9 ms·

I want the future to win. And we are one bug away from a Hindenburg moment. So if I think what they do is reckless I will say so. It's ludicrous to expect that

by krisoft 10y ago

I want the future to win. And we are one bug away from a Hindenburg moment. So if I think what they do is reckless I will say so. It's ludicrous to expect that an otherwise untrained, average human can keep up his or her attention while day by day the automation just works. It's just not how human psychology works. Someone called this particular kind of operation here the "deadly valley" because it's good enough to lure you to be relaxed and not good enough to solve all the kind of possible problems. I absolutely want the future to win, and I'm terribly afraid that Tesla in its hastiness might hurt the progress.

intrasight 10y ago
This issue has been long studied by the airlines and airplane manufactures, and they've still not found a solution http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilot-how-too-much-of-a-good-thing-can-lead-to-deadly-plane-crashes http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilo...
- webXL 10y ago
  > While flight experts credit automated systems with helping improve safety and making airline operations more efficient, they caution that an overreliance on automation leaves pilots unprepared for tricky situations that require their expertise. Despite more crowded skies and terrorist attacks, airline safety has improved since (or perhaps during) autopilot came along [1]. Definitely not causation, but you could argue that autopilot allows pilots to fly more and make air travel more affordable, reducing the reliance on less safe forms of travel. Plus, if it bleeds it leads, and the public wants solutions for everything, despite having an improved quality of life from the technology (most likely). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_...
  - intrasight 10y ago
    There is no doubt that we are better off with autopilot than without (true in planes and will soon be true in cars). The point of this ongoing research in human factors is to create systems where the pilot/driver work in tandem with the autopilot so that when the autopilot needs to hand control back to a human, the human is capable of receiving back control.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
But must the standard for safety be higher than existing human drivers? We're already living the 'hindenburg' life - every day my freeway overhead sign shows me the fatality total this year for my state. Its almost exactly one per day. This is 'normal'. What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already? Its not a failing, just because they have different failure modes than humans. Because our human failings are so many and so frequent. There's so much low-hanging fruit. Auto-driving never gets tired, never argues with the passenger, never gets distracted by changing the playlist. We're net ahead already with auto-driving.
- enoch_r 10y ago
  > What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already? Probably not. The fatality rate for urban interstates in 2007 was 0.54 per 100 million miles. That's the type of environment--safe, predictable--where autopilot is most likely to be activated. With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet, but our best estimate at this point (0.76 per 100 million miles) is higher than that. http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/ http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/
  - maratd 10y ago
    > Probably not. Based on what? > With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet Correct. You'd need at least 32 deaths. Until then, there is no "probably" one way or the other. Deaths are also a poor metric, since car safety comes into the picture. You're better off using pure reported accidents instead.
    - joe_the_user 10y ago
      The point of the parent was that the statistics are not better for auto pilot - they are either worse OR ambiguous/unknown, neither of which qualifies as the "better" of the gp.
atemerev 10y ago
As long as I can turn the auto-pilot off and take the wheel myself, driving the car is my responsibility. It will be Mr. Musk's responsibility if (when) he disables manual driving option fully, without the opportunity to take back the control. So far, everything's well.
studentrob 10y ago
> I absolutely want the future to win, and I'm terribly afraid that Tesla in its hastiness might hurt the progress. Left unchecked, that's possible, but I think we have a chance here to ask for more reports on accidents involving autopilot. If Tesla were more transparent, it'd be easier to collaborate on solutions.
nwah1 10y ago
I think SpaceX might be more likely to hinder progress, given that it is increasing the frequency of rocket launches and hoping to deploy thousands of satellites. This could very likely lead to Kessler Syndrome from all the space junk, and ground our species... possibly permanently.
- Nadya 10y ago
  Graveryard orbits and atmospheric reentry are the solutions to Kessler that at least the US mandates. If push game to shove, I'm sure we could find some satellites to knock out of orbit. I highly doubt as a species that we would remain grounded permanently. Although there is a lot of junk out there already: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nxIh2.jpg http://i.stack.imgur.com/nxIh2.jpg

by krisoft 10y ago

intrasight 10y ago

This issue has been long studied by the airlines and airplane manufactures, and they've still not found a solution http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilot-how-too-much-of-a-good-thing-can-lead-to-deadly-plane-crashes http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/disaster-on-autopilo...

webXL 10y ago
> While flight experts credit automated systems with helping improve safety and making airline operations more efficient, they caution that an overreliance on automation leaves pilots unprepared for tricky situations that require their expertise. Despite more crowded skies and terrorist attacks, airline safety has improved since (or perhaps during) autopilot came along [1]. Definitely not causation, but you could argue that autopilot allows pilots to fly more and make air travel more affordable, reducing the reliance on less safe forms of travel. Plus, if it bleeds it leads, and the public wants solutions for everything, despite having an improved quality of life from the technology (most likely). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_...
- intrasight 10y ago
  There is no doubt that we are better off with autopilot than without (true in planes and will soon be true in cars). The point of this ongoing research in human factors is to create systems where the pilot/driver work in tandem with the autopilot so that when the autopilot needs to hand control back to a human, the human is capable of receiving back control.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

But must the standard for safety be higher than existing human drivers? We're already living the 'hindenburg' life - every day my freeway overhead sign shows me the fatality total this year for my state. Its almost exactly one per day. This is 'normal'. What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already? Its not a failing, just because they have different failure modes than humans. Because our human failings are so many and so frequent. There's so much low-hanging fruit. Auto-driving never gets tired, never argues with the passenger, never gets distracted by changing the playlist. We're net ahead already with auto-driving.

enoch_r 10y ago
> What are the on-the-road stats for automatic driving? Aren't they better than human drivers already? Probably not. The fatality rate for urban interstates in 2007 was 0.54 per 100 million miles. That's the type of environment--safe, predictable--where autopilot is most likely to be activated. With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet, but our best estimate at this point (0.76 per 100 million miles) is higher than that. http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/ http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/29/the-irony-of-road-fear/
- maratd 10y ago
  > Probably not. Based on what? > With one fatality, we don't have a really accurate picture of Tesla's fatality rate yet Correct. You'd need at least 32 deaths. Until then, there is no "probably" one way or the other. Deaths are also a poor metric, since car safety comes into the picture. You're better off using pure reported accidents instead.
  - joe_the_user 10y ago
    The point of the parent was that the statistics are not better for auto pilot - they are either worse OR ambiguous/unknown, neither of which qualifies as the "better" of the gp.

atemerev 10y ago

As long as I can turn the auto-pilot off and take the wheel myself, driving the car is my responsibility. It will be Mr. Musk's responsibility if (when) he disables manual driving option fully, without the opportunity to take back the control. So far, everything's well.

studentrob 10y ago

> I absolutely want the future to win, and I'm terribly afraid that Tesla in its hastiness might hurt the progress. Left unchecked, that's possible, but I think we have a chance here to ask for more reports on accidents involving autopilot. If Tesla were more transparent, it'd be easier to collaborate on solutions.

nwah1 10y ago

I think SpaceX might be more likely to hinder progress, given that it is increasing the frequency of rocket launches and hoping to deploy thousands of satellites. This could very likely lead to Kessler Syndrome from all the space junk, and ground our species... possibly permanently.

Nadya 10y ago
Graveryard orbits and atmospheric reentry are the solutions to Kessler that at least the US mandates. If push game to shove, I'm sure we could find some satellites to knock out of orbit. I highly doubt as a species that we would remain grounded permanently. Although there is a lot of junk out there already: http://i.stack.imgur.com/nxIh2.jpg http://i.stack.imgur.com/nxIh2.jpg