13 ms·
It seems gross that they spend so much of this saying "yeah he died and it may be our fault, but statistically you're still better off as our customer." The at
by imh 9y ago
It seems gross that they spend so much of this saying "yeah he died and it may be our fault, but statistically you're still better off as our customer."
The atlantic had a relevant piece on the morality there this morning https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/got-99-problems-but-a-trolley-aint-one/556805/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/got-9...
And that's assuming they can identify that autopilot is statistically safer. If autopilot isn't used in the same conditions as all human driving, the rates aren't apples to apples comparisons, and the "you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident" figure they imply is misleading.
- eanzenberg 9y agoIf that's literally the best case scenario, then that's pretty damn pitiful and a gross misleading of facts using statistics. It's a shame. Let's use "AP disengage" as the equating metric to human-caused crashes and see how it stacks up.
- cma 9y agoThey didn't even control for wealth. People that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc. It doesn't say anything about the statistics when auto-pilot is engaged, it just says cars with auto pilot. And it doesn't give the statistics for Teslas without auto-pilot (Teslas have other safety factors that might mean auto-pilot isn't responsible for the mortality reduction, etc.)
- icebraining 9y agoPeople that can afford a Tesla and the auto pilot add on are much less likely to be driving on drugs, alcohol, etc. Is that true? I couldn't find statistics that grouped by income or wealth.
- cma 9y agoAlso look at occupation. Tesla owners = disproportionately software engineers. Software engineers are one of the lowest car insurance risk pools (and we're even before any of them started using auto-pilot).