4 ms·
It only has to perform better than a human.
by ben174 8y ago
It only has to perform better than a human.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- titzer 8y agoHumans are not remotely programmable.
- vntok 8y agoThe advertising industry would beg to differ.
- IMTDb 8y agoEver heard of the concept of "propaganda" ?
- mhh__ 8y agoThere is obviously a difference between hacking a single vehicle and (say) convincing a generation of youth to die for a cause. Also, while I agree that you can "program" a human, you can't program them to jump up and down and touch their toes (so to speak)
- rohit2412 8y agoBetter than a human aided by the best driver assistance technology
- thomaskcr 8y agoI think you're right if you look at things from a statistical perspective but I don't think it's going to end up actually working out like that. A person can explain "why" they did something when an accident happens. I've spent a lot of consulting hours helping unwind the "why" of ML/AI models, and we bill regardless of whether we can actually find that answer. Putting aside by personal bias that I think Tesla is functionally incapable of doing anything well, lets pretend they deploy FSD - I think the fact that in that 1 accident to every 100+ human accidents you can't find "why" will override the fact that there are xx% less accidents. Just from my experience consulting in healthcare and working with actuaries during the Obamacare debates and modeling out the impact of that -- people just honestly aren't open to statistical arguments when it comes to human life or emotional issues. (Not saying they're wrong, me and my wife completely disagree about so many issues where it's emotions vs statistics, I think she has a very valid point on many of those - what I'm trying to say is this is going to be a philosophical debate more than a statistics debate so Tesla should gear up accordingly).