3 ms·
Our vision and persistent world model are good, but all humans are overconfident in their ability to drive in poor conditions (or even normal conditions, for ma
by jclardy 9y ago
Our vision and persistent world model are good, but all humans are overconfident in their ability to drive in poor conditions (or even normal conditions, for many people.)
A computer isn't going to look down at a text message on their phone, fall asleep at the wheel, or get in a car while intoxicated. All which occur literally every day. People take driving for granted, because (at least in the US) we have to. Our sprawling suburbs couldn't function without it, so the barrier to entry is simply being a teenager.
Would I completely trust Tesla's auto-driving? No, not at all. But I at least trust them as much as I do an average driver, which is still just barely. The difference with Tesla's system is that one failure leads to improvement of the entire fleet, whereas one human failure maybe improves that one human driver. That means self-driving cars will continuously improve, while humans will just continue to be terrible drivers.
- photojosh 9y agoYes! Tesla will take any death due to a failure of self-driving quite seriously indeed and work to fix the failure mode. Whereas humans get the same kinds of fatal crashes over, and over, and over... The Australian government has a "Black Spot" [1] program to provide federal funds (often millions) to fix up locations with a history of crashes. Bet it's cheaper to make those fixes to software. [1] http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/blackspots/ http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/blackspots/