Tesla has finally released Full Self-Driving (FSD) for the Cybertruck to Tesla employees and Early Access Testers with update 2024.32.20.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 months ago

    Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD)

    sounds like an oxymoron

    i noticed they didnt use any of the industry standard terminology (autonomous driving level)

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      As long as the “driver” is responsible in case of a crash and not the manufacturer of the car, it will stay supervised no matter what the underlying tech is. “But your honour, I wasn’t paying any attention, it was the autonomous car that drove over the kid” is not a valid defence.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Except it has been advertised as full self driving for about a decade now, and Elon Musk has even claimed it’s safer than a human driver, because it doesn’t lose concentration or attention.

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          elon is claiming this with the same hubris as the idiot submersible guy who was so cheap he killed himself… ignoring all industry standards to claim he knows better

          • Cort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            God, wouldn’t that be some karma if musk got killed by one of his own cars on ‘autopilot’

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Exactly, but more than that, they both ignore(d) testing, that showed it wasn’t safe!!!

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          How is this downvoted? It’s a correct response to a false claim: "no matter what the underlying tech is. "
          The post responded to is basically nonsensical.

          Also this part:

          As long as the “driver” is responsible in case of a crash and not the manufacturer of the car, it will stay supervised

          If this was changed to “it must stay supervised” It would make more sense.

          • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Because it is a legal question, not a technological one.
            Now, I don’t know if the for example US traffic law has a tickbox somewhere a manufacturer can go and mark that they will take full responsibility in case of any accident and it will never be the result or liability of the owner/“driver” of the car, but until it does exist there is only supervised self driving, no matter how well or poorly it actually functions or what it does.

            Even the current robotaxi endeavours are just one major fatal accident away from grinding to a halt when the courts start figuring out who in the chain from insurer to owner to manufacturer and every worker and designer who has even remotely touched the project is actually responsible for that death.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Because it is a legal question,

              I don’t get it, you wrote: " it will stay supervised", even though we’ve seen numerous cases where it was not. It just doesn’t make sense, because it’s contrary to reality. Disregarding it is illegal. But because it’s illegal it would make sense to write it MUST stay supervised.
              But then there’s the matter of Mercedes FSD that is actually legal!

      • JASN_DE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        That was exactly the point. There are quite a number of cars with actual self-driving technology, where the driver is not responsible. Or if there is no driver.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The thing that is ILLEGALLY called Full Self Driving!
    Because it’s not actually FSD, but ASSISTED something something driving.
    Because calling it assisted full self driving is self contradictory, and should be illegal too.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    That article screams “written by an AI”. It repeats itself so much, it’s like a kid trying to hit the 1k word requirement for an essay in high school English.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s cool if these idiots want to waste their own lives, but why does my life and my homies need to be endangered?

    #bancars