News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tesla’s Autopilot involved in far more crashes than previ... by dekhn on Sunday June 11, 2023 @04:41PM (#36285442)
No, they are not. https://archive.is/dTInm And the article leads with an anecdote but buries critical details about that specific accident (the driver had "rigged weights" to keep autopilot going even when his hands were off the wheel).

I am not aware of any truly fair and impartial comparison of modern Teslas with other modern self-driving (whatever level) car technologies that have shown that Teslas are truly prone to more accidents. Fair and impartial would involve comparing rates, rather than absolute values (although that's just a starting point), correctly determining what model and what technologies were enabled, along with the driver's actions. Most newspapers are looking for clicks and "tesla autopilot crashes" get clicks, and the papers don't have time to do high quality investigative journalism.

(i have no opinions on the matter; I don't own a tesla, don't know much about their technology beyond what I read in the press, and have limited real-life experience with "self-driving", basically just the standard lane-keeping and radar cruise control that's included with my car, which I don't use often, and have found is prone to all sorts of problems)

Re:Tesla’s Autopilot involved in far more crashes than previ... by BoorishBears on Sunday June 11, 2023 @05:21PM (#36285834)
Years before Tesla released AP Lexus had walled off ACC behind eye tracking.

They weren't offering half the functionality AP claims and they realized the need to track driver attentiveness more robustly than looking for steering wheel torque.

And even after incidents like this Tesla resisted for years before actually using their cameras for eye tracking

Re:Tesla’s Autopilot involved in far more crashes than previ... by Veserv on Sunday June 11, 2023 @10:13PM (#36287694)
Tesla does not provide government regulators or research organizations access to the raw data on Autopilot or FSD usage. Despite their claims that FSD is a autonomous vehicle system in beta testing with a safety driver, they deliberately under-classify it to the California DMV to bypass [1] the mandatory reporting requirements for autonomous vehicles under test with a safety driver [2]. As such, they have intentionally made it impossible for any untainted safety analysis to occur.

As the default assumption when dealing with safety-critical systems is that they are unsafe and the explicit burden of proof is on manufacturer to prove safety, we must assume that it is unsafe. In addition, as no untainted safety analysis can occur at this time, any comparison against alternatives is impossible until they stop blocking audits of their usage data. The only thing we can state for certain is that it is unsafe for any usage by customers since no untainted proof of safety has been produced.

[1] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2023/02/17/2022-disen...

[2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...