5 ms·

> ...doesn't matter how well it does in 90% of situations... Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% or even 99.99% for FSD 9.

• tartrate 5y ago
  Not sure if 99.99% refers to distance or time, but either way I'm not sure it's a good metric since it only takes a second or two to kill someone.
  • ricardobeat 5y ago
    The same applies to easily distracted human drivers. 1.3 million people die in car accidents every year.
    • studentrob 5y ago
      Apples to apples would be comparing miles driven on FSD autopilot to miles driven by human drivers in similar makes of vehicle on the same types of roads in the same weather conditions. Human drivers don't steer towards concrete pillars every time they drive down the street.
      • ricardobeat 5y ago
        Only when they’re drunk, or looking at a mobile phone, or having a heated argument! The new software seen here hasn’t been released so there’s no data yet. We cannot possibly make an assessment based on a few hand-picked videos - a quick YouTube search will give you thousands of human driver examples that are even more dumb.
• serverholic 5y ago
  That might be acceptable for minor failures but not for catastrophic failure.
• Veserv 5y ago
  The rate of driving fatalities is ~1 per 60 million miles driven. At an average speed of 60 mph that would be ~1 per million hours. Even if we were to assume there would be only one fatality-inducing error per hour, 99.99% success rate would make FSD 9 100x more dangerous than the average driver. I do not remember the exact numbers, but that would make FSD something like 1000x more dangerous than the classic example of a deathtrap, the Ford Pinto.
  • xeromal 5y ago
    That's your estimation but we'd need to wait with actual statistics
    • kadoban 5y ago
      Why is Tesla going live with this (sure, call it private beta, but on public roads that makes no sense) without already disclosing all of those numbers to the public? If they're being this careless, bad estimates are all we have.
  • zaroth 5y ago
    We have actual statistics on how well humans do with Tesla ADAS and it’s remarkably well. The accident rate numbers are hard to compare apples-to-apples since miles driven with all ADAS features active are different from miles driven without the full ADAS active, but the numbers show that the software is absolutely not “1000x more dangerous”. > In the 1st quarter [2021], we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport
    • Invictus0 5y ago
      > one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven Not really a great metric. We should be looking at disengagements per MM.
• woeirua 5y ago
  No, it's not. In the full length video, there were 3 manual interventions in less than 30 minutes of drive time. If you're counting interventions per second, then sure that's 99.9%, but if you're counting safety critical interventions that would have led to an accident per mile then that rate is abysmal.
• nuker 5y ago
  > Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% You assumed numbers are time. Now assume numbers are manoeuvres.