4 ms·

"Full self driving cars" that require a seperate set of infrastructure to operate are not "Full self driving cars" This is a fundamental thing. Robot cars that

"Full self driving cars" that require a seperate set of infrastructure to operate are not "Full self driving cars" This is a fundamental thing. Robot cars that can't interact with humans without killing them at a greater rate than humans do are not self driving.

grey-area 6y ago
Tesla cars (for example) already interact with humans without killing them at a greater rate than human drivers. That is not the bar to pass here, as robot drivers have already surpassed it. L5 is way beyond that.
- thebruce87m 6y ago
  Is there any independent data to support the claim in your first paragraph?
  - grey-area 6y ago
    I don’t think so, and it would be hard to collect truly independent data on miles driven for example, though the data from Tesla is pretty convincing and no public data I can find contradicts it. They’re not safe in all conditions and I wouldn’t personally pay for their ‘FSD’ product but they’re safer than the average human in average conditions (a very low bar).
    - rcxdude 6y ago
      The data says Tesla's autopilot is in the safest conditions better than the average human in average conditions. It does not say that it is safer than the average human in the safest conditions, nor that it is safer when in average conditions.
- Marazan 6y ago
  Not in "full self driving" mode. Because they don't have a full self driving mode.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  So many things to unpack here. Please keep in mind that Tesla and Musk are masters of misrepresenting statistics out of context. So, when you said that "Tesla cars" kill humans at a lower rate than "human drivers", could you provide a source for that? Or did you mean the regular claim by Musk about teslas being safer by 100% than an average driver, which means that an average tesla car while running autopilot in almost always highway conditions in almost always sunny conditions has lower fatalities than the average human driver, who will skew older and more accident prone, driving on average roads, in average conditions, with the average 10 year old car with less safety features. Never in any of these statements have i seen any discussion of pedestrians deaths, but it makes sense right? How many pedestrians are on highways where autopilot is mostly used.
gota 6y ago
Wait, why not? The definiton of separate infrastructure seems arbitrary. GPS relies on satellites. Is that separate infrastructure? Humans use road signs and lights and... We created separate, additional infrastructure for ourselves as drivers. Why wouldn't we add infra to "help" autonomous cars? Can't a car that senses RFIDs at every corner be considered autonomous, full self-driving? How is that different from sensing road markings via camera? If the issue is just a terminology one, to distinguish "full self driving" versus "full self driving with fully self-contained reasoning" or whatever I must object - that's not how these terms get defined. Tesla is arguably misusing the term "full" because it doesn't operate to the level we'd expect; not because of whatever resources it uses to function If this is too long - tl;dr: I think the absolute majority of people won't mind calling a car that requires _any_ additional infrastructure (including communication with other cars) a "full self-driving" car. As long as it drives itself 100% of the time without a human driver, it's full self driving.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  "Separate infrastructure" means it's separate. GPS is not separate, you can use it no matter which road you are on. Streets and rails are (usually) separate, a vehicle for one can't use the other. That's what may be necessary for fully autonomous vehicles.
  - Marazan 6y ago
    Exactly, the original comment I was replying to was suggesting we'd have "full self driving" where the autonomous vehicles were on completely seperate roads that humans didn't use. If a robot can't deal with a human cyclist or someone crossing the street the that is not remotely self driving.
- orthoxerox 6y ago
  That's the difference between L4 and L5 automated driving. L4 works in specific locations that have special infrastructure, L5 is supposed to work everywhere, even on a dirt road up a nameless hill in the country.

grey-area 6y ago

Tesla cars (for example) already interact with humans without killing them at a greater rate than human drivers. That is not the bar to pass here, as robot drivers have already surpassed it. L5 is way beyond that.

thebruce87m 6y ago
Is there any independent data to support the claim in your first paragraph?
- grey-area 6y ago
  I don’t think so, and it would be hard to collect truly independent data on miles driven for example, though the data from Tesla is pretty convincing and no public data I can find contradicts it. They’re not safe in all conditions and I wouldn’t personally pay for their ‘FSD’ product but they’re safer than the average human in average conditions (a very low bar).
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    The data says Tesla's autopilot is in the safest conditions better than the average human in average conditions. It does not say that it is safer than the average human in the safest conditions, nor that it is safer when in average conditions.
Marazan 6y ago
Not in "full self driving" mode. Because they don't have a full self driving mode.
legolas2412 6y ago
So many things to unpack here. Please keep in mind that Tesla and Musk are masters of misrepresenting statistics out of context. So, when you said that "Tesla cars" kill humans at a lower rate than "human drivers", could you provide a source for that? Or did you mean the regular claim by Musk about teslas being safer by 100% than an average driver, which means that an average tesla car while running autopilot in almost always highway conditions in almost always sunny conditions has lower fatalities than the average human driver, who will skew older and more accident prone, driving on average roads, in average conditions, with the average 10 year old car with less safety features. Never in any of these statements have i seen any discussion of pedestrians deaths, but it makes sense right? How many pedestrians are on highways where autopilot is mostly used.

gota 6y ago

Wait, why not? The definiton of separate infrastructure seems arbitrary. GPS relies on satellites. Is that separate infrastructure? Humans use road signs and lights and... We created separate, additional infrastructure for ourselves as drivers. Why wouldn't we add infra to "help" autonomous cars? Can't a car that senses RFIDs at every corner be considered autonomous, full self-driving? How is that different from sensing road markings via camera? If the issue is just a terminology one, to distinguish "full self driving" versus "full self driving with fully self-contained reasoning" or whatever I must object - that's not how these terms get defined. Tesla is arguably misusing the term "full" because it doesn't operate to the level we'd expect; not because of whatever resources it uses to function If this is too long - tl;dr: I think the absolute majority of people won't mind calling a car that requires _any_ additional infrastructure (including communication with other cars) a "full self-driving" car. As long as it drives itself 100% of the time without a human driver, it's full self driving.

ganafagol 6y ago
"Separate infrastructure" means it's separate. GPS is not separate, you can use it no matter which road you are on. Streets and rails are (usually) separate, a vehicle for one can't use the other. That's what may be necessary for fully autonomous vehicles.
- Marazan 6y ago
  Exactly, the original comment I was replying to was suggesting we'd have "full self driving" where the autonomous vehicles were on completely seperate roads that humans didn't use. If a robot can't deal with a human cyclist or someone crossing the street the that is not remotely self driving.
orthoxerox 6y ago
That's the difference between L4 and L5 automated driving. L4 works in specific locations that have special infrastructure, L5 is supposed to work everywhere, even on a dirt road up a nameless hill in the country.