3 ms·

Tesla took the opposite approach of what I described (the Subaru approach). Tesla took the approach that the machine is in control and the human has to detect

Tesla took the opposite approach of what I described (the Subaru approach). Tesla took the approach that the machine is in control and the human has to detect and take over when the machine makes a mistake. That is known to be a very problematic strategy, it's easy for the human to get distracted. What Subaru has done is to leave the human in control, the machine only steps in when it sees a problem. It's totally different safety outcomes. In fact, not even the same problem - one is "self driving", the other is "crash prevention".

eof 9y ago
Yes they are different. They are also WILDLY different value propositions. Crash prevention is nice, just getting safer and safer is nice--though I personally wouldn't stop driving ~$5k cars for even "really good" crash protection. But a car that can drive me while I sleep and become a Taxi while I work is something I would go into debt for.
- Joeri 9y ago
  But a car that can drive me while I sleep and become a Taxi while I work is something I would go into debt for. I don't think most regular people will actually own fully autonomous cars to rent them out. Big players will do the capital expenditure to buy a fleet, and rent out transportation service. Renting in uber style will be basically the price of owning, but without the up-front capital expenditure, and it will provide the convenience of choosing the type of car for the specific transport needs of the moment. The margins of these rent-a-fleet services will be low, so you won't have a hope as individual car owner of actually buying a car and renting it out without turning it into a loss compared to just renting.
  - eof 9y ago
    Certainly if most people owned them, there wouldn't be a market to rent them out.
- adventist 9y ago
  I would go into debt for that also!
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Tesla took the approach that the machine is in control That's not really accurate. Tesla says the driver is ultimately responsible. That holds unless a court determines otherwise. The same is true for Toyota/Subaru. They're all SAE level 2 systems. The opposite approach from this would be Waymo/Volvo who intend to take responsibility for decisions made by their vehicles. Those are SAE level 4 or 5 systems.

eof 9y ago

Yes they are different. They are also WILDLY different value propositions. Crash prevention is nice, just getting safer and safer is nice--though I personally wouldn't stop driving ~$5k cars for even "really good" crash protection. But a car that can drive me while I sleep and become a Taxi while I work is something I would go into debt for.

Joeri 9y ago
But a car that can drive me while I sleep and become a Taxi while I work is something I would go into debt for. I don't think most regular people will actually own fully autonomous cars to rent them out. Big players will do the capital expenditure to buy a fleet, and rent out transportation service. Renting in uber style will be basically the price of owning, but without the up-front capital expenditure, and it will provide the convenience of choosing the type of car for the specific transport needs of the moment. The margins of these rent-a-fleet services will be low, so you won't have a hope as individual car owner of actually buying a car and renting it out without turning it into a loss compared to just renting.
- eof 9y ago
  Certainly if most people owned them, there wouldn't be a market to rent them out.
adventist 9y ago
I would go into debt for that also!

unityByFreedom 9y ago

> Tesla took the approach that the machine is in control That's not really accurate. Tesla says the driver is ultimately responsible. That holds unless a court determines otherwise. The same is true for Toyota/Subaru. They're all SAE level 2 systems. The opposite approach from this would be Waymo/Volvo who intend to take responsibility for decisions made by their vehicles. Those are SAE level 4 or 5 systems.