3 ms·
I'm going to posit that none of those novel skill requirements are actually requirements. You don't need to interpret a UI, or recognize intent to know that the
by mbreese 5y ago
I'm going to posit that none of those novel skill requirements are actually requirements. You don't need to interpret a UI, or recognize intent to know that the car shouldn't turn the wrong way on a one-way street or hit a planter.
Anticipating common errors and remaining vigilant while driving is a requirement for all driving, not when dealing with FSD.
If you are capable of driving a car safely to begin with, then you're capable of recognizing then the car is going to do something wrong and turning the wheel and/or hitting the brakes.
I wouldn't personally trust a FSD beta, but only if it is properly supervised, I think it could be tested safely. But, there's the problem -- how can you really properly supervise this? How many drivers are going to try this and just let the car drive w/o paying attention? Or, using it under controlled conditions, but then giving it too much trust in more adverse conditions?
- ethbr0 5y agoWhat makes them required is the speed that a reaction is expected. In both the quick and velocity senses of the word. Unless the user is able to understand and anticipate common reactions, the entire system is unsafe at >25 mph or so. Or, to put it another way, I'd love to see the statistics on how many drivers can react quickly enough to avert an unexpected turn into an exit divider at 60 mph, after a number of days of interruption free FSD.
- mbreese 5y agoWe’re largely talking about an update where the primary benefit is low-speed automation — driving in areas where the speed limits are low because the obstacles are many.