The company’s rollout of its new driverless cars has gotten off to a wobbly start – and rival Waymo remains well ahead

After years of promising investors that millions of Tesla robotaxis would soon fill the streets, Elon Musk debuted his driverless car service in a limited public rollout in Austin, Texas. It did not go smoothly.

The 22 June launch initially appeared successful enough, with a flood of videos from pro-Tesla social media influencers praising the service and sharing footage of their rides. Musk celebrated it as a triumph, and the following day, Tesla’s stock rose nearly 10%.

What quickly became apparent, however, was that the same influencer videos Musk promoted also depicted the self-driving cars appearing to break traffic laws or struggle to properly function. By Tuesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had opened an investigation into the service and requested information from Tesla on the incidents.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Musk maintains that camera-only technology is the most “human” way to approach self-driving, since people use their eyes to navigate the road.

    Newsflash for you, Elon. Most people are terrible drivers. We should be striving to do better as a society, not imitate something that already sucks.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This was him justifying what was a cost saving decision that became a face saving battle for him personally as everyone told him he was wrong.

      If there is one thing Elon cannot stand above all others is admitting he was wrong, especially when he has spent years promising this and now he would have to retrofit at his cost Lidar to all those cars he sold as self driving ready with an expensive optional extra.

      He might be able to avoid any sort of punishment from the US government as long as he stays in Trumps good books, but he will not be able to do so in Europe or similar.

    • Aganim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Musk maintains that camera-only technology is the most “human” way to approach self-driving, since people use their eyes to navigate the road.

      A few years ago I was driving on the motorway, came up on a bend in the road and was greeted by a dense freak fog bank out of nowhere. I immediately let go of the accelerator to reduce speed, at the same time my dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree and a collision alert started blaring. That gave me enough time to apply the brakes and prevent a collision with the first and only traffic jam I’ve ever seen there.

      I see no reason to not augment our own capabilities with radar and lidar, to see what we as humans can’t.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      He also claimed he wanted to make self driving safer than humans. You can’t do that well if the car has the same visual limitations a human has.

        • ano_ba_to@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Of course computers can “compute” faster than humans. In that case, safety should not be compared with the average human. We should be expecting a lot better. It can also fail faster, and in unpredictable ways, than a human depending on the condition, which is why you can’t skimp out on sensors.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        When Autopilot started I would hear people joke about how it couldn’t drive in bad weather where people could. They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it’s going to stop driving. People lose information and they keep going. One of these is safer.

        Of course if Elon had thrown everything at the car to make it have information even in terrible or odd conditions, there’d be more merit in claiming those cars are safer than humans. But between genius brain (however much there is) and narcissist, the latter won out in doing it his way because others were doing it the obvious way.

        The safest roads would be fully automated and tapped into each other. We wouldn’t even need lights at intersections. A hybrid mix of human/computer traffic is always going to be dangerous.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Indeed. We might have gone that way. Lots of larger cities had rail for their public transit, but the car industry got that removed for obvious reasons.

        • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Except:

          • When mud, snow, bug splatters, etc. blinds a camera I can very likely still see perfectly fine out of clear part of the windshield. I can move my eyes, the camera can’t move.
          • Sun glare will blind some cameras (even side cameras) when it’s low in the sky. The same sun wont bother me at all.
          • I’ve seen the cameras get tricked by things in front of it like a trailer full of tree branches & other landscaping debris that hangs over the back and obscures the brake lights & license plate.
          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Your points illustrate why other means besides cameras should be also used, as well as why the human brain’s ability to filter or even ignore things is a bonus to our driving ability. Or a detriment. People who power through bad weather or sun glare or any other obstacles that obscure them seeing well and manage to get through aren’t greater than the computer driver, they’re just lucky. Same can be said for all the people driving while on the phone, they aren’t skilled in multitasking while moving hundreds of feet per second, they just happen to have it clear 99% of the time so think they’re that good.

            The main point was that computers need all the information they can get to compete with humans, but they also have the ability to get data we cannot, and it’s stupid to not give them that ability because of some desire to simulate the full (read that as limited) human experience. Humans deal with less info all the time, but that doesn’t make them better.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          16 hours ago

          They seem to miss the point that when the computer begins to lose information needed to navigate, it’s going to stop driving.

          There’s also the point that, while AI has gotten quite far, the human brain is still fairly superior at accurately interpolating and interpreting limited information. This may have changed in the past year or two, but my impression is that humans are still far better than machines at handling new or “corrupted” information, like driving in poor visibility, or suddenly having road markings disappear, etc.

        • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Agreed.

          I hate trump and Musk and I morn the world we could have if it weren’t for people like them. However… after the election the only bit of hope that I - and which I knew would never happen - was that maybe they would use their authoritarianism to make the very hard decisions that could lead to a better society, such as phasing out human operated vehicles on public roads in favor of interconnected, self-driving vehicles. We have the technology to do so many amazing things… there just isn’t enough profit to bribe the politicians, pay the executives and build it to make it worth while.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Benevolent dictators almost always happen only in fiction, and they don’t last. I guess you can get some that do a few good things while being bad overall.

            • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Oh, I know, and I know it was an absolute dumb thing to even think would be in the realm of possibility, but I was just trying to find something, anything to grab on to and help keep my hope on the ventilator.

              The best I’m hoping for now is that trump will do something good on accident, like how he legalized thc in 2018. Sure, he did it in the stupidest way possible, but it’s something.

              • Rhaedas@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Random drunk walk is sometimes successful in the results. The bonus is that it also prevents some malevolent actions from succeeding.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      waymo is already superior to tesla in self driving,waymo has been around for a few years already. teslas already too late into the game.