5 ms·

People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem. Are you OK with that or do you think we should attemp

People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem. Are you OK with that or do you think we should attempt to fix that with software? If you do think you should attempt to fix that, do you understand that software engineering is a iterative process? It gets safer overtime.

foepys 5y ago
> People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem. That's a straw man argument. Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start and yearly medical and psychological check-ups would solve a lot of these problems as well. > It gets safer overtime. There is no evidence of this happening yet. It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. Remember that you only need to drive into a pillar once to die. Passing it 10,000 times before doesn't help when an update suddenly decides that the pillar is now a lane. I'd be totally fine with Tesla testing this with trained drivers in suitable areas but giving this into the hands of amateurs is pure "move fast and break things", with "break" meaning ending lives. The worst thing is: all of these videos feature sunny weather. How bad would it be in the rain? Ever tried to take picture in the dark with even light rain? Cameras are very bad at this.
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  Local maximums exist. If ML models were guaranteed to improve over time we would have no more problems to solve.
- bob33212 5y ago
  What are you proposing? If someone is overweight with high blood pressure and a higher risk for a heart attack we should take away their license? These drivers are vetted and their usage is monitored, many are employees. In the long run automated driving will save many more lives than it takes. Just like automated elevators. https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism#:~:text=The%20automatic%20elevator%20was%20invented,and%20automatic%20elevators%20became%20ubiquitous https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dr....
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    > What are you proposing? If someone is overweight with high blood pressure and a higher risk for a heart attack we should take away their license? This does not seem like an important nit to pick, so I'm wondering why you're picking it. The number of people killed or injured because a driver had a heart attack at the wheel is vanishingly small compared to drunk or distracted driving. So let's reframe your question as you should have asked it: "If someone is driving drunk or distracted we should take away their license?" Yes. Absolutely.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Clearly it's not that simple, otherwise we'd have done it already.
      - Uehreka 5y ago
        We… already have? Drunk driving is grounds for license suspension, heavy fines and jail time in (I’m pretty sure) every US state. We may still have drunk drivers, but it seems odd to suggest that we aren’t doing anything about it. Cops, judges and juries take it super seriously. If you get caught drunk driving in America: Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.
- matz1 5y ago
  >Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start We don't do that today and we are still allowing people to drive on the road today.
  - foepys 5y ago
    Exactly. That's why Tesla's approach is bad. There is no rush to let this technology out on the streets before testing it rigorously for flaws. But Tesla promised FSD for all current models with FSD hardware, so they have to move or they will potentially be on the hook for fraud. I call this irresponsible and dangerous.
    - matz1 5y ago
      Disagree, Tesla approach is the right approach. You want to test the technology as early as possible in real situation as much as possible.
- the8472 5y ago
  > It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. That in itself doesn't constitute evidence that it isn't getting safer. After all humans occasionally drive into concrete pillars too. What matters is that the distance traveled without incident goes up in a super-linear fashion over time. It would be nice if someone had hard numbers on that.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    I’d say if we compare Tesla self driving numbers with human drivers driving similar cars, and count every disengagement as an accident, it would be a fair comparison. Tesla wouldn’t come out looking very good with those numbers though.
    - the8472 5y ago
      These rules seem quite stacked, we could also count every human crossing a red light or texting while driving as an accident. But that's besides the point. I was arguing about the trend line. It may seem silly now, but if the error rate is roughly a straight line on a logarithmic graph then we'll get there soon enough. If it isn't then tesla at very least would have to admit they have a problem and explain how they'll get out of it.
- MarkMc 5y ago
  >> It gets safer overtime. > There is no evidence of this happening yet. With aircraft any crash or near-crash is investigated and then the software and procedures for all similar aircraft are updated. Over the decades this has resulted in a huge reduction in the rate of accidents. Isn't it likely that the same thing will happen with self-driving cars?
camjohnson26 5y ago
Eliminating drinking would get rid of a huge number of automobile accidents. Sober humans are incredible drivers and we don’t have self driving cars that are better than even poor humans, as long as they aren’t impaired.

