3 ms·

>PS: You can make your own estimates. If people pay attention sufficient to avid accidents 99% of the time the car might be in 100x more accidents without drive

>PS: You can make your own estimates. If people pay attention sufficient to avid accidents 99% of the time the car might be in 100x more accidents without drivers assuming those drivers where perfect. Drop that to IMO more likely 75% and it's closer to 4x at the absolute best case. You can't invent numbers and statistics. Remember the Tesla that crashed in a side barrier and killed the driver, people could reproduce the incident in the same spot , you can see it on youtube, so without a driver and with say 1000 Teslas driving trough that section in the problematic interval you would get at least 1000x more deaths. Only if you include the people that reproduced the incident mentioned above you will get the Tesla stats much below human drivers.

Retric 8y ago
Computer failures are reproducible, but you don't get "1000 Teslas driving trough that section in the problematic interval" which shows up in the actual statistics. Computers fail in different ways than humans do. But, that does not mean you can't reason about failure modes. If you ask someone to pay attention to something for an hour without doing anything most people are just really bad at this. Based on that I am rather shocked how well Tesla's systems work as I was expecting vastly more problems. Could I have flipped to far in the other direction probably. But, I base things on my experience and the data I have available not just unchanging gut feelings.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]