4 ms·

When the mistake results in human decapitation, you better not make them. Tesla is moving too fast for the quality of its own technology.

eightysixfour 8y ago
I find people’s response to autopilot failures to be really interesting. Autopilot is different than a human and is going to make different kinds of mistakes than a human, those mistakes are going to be frustrating and look “obvious” to humans. On the flip side every day humans make mistakes that autopilot would avoid and would be “obvious” to an AP system. Should we judge the computers vs perfection? Judge them like we judge humans? If a system came out that could be retrofit on every car in the country and make 1% fewer mistakes than humans, but the mistakes it makes are “obvious” and stupid, is it an improvement? Would we accept it? What about 10% or 50%?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  I'm fine with accepting a system that's better than humans, given some a priori evidence of such. But this isn't the case. This isn't the case of a company launching a system that performs better than humans through extensive testing and carefully weighting the risks. This is the case of a company intentionally false advertising something and resulting in preventable human loss.
  - eightysixfour 8y ago
    I'm having a hard time perceiving 3 fatalities in 1 billion miles of Tesla Autopilot as false advertising that resulted in preventable human loss. The average number of fatalities was 11.6 per 1 billion vehicle miles in 2017. That's less than 1/3 the rate of average.* I understand the comparison is not direct since autopilot driving happens on the highway and those are general miles, but it is the best number we have for comparison's sake right now.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      Those numbers are not comparable, and you don't have enough information to make such claim. It is plainly irrelevant, no matter how "the best data available" it is.
      - eightysixfour 8y ago
        Found some data for you: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/fi30.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/f... These are traffic deaths per 100 million vehicle miles by functional system type. There is not a single road type on this list, including the lowest (urban freeways), with lower fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles than Tesla Autopilot (which is 1/3 fatalities per 100 million VMT).
        ucaetano 8y ago
        Again, not comparable. You're comparing a new, luxury car, with the general death rate of roads. You'd need to compare the rate of accidents of a Tesla with and without the system engaged, or at least the Tesla compared to other luxury cars. Which wouldn't even be that relevant, because autopilot features have been available for much longer in other cars. And that's before you include the fact that autopilot hands over the control to humans, so, again, the numbers aren't comparable. I understand your desperate need to validate your internal assumptions, but you don't have external data to do so.
        mdorazio 8y ago
        Nailed it. One additional piece of information to throw in the pile - insurance claims for Teslas show more frequent accident rates than comparable luxury vehicles [1]. Again, we would need granular data to draw actual conclusions, but Tesla's marketing-friendly claims on autopilot safety are mostly bogus. [1] https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURANCE/170609884/tesla-owners-should-pay-more-for-insurance-aaa-says https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURA...
- vageli 8y ago
  > I find people’s response to autopilot failures to be really interesting. Autopilot is different than a human and is going to make different kinds of mistakes than a human, those mistakes are going to be frustrating and look “obvious” to humans. > On the flip side every day humans make mistakes that autopilot would avoid and would be “obvious” to an AP system. > Should we judge the computers vs perfection? Judge them like we judge humans? If a system came out that could be retrofit on every car in the country and make 1% fewer mistakes than humans, but the mistakes it makes are “obvious” and stupid, is it an improvement? Would we accept it? What about 10% or 50%? When we can meaningfully charge a computer with a crime (or better, the developer of the software that caused the crash!), maybe then will public sentiment be aligned with the reality you envision.
sliken 8y ago
What seems like a very emotional statement. If you want perfect, we will never get autonomous driving and 35k people a year die in the USA. What if there's 10 Tesla fatalities a year, but similar people driving similar cars would have expected 50 fatalities? Granted Tesla hasn't proven this, but generally there's going to be more deaths and we shouldn't just kill off the technology because they aren't perfect. Keep in mind the decapitation was from someone watching a Disney DVD instead of using the AP like it was intended.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Nobody is talking perfect, just not "fake it till you make it" Theranos-style.