foepys 5y ago

> People will die today because a driver was drunk/distracted/suicidal/rode raged or had a medical problem. That's a straw man argument. Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start and yearly medical and psychological check-ups would solve a lot of these problems as well. > It gets safer overtime. There is no evidence of this happening yet. It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. Remember that you only need to drive into a pillar once to die. Passing it 10,000 times before doesn't help when an update suddenly decides that the pillar is now a lane. I'd be totally fine with Tesla testing this with trained drivers in suitable areas but giving this into the hands of amateurs is pure "move fast and break things", with "break" meaning ending lives. The worst thing is: all of these videos feature sunny weather. How bad would it be in the rain? Ever tried to take picture in the dark with even light rain? Cameras are very bad at this.

camjohnson26 5y ago
Local maximums exist. If ML models were guaranteed to improve over time we would have no more problems to solve.
bob33212 5y ago
What are you proposing? If someone is overweight with high blood pressure and a higher risk for a heart attack we should take away their license? These drivers are vetted and their usage is monitored, many are employees. In the long run automated driving will save many more lives than it takes. Just like automated elevators. https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism#:~:text=The%20automatic%20elevator%20was%20invented,and%20automatic%20elevators%20became%20ubiquitous https://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dr....
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  > What are you proposing? If someone is overweight with high blood pressure and a higher risk for a heart attack we should take away their license? This does not seem like an important nit to pick, so I'm wondering why you're picking it. The number of people killed or injured because a driver had a heart attack at the wheel is vanishingly small compared to drunk or distracted driving. So let's reframe your question as you should have asked it: "If someone is driving drunk or distracted we should take away their license?" Yes. Absolutely.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Clearly it's not that simple, otherwise we'd have done it already.
    - Uehreka 5y ago
      We… already have? Drunk driving is grounds for license suspension, heavy fines and jail time in (I’m pretty sure) every US state. We may still have drunk drivers, but it seems odd to suggest that we aren’t doing anything about it. Cops, judges and juries take it super seriously. If you get caught drunk driving in America: Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.
matz1 5y ago
>Mandatory breathalyzer tests before every engine start We don't do that today and we are still allowing people to drive on the road today.
- foepys 5y ago
  Exactly. That's why Tesla's approach is bad. There is no rush to let this technology out on the streets before testing it rigorously for flaws. But Tesla promised FSD for all current models with FSD hardware, so they have to move or they will potentially be on the hook for fraud. I call this irresponsible and dangerous.
  - matz1 5y ago
    Disagree, Tesla approach is the right approach. You want to test the technology as early as possible in real situation as much as possible.
the8472 5y ago
> It's still trying to drive people into concrete pillars. That in itself doesn't constitute evidence that it isn't getting safer. After all humans occasionally drive into concrete pillars too. What matters is that the distance traveled without incident goes up in a super-linear fashion over time. It would be nice if someone had hard numbers on that.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I’d say if we compare Tesla self driving numbers with human drivers driving similar cars, and count every disengagement as an accident, it would be a fair comparison. Tesla wouldn’t come out looking very good with those numbers though.
  - the8472 5y ago
    These rules seem quite stacked, we could also count every human crossing a red light or texting while driving as an accident. But that's besides the point. I was arguing about the trend line. It may seem silly now, but if the error rate is roughly a straight line on a logarithmic graph then we'll get there soon enough. If it isn't then tesla at very least would have to admit they have a problem and explain how they'll get out of it.
MarkMc 5y ago
>> It gets safer overtime. > There is no evidence of this happening yet. With aircraft any crash or near-crash is investigated and then the software and procedures for all similar aircraft are updated. Over the decades this has resulted in a huge reduction in the rate of accidents. Isn't it likely that the same thing will happen with self-driving cars?

camjohnson26 5y ago

Eliminating drinking would get rid of a huge number of automobile accidents. Sober humans are incredible drivers and we don’t have self driving cars that are better than even poor humans, as long as they aren’t impaired.