3 ms·

> On what basis do you say that the OP's numbers are "misleading"? It's misleading because of the units its presented in: deaths/year. Those units measure (par

> On what basis do you say that the OP's numbers are "misleading"? It's misleading because of the units its presented in: deaths/year. Those units measure (part of) the cost of driving on the human race. They do not represent how good or bad people are at driving. > What's the objective benchmark on what number of fatalities/accidents is acceptable per billion miles? I don't mean to say that the current number of deaths is OK! I want cars to get safer. However, when you say "people are bad at driving, and kill 35k people/year", it sounds like it's a low bar for self-driving cars to pass. However, when you say "people kill 7 people per billion km driven", it's clear that the bar is high. Tesla Autopilot has killed 2 people so far (I believe?); has it driven 280 million km?

cryptoz 9y ago
> Tesla Autopilot has killed 2 people so far (I believe?); has it driven 280 million km? Ha, what? Tesla Autopilot cannot kill anyone. The drivers of those cars are responsible, not Tesla. You are making things up. Tesla has been very clear that you are responsible for the vehicle when Autopilot is engaged. It is not a self-driving car. Also this is nonsense: > It's misleading because of the units its presented in: deaths/year. Those units measure (part of) the cost of driving on the human race. They do not represent how good or bad people are at driving. Deaths/year is a perfectly valid way to measure and discover that humans are bad at driving. If humans were not bad at driving, that number would be a lot lower, close to 0. Also, > However, when you say "people are bad at driving, and kill 35k people/year", it sounds like it's a low bar for self-driving cars to pass. No, it does not sound like a low bar to pass. Driving is hard.
danso 9y ago
Granted, the choice of metric and scope of measurement is as much an opinion as concluding that humans are "terrible" at driving, but I still don't see how OP's choice of metric was more misleading than yours. And Tesla is not full-AI/automated, nor do I think the OP argued that Autopilot or any AI system was any better than humans. I think you misinterpret the OP if you think he was making the case that self-driving cara have a low-bar to pass. It seemed to me that his whole spiel is that AI is a very difficult thing, and that the issues about AI and self-driving are not just about technology. To be fair, the OP's phrasing is open to interpretation. I see him arguing that humans are bad at mechanical consistency, and this is most evident in driving because driving is a highly mechanical activity that most of us do. That more of us don't die is because of the many decisions made outside of our control. Not just automotive tech, but law and policy and zoning decisions that reduce the frequency and variety of scenarios in which we have to make a split-second reaction.

cryptoz 9y ago

> Tesla Autopilot has killed 2 people so far (I believe?); has it driven 280 million km? Ha, what? Tesla Autopilot cannot kill anyone. The drivers of those cars are responsible, not Tesla. You are making things up. Tesla has been very clear that you are responsible for the vehicle when Autopilot is engaged. It is not a self-driving car. Also this is nonsense: > It's misleading because of the units its presented in: deaths/year. Those units measure (part of) the cost of driving on the human race. They do not represent how good or bad people are at driving. Deaths/year is a perfectly valid way to measure and discover that humans are bad at driving. If humans were not bad at driving, that number would be a lot lower, close to 0. Also, > However, when you say "people are bad at driving, and kill 35k people/year", it sounds like it's a low bar for self-driving cars to pass. No, it does not sound like a low bar to pass. Driving is hard.

danso 9y ago

Granted, the choice of metric and scope of measurement is as much an opinion as concluding that humans are "terrible" at driving, but I still don't see how OP's choice of metric was more misleading than yours. And Tesla is not full-AI/automated, nor do I think the OP argued that Autopilot or any AI system was any better than humans. I think you misinterpret the OP if you think he was making the case that self-driving cara have a low-bar to pass. It seemed to me that his whole spiel is that AI is a very difficult thing, and that the issues about AI and self-driving are not just about technology. To be fair, the OP's phrasing is open to interpretation. I see him arguing that humans are bad at mechanical consistency, and this is most evident in driving because driving is a highly mechanical activity that most of us do. That more of us don't die is because of the many decisions made outside of our control. Not just automotive tech, but law and policy and zoning decisions that reduce the frequency and variety of scenarios in which we have to make a split-second reaction.