this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
218 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
86426 readers
3813 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Shouldn't the so-called smart technology pick up on the fact that you are driving full speed into a house? Is that not an easy error to avoid?
I mean, I think the reasons that automated systems should allow for overrides by human operators should be pretty apparent.
I might have to drive over highwaymen, or dodge between 30 or 40 wild boar. I don't need Asimov's first law of robotics to confuse my car and make life or death decisions for me.
Or my sensor could be bloody malfunctioning.
It's a skill issue on the driver's part... or do you want the Tesla to come to a screeching halt on the highway every time the cameras white out from the sun?
This is the system that's meant to drive the car autonomously?
Autopilot will let a plane fly a heading, or even follow waypoints and land, but you the pilot still have to be watching the sky and the plane, ready to take over when something goes wrong. And airlines have way more stringent safety measures than cars.
That means auto drive systems still require the meatsack to monitor the driving, ready to take over when something goes wrong.
In this case, either the driver was hooning it and did a full send into the house, or he had a skill issue and put the ~~brake~~ accelerator to the floor in a panic moment.
Right so if autopilot swerves into oncoming traffic faster than the driver can react, that's the drivers fault? The creators of the software never have any culpability in your eyes?
If you don’t want that rush you don’t use the software. Simple.
I want vehicles that rely on cameras for detecting obstacles to be banned.
Anything that uses reasonable object detection methods should be banned if it lets you drive into a house. My Kia won't let me drive into a house.
Honestly curious, what will your Kia do if you point it at a house and floor the accelerator from a few hundred meters away? I have no idea how my BYD would react and I'm not eager to test it. It has emergency braking, but I don't know how effective that actually is.
I don't know for sure and I can't think of a good way to test. It certainly wouldn't hit it when "driving itself" with smart cruise control or if I tried to drive into it from a few metres away.
Well yeah, but it seems likely in this case the accelerator was being floored, dunno for how long. So much as I hate to give tesla a pass, they're probably not really at fault here unless new info appears.
Well the driver now claims he passed out, so the Tesla definitely isn’t at fault.
And what if you were doing 70mph for a few hundred meters before the house?
You’d be going right into that house. No car will stop that.
Did you try it?
My kid tried to drive it into a hedge and it wouldn't let them. Not the same as accelerating from across the road at a house but also the car makes no self driving claims.
You may as well say you want people banned from driving then. We use “cameras” for object detection.
lol
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can't even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
I'd want it to not use sensors that get washed out by the sun. IR lidar, for example, instead of naive visible light cameras.
Personally, I want cars that automate driving to use more than one type of sensor so that they react more realistically in more circumstances. Tesla going camera-only was a mistake and Elon just keeps doubling down on it.
I didn't have FSD, but this is pretty much what cruise control / lane assist did.
With how all cars are connected these days, we could easily throttle them using GPS data depending on the road you're on. I don't really get why cars can even go so fast in general, max should be twenty over the highway limit.
Nobody really wants that though I'm guessing.
When you car slams on the brakes suddenly because it thinks you're suddenly driving on the jog road next to the highway, don't complain to me.
The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house. Hence why I said most don't want that. Some clear drawbacks.
That being said, putting a max speed that is only a bit above highway speed is an easy win imo.
Slamming the brakes on the highway because either map data is incorrect, it misread a sign, or GNSS is misplacing the car is not a drawback, it's a massive fucking safety hazard.
A massive safety hazard is a clear drawback...
No a drawback would be a minor nuisance. You can live with a drawback. That would not be a minor nuisance and definitely not something you could live with.
You are arguing semantics and aren't even right about it. A drawback can be minor or major. We are in agreement but your being silly about the words I use even though they are completely valid. You might want a synonym that's harsher but that doesn't make the use of the word wrong.
I'm basically saying it's a problem and you are going "no fool, it's a really really big problem", like no shit, that's what I said. I even added the word clear to show that's it's not a small drawback but a major one.
It really really really doesn't
If the car can't be trusted to know if it's on the highway or a residential street, it can't be trusted to know if it's on the highway or on a residential street in front of a house.
I don't know what system would work for one but not the other.
If your misunderstanding of how a machine works is that fundamental I don't think there's a reason to continue this.
It's all the same type of software that would be used and it would sometimes break randomly for no clear reason no matter the use case. Why would they tackle detection differently between being on the highway, on a residential street or on a street in front of a house? The same edge cases would apply to each (like billboards or faulty GPS signal for example).
I mean why put limits on roads if we let cars ignore them anyway?