5 ms·

> you'd have to convert the number of fatalities to an accuracy percentage Telsa's early results for their very limited "self-driving" technology has shown a h

> you'd have to convert the number of fatalities to an accuracy percentage Telsa's early results for their very limited "self-driving" technology has shown a huge reduction in accidents for any given period of time the vehicles are on the road.

perl4ever 7y ago
That seems like it incorporates a lot of assumptions. I think it's best to slow down and realize that comparisons don't mean much if you're comparing the wrong things. The first step is to determine the first thing that you are comparing and exactly what it is. Then you can move on to the other half and determine whether it is appropriate. Humans are much safer than people on average, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot.
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > Humans are much safer than people on average This makes zero sense and isn't how "average" works. For the same 1000 hours on the road, a Tesla car with Autopilot will have fewer accidents than a car driven for 1000 hours by humans. This changes as driving conditions get worse, and humans outperform Autopilot.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Deleting half a sentence and saying it doesn't make sense? The way "average" works is that you average over something - a population or set. It is very important to be clear about what that something is and whether it's appropriate. Why do you believe that Autopilot outperforms humans in comparable conditions? If this is based on Tesla marketing, I'm extremely prejudiced against them, and assume out of hand that they simply aren't making the right comparison and don't care. However, if you think that is incorrect, you could elaborate on why you have the opinion you do.
    - tomnipotent 7y ago
      The average of something cannot be more than the average of... itself. Thus, "Humans are much safer than people on average" is nonsensical. > Why do you believe that Autopilot outperforms humans in comparable conditions? Because they have the data that proves it? > I'm extremely prejudiced against them And I've chosen to take them at face value with a grain of salt, and to believe that for the data they've collected from the hundreds of thousands of Tesla's with millions of hours of data using Autopilot, it's fair to say they have a large enough sample to draw conclusions about the safety of their cars vs. any incident rates from pretty much any other distribution.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        "Thus, "Humans are much safer than people on average" is nonsensical." Does it make more sense as "Humans, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot, are much safer than people on average"? "I've chosen to take them at face value with a grain of salt, and to believe that for the data they've collected from the hundreds of thousands of Tesla's with millions of hours of data using Autopilot, it's fair to say they have a large enough sample to draw conclusions about the safety of their cars vs. any incident rates from pretty much any other distribution" You seem to be saying that if you have a lot of data it doesn't matter what you compare it to. That seems wrong to me. Also, I don't have this data, and you are not bothering to help me find it.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        MauranKilom 7y ago
        > Humans, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot, are much safer than people on average The immaterial distinction between "humans" and "people" still makes that sentence confusing. I take it that you mean "driving a mile (either as human or autopilot) is safer in conditions that are good for autopilot than driving a mile in average conditions"? Or more directly, isn't your question really "are the conditions the same for the averaged human drivers and the averaged autopilots"?.

perl4ever 7y ago

That seems like it incorporates a lot of assumptions. I think it's best to slow down and realize that comparisons don't mean much if you're comparing the wrong things. The first step is to determine the first thing that you are comparing and exactly what it is. Then you can move on to the other half and determine whether it is appropriate. Humans are much safer than people on average, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot.

tomnipotent 7y ago
> Humans are much safer than people on average This makes zero sense and isn't how "average" works. For the same 1000 hours on the road, a Tesla car with Autopilot will have fewer accidents than a car driven for 1000 hours by humans. This changes as driving conditions get worse, and humans outperform Autopilot.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Deleting half a sentence and saying it doesn't make sense? The way "average" works is that you average over something - a population or set. It is very important to be clear about what that something is and whether it's appropriate. Why do you believe that Autopilot outperforms humans in comparable conditions? If this is based on Tesla marketing, I'm extremely prejudiced against them, and assume out of hand that they simply aren't making the right comparison and don't care. However, if you think that is incorrect, you could elaborate on why you have the opinion you do.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    The average of something cannot be more than the average of... itself. Thus, "Humans are much safer than people on average" is nonsensical. > Why do you believe that Autopilot outperforms humans in comparable conditions? Because they have the data that proves it? > I'm extremely prejudiced against them And I've chosen to take them at face value with a grain of salt, and to believe that for the data they've collected from the hundreds of thousands of Tesla's with millions of hours of data using Autopilot, it's fair to say they have a large enough sample to draw conclusions about the safety of their cars vs. any incident rates from pretty much any other distribution.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "Thus, "Humans are much safer than people on average" is nonsensical." Does it make more sense as "Humans, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot, are much safer than people on average"? "I've chosen to take them at face value with a grain of salt, and to believe that for the data they've collected from the hundreds of thousands of Tesla's with millions of hours of data using Autopilot, it's fair to say they have a large enough sample to draw conclusions about the safety of their cars vs. any incident rates from pretty much any other distribution" You seem to be saying that if you have a lot of data it doesn't matter what you compare it to. That seems wrong to me. Also, I don't have this data, and you are not bothering to help me find it.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - MauranKilom 7y ago
        > Humans, when driving in conditions suitable for Autopilot, are much safer than people on average The immaterial distinction between "humans" and "people" still makes that sentence confusing. I take it that you mean "driving a mile (either as human or autopilot) is safer in conditions that are good for autopilot than driving a mile in average conditions"? Or more directly, isn't your question really "are the conditions the same for the averaged human drivers and the averaged autopilots"?.