3 ms·
Classic government. Self-driving technology should benchmarked against how good people are at driving (and how often they kill and injure people), as opposed to
by nibs 10y ago
Classic government. Self-driving technology should benchmarked against how good people are at driving (and how often they kill and injure people), as opposed to being proven intrinsically safe like a car part.
- dmreedy 10y agoThe reason for the disparity here is because, while you're right that humans are not particularly good drivers, there is a massive institutional infrastructure built up around things like criminal prosecution and insurance for when a human messes up. We know[0] how to deal with (accidental or deliberate) 'bad' people. We haven't quite figured out how to do that with intelligent systems that blur the line between automatic and intentional. --- [0] Of course, there is much valid debate as to whether we really -know- how to do this either. But legacy and history carry weight, unfortunately, either way
- bpicolo 10y agoI mean, they apparently have a clause trying to entirely deny liability. That's not really a reasonable spot.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoCan you show me if Tesla's is fundamentally different? I'm sincerely curious.
- bpicolo 10y agoAfaik they don't have people signing waivers, so I imagine they must have gone through a lot of regulatory hurdles? They definitely talk about people needing to be attentive in ways, but I don't personally know the extent of it. "Tesla autopilot liability /waivers" didn't come up any relevant stuff.
- lallysingh 10y agoWell there are two options a politician has here: 1) Figure out how to explain a nuanced argument to their constituents. 2) Block progress until their explanation problem goes away (in this case, by raising the benchmark).
- mikeash 10y agoThe letter they received from the NHTSA is available here: https://electrek.co/2016/10/28/george-hotz-cancels-his-tesla-autopilot-like-comma-one-after-request-from-nhtsa/ https://electrek.co/2016/10/28/george-hotz-cancels-his-tesla... It looks to me to be fairly mild and entirely reasonable. To immediately respond to this letter with "fuck it, we're not going to make this product anymore" is bizarre, and not the government's fault.
- singularity2001 10y agoYou call an out of the blue threat of $21,000 per day (!) 'fairly mild'?
- mikeash 10y agoWhen it's just a request for information and the penalty is if you ignore it? Yes. All they have to do to avoid the penalty is provide the information requested. Just about every government form threatens you with jail time if you lie, for example, and we put up with that.
- nom 10y agoHe was probably expecting a letter from the start and knew that time is limited. geohot may not care about laws and ethics, but there is no way he doesn't know about all the possible consequences he may face in a project like comma.ai. He works on something until either the pressure is no longer justifiable or he succeeds (like unlocking the iPhone). Working in this manner gives him a great advantage. I also think it's likely that he never actually intended it to become a real product and it's all about the journey and experience.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoThey didn't ask him to prove it is safer than human drivers. They essentially asked him for documentation showing it does not actively make the car less safe.
- macspoofing 10y agoSure. In the US there are ~8 fatalities per 1 billion vehicle miles. Let's see some documentation from him that show he can beat that rate.