112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
112 points (98.3% liked)
Not The Onion
16522 readers
508 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:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...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
This has been known.
They do it so they can evade liability for the crash.
Not sure how that helps in evading liability.
Every Tesla driver would need super human reaction speeds to respond in 17 frames, 680ms(I didn't check the recording framerate, but 25fps is the slowest reasonable), less than a second.
The plaintiff's lawyers would say, the autopilot was engaged, made the decision to run into the wall, and turned off 0.1 seconds before impact. Liability is not going disappear when there were 4.9 seconds of making dangerous decisions and peacing out in the last 0.1.
these strategies aren't about actually winning the argument, it's about making it excessively expensive to have the argument in the first place. Every motion requires a response by the counterparty, which requires billable time from the counterparty's lawyers, and delays the trial. it's just another variation on "defend, depose, deny".
They can also claim with a straight face that autopilot has a crash rate that is artificially lowered without it being technically a lie in public, in ads, etc
It’s not likely to work, but them swapping to human control after it determined a crash is going to happen isn’t accidental.
Anything they can do to mire the proceedings they will do. It’s like how corporations file stupid junk motions to force plaintiffs to give up.
That makes so little sense... It detects it's about to crash then gives up and lets you sort it?
That's like the opposite of my Audi who does detect I'm about to hit something and gives me either a warning or just actively hits the brakes if I don't have time to handle it.
If this is true, this is so fucking evil it's kinda amazing it could have reached anywhere near prod.
The point is that they can say "Autopilot wasn't active during the crash." They can leave out that autopilot was active right up until the moment before, or that autopilot directly contributed to it. They're just purely leaning into the technical truth that it wasn't on during the crash. Whether it's a courtroom defense or their own next published set of data, "Autopilot was not active during any recorded Tesla crashes."
even your audi is going to dump to human control if it can't figure out what the appropriate response is. Granted, your Audi is probably smart enough to be like "yeah don't hit the fucking wall," but eh.... it was put together by people that actually know what they're doing, and care about safety.
Tesla isn't doing this for safety or because it's the best response. The cars are doing this because they don't want to pay out for wrongful death lawsuits.
It's musk. he's fucking vile, and this isn't even close to the worst thing he's doing. or has done.
Any crash within 10s of a disengagement counts as it being on so you can't just do this.
Edit: added the time unit.
Edit2: it's actually 30s not 10s. See below.
10n what
Oops haha, 10 seconds.
Where are you seeing that?
There’s nothing I’m seeing as a matter of law or regulation.
In any case liability (especially civil liability) is an absolute bitch. It’s incredibly messy and likely will not every be so cut and dry.
Well it's not that it was a crash caused by a level 2 system, but that they'll investigate it.
So you can't hide the crash by disengaging it just before.
Looks like it's actually 30s seconds not 10s, or maybe it was 10s once upon a time and they changed it to 30?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-06/ADAS-L2-SGO-Report-June-2022.pdf
Thanks for that.
The thing is, though the NHTSA generally doesn't make a determination on criminal or civil liability. They'll make the report about what happened and keep it to the facts, and let the courts sort it out whose at fault. they might not even actually investigate a crash unless it comes to it. It's just saying "when your car crashes, you need to tell us about it." and they kinda assume they comply.
Which, Tesla doesn't want to comply, and is one of the reasons Musk/DOGE is going after them.
I knew they wouldn't necessarily investigate it, that's always their discretion, but I had no idea there was no actual bite to the rule if they didn't comply. That's stupid.
If the disengage to avoid legal consequences feature does exist, then you would think there would be some false positive incidences where it turns off for no apparent reason. I found some with a search, which are attributed to bad software. Owners are discussing new patches fixing some problems and introducing new ones. None of the incidences caused an accident, so maybe the owners never hit the malicious code.
if it randomly turns off for unapparent reasons, people are going to be like 'oh that's weird' and leave it at that. Tesla certainly isn't going to admit that their code is malicious like that. at least not until the FBI is digging through their memos to show it was. and maybe not even then.
If it knows it's about to crash, then why not just brake?
Because even braking can't avoid the crash. Unavoidable crash means bad juju if the 'self driving' car image is meant to stick around.
AEB braking was originally designed to not prevent a crash, but to slow the car when a unavoidable crash was detected.
It's since gotten better and can also prevent crashes now, but slowing the speed of the crash was the original important piece. It's a lot easier to predict an unavoidable crash, than to detect a potential crash and stop in time.
Insurance companies offer a discount for having any type of AEB as even just slowing will reduce damages and their cost out of pocket.
Not all AEB systems are created equal though.
Maybe disengaging AP if an unavoidable crash is detected triggers the AEB system? Like maybe for AEB to take over which should always be running, AP has to be off?
Breaks require a sufficient stopping distance given the current speed, driving surface conditions, tire condition, and the amount of momentum at play. This is why trains can't stop quickly despite having breaks (and very good ones at that, with air breaks on every wheel) as there's so much momentum at play.
If autopilot is being criticized for disengaging immediately before the crash, it's pretty safe to assume its too late to stop the vehicle and avoid the collision
This autopilot shit needs regulated audit log in a black box, like what planes or ships have.
In no way should this kind of manipulation be legal.
The self-driving equivalent of "Jesus take the wheel!"