eightysixfour 8y ago

I find people’s response to autopilot failures to be really interesting. Autopilot is different than a human and is going to make different kinds of mistakes than a human, those mistakes are going to be frustrating and look “obvious” to humans. On the flip side every day humans make mistakes that autopilot would avoid and would be “obvious” to an AP system. Should we judge the computers vs perfection? Judge them like we judge humans? If a system came out that could be retrofit on every car in the country and make 1% fewer mistakes than humans, but the mistakes it makes are “obvious” and stupid, is it an improvement? Would we accept it? What about 10% or 50%?

ucaetano 8y ago
I'm fine with accepting a system that's better than humans, given some a priori evidence of such. But this isn't the case. This isn't the case of a company launching a system that performs better than humans through extensive testing and carefully weighting the risks. This is the case of a company intentionally false advertising something and resulting in preventable human loss.
- eightysixfour 8y ago
  I'm having a hard time perceiving 3 fatalities in 1 billion miles of Tesla Autopilot as false advertising that resulted in preventable human loss. The average number of fatalities was 11.6 per 1 billion vehicle miles in 2017. That's less than 1/3 the rate of average.* I understand the comparison is not direct since autopilot driving happens on the highway and those are general miles, but it is the best number we have for comparison's sake right now.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Those numbers are not comparable, and you don't have enough information to make such claim. It is plainly irrelevant, no matter how "the best data available" it is.
    - eightysixfour 8y ago
      Found some data for you: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/fi30.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/f... These are traffic deaths per 100 million vehicle miles by functional system type. There is not a single road type on this list, including the lowest (urban freeways), with lower fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles than Tesla Autopilot (which is 1/3 fatalities per 100 million VMT).
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        Again, not comparable. You're comparing a new, luxury car, with the general death rate of roads. You'd need to compare the rate of accidents of a Tesla with and without the system engaged, or at least the Tesla compared to other luxury cars. Which wouldn't even be that relevant, because autopilot features have been available for much longer in other cars. And that's before you include the fact that autopilot hands over the control to humans, so, again, the numbers aren't comparable. I understand your desperate need to validate your internal assumptions, but you don't have external data to do so.
        mdorazio 8y ago
        Nailed it. One additional piece of information to throw in the pile - insurance claims for Teslas show more frequent accident rates than comparable luxury vehicles [1]. Again, we would need granular data to draw actual conclusions, but Tesla's marketing-friendly claims on autopilot safety are mostly bogus. [1] https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURANCE/170609884/tesla-owners-should-pay-more-for-insurance-aaa-says https://www.autonews.com/article/20170604/FINANCE_AND_INSURA...
vageli 8y ago
> I find people’s response to autopilot failures to be really interesting. Autopilot is different than a human and is going to make different kinds of mistakes than a human, those mistakes are going to be frustrating and look “obvious” to humans. > On the flip side every day humans make mistakes that autopilot would avoid and would be “obvious” to an AP system. > Should we judge the computers vs perfection? Judge them like we judge humans? If a system came out that could be retrofit on every car in the country and make 1% fewer mistakes than humans, but the mistakes it makes are “obvious” and stupid, is it an improvement? Would we accept it? What about 10% or 50%? When we can meaningfully charge a computer with a crime (or better, the developer of the software that caused the crash!), maybe then will public sentiment be aligned with the reality you envision.

sliken 8y ago

What seems like a very emotional statement. If you want perfect, we will never get autonomous driving and 35k people a year die in the USA. What if there's 10 Tesla fatalities a year, but similar people driving similar cars would have expected 50 fatalities? Granted Tesla hasn't proven this, but generally there's going to be more deaths and we shouldn't just kill off the technology because they aren't perfect. Keep in mind the decapitation was from someone watching a Disney DVD instead of using the AP like it was intended.

ucaetano 8y ago
Nobody is talking perfect, just not "fake it till you make it" Theranos-style.