this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
1488 points (98.3% liked)

Not The Onion

15398 readers
1558 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the piece — titled "Can You Fool a Self Driving Car?" — Rober found that a Tesla car on Autopilot was fooled by a Wile E. Coyote-style wall painted to look like the road ahead of it, with the electric vehicle plowing right through it instead of stopping.

The footage was damning enough, with slow-motion clips showing the car not only crashing through the styrofoam wall but also a mannequin of a child. The Tesla was also fooled by simulated rain and fog.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 141 points 6 days ago (6 children)

I hope some of you actually skimmed the article and got to the "disengaging" part.

As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

It's a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 40 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It’s a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.

That is like writing musk made an awkward, confused gesture during a time a few people might call questionable timing and place.

[–] cortex7979@lemm.ee 34 points 6 days ago

That's so wrong holy shit

[–] LemmyFeed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Don't get me wrong, autopilot turning itself off right before a crash is sus and I wouldn't put it past Tesla to do something like that (I mean come on, why don't they use lidar) but maybe it's so the car doesn't try to power the wheels or something after impact which could potentially worsen the event.

On the other hand, they're POS cars and the autopilot probably just shuts off cause of poor assembly, standards, and design resulting from cutting corners.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 33 points 6 days ago (2 children)

if it can actually sense a crash is imminent, why wouldn't it be programmed to slam the brakes instead of just turning off?

Do they have a problem with false positives?

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

if it was european made, it would slam the brakes or swerve in order to at least try and save lives since governments attempt to regulate companies to not do evil shit. Since it american made it is designed to maximise profit for shareholders.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I don't believe automatic swerving is a good idea, depending on what's off to the side it has the potential to make a bad situation much worse.

I'm thinking like, kid runs into the street, car swerves and mows down a crowd on the sidewalk

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've been wondering this for years now. Do we need intelligence in crashes, or do we just need vehicles to stop? I think you're right, it must have been slamming the brakes on at unexpected times, which is unnerving when driving I'm sure.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

So they had an issue with the car slamming on the brakes at unexpected times, caused by misidentifying cracks in the road or glare or weird lighting or w/e. The solution was to make the cameras ignore anything they can't recognize at high speeds. This resulted in Teslas plowing into the back of firetrucks.

As the article mentioned, other self-driving cars solved that with lidar, which elon himself is against because he says AI will just get so good and 2d cameras are cheaper.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 days ago

Normal cars do whatever is in their power to cease movement while facing upright. In a wreck, the safest state for a car is to cease moving.

[–] Tungsten5@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I see your point, and it makes sense, but I would be very surprised if Tesla did this. I think the best option would be to turn off the features once an impact is detected. It shutting off before hand feels like a cheap ploy to avoid guilt

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

..... It shutting off before hand feels like a cheap ploy to avoid guilt

that's exactly what it is.

[–] Krzd@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it make more sense for autopilot to brake and try to stop the car instead of just turning off and letting the car roll? If it's certain enough that there will be an accident, just applying the brakes until there's user override would make much more sense..

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Yeah but that's milliseconds. Ergo, the crash was already going to happen.

In any case, the problem with Tesla autopilot is that it doesn't have radar. It can't see objects and there have been many instances where a Tesla crashed into a large visible object.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ABetterTomorrow@lemm.ee 19 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I can’t wait for all this brand loyalty and fan people culture to end. Why is this even a thing? Like talking about box office results, companies financials and stocks…. If you’re not an investor of theirs, just stop. It sounds like you’re working for free for them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee 15 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Of course it disengages self driving modes before an impact. Why would they want to be liable for absolutely anything?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 18 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Does anyone else get the heebies with Mark Rober? There's something a little off about his smile and overall presence.

[–] FurryMemesAccount@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, he's over-positive, it's unnerving.

Still, that video is good anti-musk press.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

The hyper-positivity and enthusiasm is because his content is aimed at kids as much as it is adults. A lot of kid-oriented science content I remember, from tv shows/documentaries to guest speakers, to science-centre guides had that affect.

[–] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I believe he's one of the very many YouTubers who's a Mormon.

Edit: https://youtu.be/3Bcn0TFAi6E

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago

Did you know he used to work at NASA? He very rarely mentions it. /s

[–] zzx@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] get_the_reference_@midwest.social 25 points 6 days ago (3 children)

E. Lon Musk. Supah. Geenius.

[–] emberpunk@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] arc@lemm.ee 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I saw the video and I have two points:

  1. Yes it plays like an infomercial for lidar. So take that portion with some skepticism. I can think of some issues exclusive to lidar like 2+ lidar cars blinding each other which needs to be solved, e.g. some kind of light pattern encoding to mask out unwanted signals.
  2. It absolutely 100% demonstrates the issue with camera-only technology in Tesla vehicles.

Teslas used to have cameras + radar but they cheaped out and removed the radar. I think it would have passed all the tests if they still had the front facing radar but they don't. The problem with cameras alone is obvious - they can't see what they can't see and probably don't have an innate sense to slow down if there is rain, fog, ice or whatever else that might cause a human to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Darjuz@feddit.it 8 points 6 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›