5 ms·

This argument misses the forest for the trees. Even level 5 autopilot will sometimes crash into objects that are clearly visible to most humans, as will lidar-b

This argument misses the forest for the trees. Even level 5 autopilot will sometimes crash into objects that are clearly visible to most humans, as will lidar-based solutions. But if the robot fleet is an order of magnitude safer than the human fleet, then it makes rational sense to prefer a robot driver to a human.

michaelt 8y ago
I think you might have replied to the wrong post here? I didn't say anything about humans vs self-driving cars. I'm arguing about self-driving cars with LIDAR vs those without.
- SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago
  Your post suggested that missing any obvious obstacles casts doubt on Tesla's claim that lidar isn't necessary, but I'm saying their claim will indeed be proven true if the overall safety level of vision-and-radar autonomy is far better than that of humans, even if they sometimes crash in ways that seem obviously avoidable to humans.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I didn't say anything about humans vs self-driving cars. I'm arguing about self-driving cars with LIDAR vs those without. The status quo is humans so the first question is whether it can do at least as well as humans even without LIDAR. It seems to be doing that, even if the things it does get wrong are different things than the things the humans get wrong. The question of LIDAR vs. not is a separate issue which is purely cost/benefit. Even if LIDAR has some value, it remains to be seen whether that value is ultimately more than its costs, in the same way that we know how to make cars safer by making them weigh 8000 pounds and yet in general we don't do that because the cost is more than the benefit.
threeseed 8y ago
Problem with Tesla is that it is crashing into objects no human would crash into. And doing so at high speed.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  If not actively accelerating at them, like it did in San Francisco.
- karakot 8y ago
  really? just google/bing something like "car crashed into a wall/barrier"
- hermitdev 8y ago
  My car (not a Tesla) has a collision warning system but no automatic breaking, and I wouldn't want it to with the number of false warnings I receive. The public road right before the drive to my house has an s-turn in it. The CWS goes off about half the time I go through that series of turns just hundreds of feet from my turn. I can see the turn in the road and the guard rail ahead, the car sees a stationary object I'm driving straight towards at around 45mph. If it automatically braked with its current awareness, I might never get home or get rear-ended by people following.
- naikrovek 8y ago
  I dunno. I've seen perfectly sober, intelligent humans drive into some extremely stupid "situations".
  - threeseed 8y ago
    We aren't trying to build another human. We are trying to build a car that doesn't crash.
    - Robotbeat 8y ago
      No, we're trying to build a car that crashes less than humans. If you want a car that doesn't crash, never build the car let alone drive it. Then it'll never crash. The point is both reduction in fatalities and increase in human quality of life. Not an impossible perfection.
rohit2412 8y ago
I'm getting tired of saying this. Why is it one or the other? Why only a human driver or a robot driver? Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? If the human falls asleep, the robot can do trivial driving, and the human still makes the more difficult driving decisions. The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future.
- gthtjtkt 8y ago
  > Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? We already have this and we've had it for years. What do you think automatic emergency braking is? Adaptive cruise control? Lane keeping assist? > The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future. No clue what you're trying to say here. Driver assist features don't improve safety?
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    So call them driver assists. I am tired of seeing driver assists being sold as driverless systems.
    - SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago
      Do you think people buying cars with autopilot believe they are getting fully driverless systems?
      - rohit2412 8y ago
        People buying current cars were just told that their cars will earn them 30k$ a year. Is fsd driver assistance or driverless?

michaelt 8y ago

I think you might have replied to the wrong post here? I didn't say anything about humans vs self-driving cars. I'm arguing about self-driving cars with LIDAR vs those without.

SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago
Your post suggested that missing any obvious obstacles casts doubt on Tesla's claim that lidar isn't necessary, but I'm saying their claim will indeed be proven true if the overall safety level of vision-and-radar autonomy is far better than that of humans, even if they sometimes crash in ways that seem obviously avoidable to humans.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> I didn't say anything about humans vs self-driving cars. I'm arguing about self-driving cars with LIDAR vs those without. The status quo is humans so the first question is whether it can do at least as well as humans even without LIDAR. It seems to be doing that, even if the things it does get wrong are different things than the things the humans get wrong. The question of LIDAR vs. not is a separate issue which is purely cost/benefit. Even if LIDAR has some value, it remains to be seen whether that value is ultimately more than its costs, in the same way that we know how to make cars safer by making them weigh 8000 pounds and yet in general we don't do that because the cost is more than the benefit.

threeseed 8y ago

Problem with Tesla is that it is crashing into objects no human would crash into. And doing so at high speed.

FireBeyond 8y ago
If not actively accelerating at them, like it did in San Francisco.
karakot 8y ago
really? just google/bing something like "car crashed into a wall/barrier"
hermitdev 8y ago
My car (not a Tesla) has a collision warning system but no automatic breaking, and I wouldn't want it to with the number of false warnings I receive. The public road right before the drive to my house has an s-turn in it. The CWS goes off about half the time I go through that series of turns just hundreds of feet from my turn. I can see the turn in the road and the guard rail ahead, the car sees a stationary object I'm driving straight towards at around 45mph. If it automatically braked with its current awareness, I might never get home or get rear-ended by people following.
naikrovek 8y ago
I dunno. I've seen perfectly sober, intelligent humans drive into some extremely stupid "situations".
- threeseed 8y ago
  We aren't trying to build another human. We are trying to build a car that doesn't crash.
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    No, we're trying to build a car that crashes less than humans. If you want a car that doesn't crash, never build the car let alone drive it. Then it'll never crash. The point is both reduction in fatalities and increase in human quality of life. Not an impossible perfection.

rohit2412 8y ago

I'm getting tired of saying this. Why is it one or the other? Why only a human driver or a robot driver? Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? If the human falls asleep, the robot can do trivial driving, and the human still makes the more difficult driving decisions. The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future.

gthtjtkt 8y ago
> Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? We already have this and we've had it for years. What do you think automatic emergency braking is? Adaptive cruise control? Lane keeping assist? > The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future. No clue what you're trying to say here. Driver assist features don't improve safety?
- rohit2412 8y ago
  So call them driver assists. I am tired of seeing driver assists being sold as driverless systems.
  - SheinhardtWigCo 8y ago
    Do you think people buying cars with autopilot believe they are getting fully driverless systems?
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      People buying current cars were just told that their cars will earn them 30k$ a year. Is fsd driver assistance or driverless?