality waiting to happen. In every other case, since the error bars are lower on vision than they are on radar, you ought to be relying on vision. Therefore, since in every conditional case in which driving is reasonable, vision is demanded, engineering effort is better directed toward vision than radar.

Am I missing the sarcasm here?

Which of my claims do you disagree with?

- That the vehicle planned a route that it shouldn't, but corrected that route plan?

- That the vehicle entered an area where it shouldn't enter?

- That Tesla doesn't use radar?

- That Tesla doesn't use lidar?

- That the calculations were done on GPU rather than CPU and so it doesn't make sense to think that the reason this happened was an overloaded CPU?

- That the Hacker News title is editorialized, in contradiction to Hacker News guidelines?

I think the last one is probably most contentious and you are most likely to consider it sarcasm. So I'll point this out and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from. If you renamed the video title to, "Tesla FSB Beta does not cause a head-on collision" it would be just as accurate for the situation in question. However, it would also be more accurate for the majority of the video. As such, it is a more accurate headline. Meanwhile, the name of the video is changed from the name on YouTube. Clearly an editorial choice was made.

Was it a good one?

To really get to the heart of the matter: no one died in this video, but if we had a similar bias against traditional vehicles we would see 90 videos of deaths every single day. A similar level of antagonism would demand that more then the entirety of the entire front page of Hacker News was completely taken up with actual deaths. Every day. The actual statistics at the heart of driving safety are very clear - human + AI is currently much much safer than human alone. That is the actual reality. This headline contradicts the underlying reality and it does so because the author knew the headline would attract more attention. It was optimizing for engagement, not for accuracy. I feel this sort of approach to headlines strongly contradicts the guidelines of Hacker News.

Oh sorry, I didn't think someone could be such a devoted Tesla apologist. I see I was wrong.